Conformity Research

Conformity Research

Introduction

The ability of individuals to match attitudes, behaviors, responses, and beliefs to those of others depends on the influence the society has on them. People often tend to conform to societal or group norms rather than pursuing their desires. The urge of security elicits such a tactic felt around the group or adverse effects of peer pressure.

Asch and Milgram’s Conformity Studies

According to Asch’s experiment, the conditions that influence a person’s conformity to a group’s pressure are the size of the majority, presence of an alternative dissenter, and public or private nature of the responses. To begin with, the higher the numbers of individuals in a group in support of an idea, the more an individual’s answer is likely to be affected (Jetten & Hornsey, 2012). Likewise, conformity is more likely to occur when responses are public rather than private. The social influences behind this behavior, as evaluated by Asch, are the normative and informational social influences. In the case of normative factors, people tend to conform to acquire acceptance, fit in the group, and feel good (Jetten & Hornsey, 2012).

Consequently, with informational influences, individuals conform since they perceive that the group is competent; therefore, the information is correct. For instance, in his experiment, Asch enquires from one of the participants the reason for his answer (Jetten & Hornsey, 2012). The participant argues that he thought the group was correct; hence he took his chance.

On the other hand, Milgram, in his study, establishes that conformity may result in the effect of obedience to authority. People tend to comply with requests or orders from an authoritative point with the fear of the consequences that may follow in case the reverse is done (Gibson, 2019). The social influence exhibited here is the art of obedience to authority and the ability of the person giving orders to take responsibility for the actions at hand. For instance, when the participants inflicted shock on the experimenter, they first affirmed the responsibility of the activities would be entirely born by their subjects.

The Social Impact Theory

The theory states that the extent of influence on a person depends on the power, strength, and social status of the group. For instance, groups with high potential are more influential compared to those with low status (Pratkanis, 2011). Likewise, the physical distance and number of majority of people in a group determine the level of influence caused. Proximity exerts more impact on an individual than a distant physical range. Pratkanis (2011) argues that the higher the number of majority in a group, the higher the influence; however if targets increase more than specific levels, conformity decreases as well.

Tactics to Increase or Decrease Conformity

According to Asch, an increase in the majority of people results in high conformity levels up to a specific limit. In his experiment, the maximum increase number was seven after which the level of influence reduced (Jetten & Hornsey, 2012). He also argued that the more public the responses were, the more conformity will occur. Private responses exert no influence. In Milgram’s study, when the authority of the person in charge decreases, obedience declines (Gibson, 2019). Milgram proved this after subjecting his experiment to various variations of power. For instance, when the learner was in the same room as the teacher, the percentage of shock declined.

Norms Influence on Conformity

Tayler & Bloomfield (2011) explain that social norms signify the accepted standards of behavior of certain groups, whether positive or negative. They define how people act and vary depending on different social groups (Bicchieri & Muldoon, 2011). They assist individuals in conforming according to the group’s expectations. Individuals prefer to conform to societal norms rather than pursuing their desires since it may result in rejection, isolation, and to some extent, banishment.

Ethical Dilemmas Raised by Asch and Milgram’s Studies

According to Jetten & Hornsey (2012), Asch’s research portrays unethical practices of deception and lack of prevention from harm. The latter implies that the participants were subjected to psychological damage, especially where they disagreed with the majority. Asch deliberately lied to his participants that they were taking part in a vision test rather than an experiment on conformity (Jetten & Hornsey, 2012). According to the current ethical guidelines on research, the above situations are regarded as obscene and unacceptable. Likewise, Milgram uses deception as well and tricks his participants into experimenting (Gibson, 2019). Secondly, his participants were not informed of any psychological risks. Therefore, some suffered seizures and tension. Additionally, the partakers were not granted withdrawal consent and had to proceed with the experiment to the end (Gibson, 2019). Also, there was a lack of debriefing where Milgram claims to have de-hoaxed his participants.

Comparison of Methodology in Asch and Milgram’s Studies

Both experiments used deception as a method to elicit participation. They deceived their participants on the research they were involved in and the corrective risks involved. Similarly, they used the male population as the target group (Gibson, 2019). However, a disparity in the two studies exists where subjects attributed themselves and their poor eyesight on their judgments, while Milgram’s participants blamed the experimenter for their behavior.

Conclusion

From the two pieces of research, conformity varies depending on factors such as group norms, obedience to authority, the majority of people in a group, and distance of influence. Peoples’ behaviors often are determined by the society they belong to; therefore, the community is a significant determinant of conformity. To some extent, compliance may result in discomfort and embarrassment; thus, it is necessary to watch out the level to which such factors determine our behavior. Social groups also learn our habits; therefore, a need to evaluate the right group prevails.

References

Bicchieri, C., & Muldoon, R. (2011). Social norms.

Gibson, S. (2019). Arguing, obeying, and defying: a rhetorical perspective on Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments. Cambridge University Press.

Jetten, J., & Hornsey, M. J. (2012). Revisiting Asch’s line-judgment studies. Social Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies, 76.

Pratkanis, A. R. (Ed.). (2011). The science of social influence: Advances and future progress. Psychology Press.

Tayler, W. B., & Bloomfield, R. J. (2011). Norms, conformity, and controls. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(3), 753-790.