More handpicked essays just for you.
Factors influencing obedience and conformity
A social influence on individual behavior
Factors influencing obedience and conformity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Groups influence our everyday lives in ways that we don’t even realize. Most of what is learned from groups are societal norms that are being reinforced on a micro level in everyday life. Group influence on individuals is a clear tangible proof of societal norms by institutions. The groups we become a part of therefore can have a greater influence on our individual actions then we are aware of. As an individual we like to believe we have agency over our actions and what we decide but a lot of our own actions is more a part of a group mentality. Also, individual’s go along with a group’s influence so they feel better about themselves because then they won’t be ostracized. This paper will analyze different aspects of individual behavior and …show more content…
The group wants the individual to conform to their ideals and normative values and actions (Smelser, 1963). The group influence stresses conformity, or the adhering to the standards of the group, as a way to create a structural level of dominance and submission in a way. The group wants cohesiveness so that everyone in the group is following the same set of standards and will all act the same way (Smelser, 1963). Group influence can at times be beneficial, there are times when the individual should participate in actions that have been influenced by the group. These actions could include such things as: being polite, having table manners, using a proper greeting, doing homework, not being disrespectful in places of worship, and so forth. Group influence can …show more content…
This not only relates to the overall idea of the individual’s actions based on group influence but also alludes to the sub idea of the group of the classroom and how the individual does not want to be seen as lesser by giving a wrong answer. In doing this the group influences the individual to go along with the main idea of the group. In this experiment when given three lines to decide which one is more closely related to the original line it was found that the individual, that was part of the experimental group, would often pick the wrong answer to go along with the group (Baron, 2012). The influence stems from the group all choosing the wrong answer then the individual begins to believe that there is something wrong with the answer they had originally chosen due to the fact that the group overall has made a majority answer. The group itself can present tangible influence when they look to the individual to answer. That moment when the group looks toward the individual is where the influence becomes more concrete and the individual’s own beliefs begin to waiver because they believe that perhaps they are wrong and the group is correct
Ira Sher is able to capture the true philosophy and psychology of group thinking and conformism in the short story “The Man in the Well” by vividly reminiscing a specific encounter he had during his childhood. The short story depicts the savage and immoral actions of unsupervised children proving that as a collective unit individuals will tend to act in a wilder and uncivilized manner. The notion of group mentality as opposed to personal thought is saturated throughout the story and one of the main themes Sher is striving to express to the reader. Irvin Janis, the author of the book Victims of Groupthink, developed the word groupthink and defined it as a group making faulty decisions due to group pressures that lead to deterioration of their
... Involvement, the more we involve ourselves with the people in that group the more we’ll seek their approval of them causing us to conform. Beliefs, when people share the same norms and values they are less likely to argue and resist conformity. If social bonds are weak then the chances of becoming deviant is increased. Those that lack these four basic elements of social bonding will have little respect for society and do whatever they want.
This chapter examines the socialization process that occurs to members of different groups of society which leads to social control or manipulation of members for the good or bad of society. Eitzen, Zinny & Smith discuss the major themes of social control and how they shape and enforce the conformity of others. The authors discuss how the pressures of social control either by law or society norms can cause great influence on members of society. However, the authors advise the reader that although people tend to conform to society influences, they do so not out of fright, but rather, because it is a choice they are willing to make. In other words members of society seem to prefer to go along with the majority because they prefer the predictability
Our behavior is an obvious effect of how groups affect us. Social facilitation for example occurs when an indivisual changes their performance because others are around (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2014). When Dap and Half-Pint where in the library, Half- Pint acted in a calm relatable matter, yet around the Gamma recruits he conformed to the dumb things they did. Social loafing also affects people within a group. Social loafing is the reduced motivation and effort shown by individuals working in a group as opposed to working alone (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2014). An example of social loafing would be when Dap’s group decided to march in the parade, the people supporting him wouldn’t need to apply as much effort to protest together than they would alone. School Daze also conveys the message of being lost in the crowd, which is Deindividuation. Deindividuation is the lost of personal identity within the crowd (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2014). Sororities and fraternities have the idea that all members are one. Last, but not least a group can affect one’s attitude, or the way you feel about something. The common attitudes of the sororities and fraternities lead to prejudice. Prejudice is a prejudgment, usually negative, of another person on the basis of his or her membership in a group. In School Daze, Rachael and Jane had a rivalry because they had two different points of view on hair, causing the entire group to dislike each other because they were apart of a separate group. As the saying goes, you are the company you
In-group relationships were built through activities that will promote group identification. Stereotypes were assumed, such as believing that in-group members are brave and friendly (described in favourable terms) and members of the other group – sneaky (unfavourable terms). Hostility developed rapidly, followed by bitter conflict. The experiment focused heavily on the concept of a 'group ' and what a perception of belonging to a group can actually do to the relationships of members within it and their relationships with people outside their group. Sherif remarked that anyone who came in at this point would have concluded that these youngsters were wicked and vicious. However, it was group processes rather than the personality that had produced the conflict. However, in one of Sherif’s studies, which, unfortunately, was never published, they refused to be divided and, together, they resisted attempts by the experimenters to set them against each other.
Other influential experiments in social influence include majority and minority influence. In majority influence, individuals compare personal responses with the sources, without considering their own judgement; this then leads them to comply with the viewpoint of the majority of those around them. This can also be known as group pressure and is similar to Herd behaviour (Doms and Avermaet, 1979; Latané & Wolf, 1981). However, in minority influence the individual attempts to validify an opposing response, meaning that as they do so, they consider their judgement and unlike in majority influence they instinctively convert to the viewpoint of the minority (Doms and Avermaet, 1979; Moscovici, 1980). Martin et al. (2006) later examined the effects of majority and minority influence and concluded that, when attitudes are changed by minority influences they are more likely to have a consistent behavioural intention, compared to if the attitudes were changed by majority influence. Suggesting minority influence produces behaviour that is easier to predict than majority influence.
The author states that the reason we do this is because we want our behavior to be like the group wants us to be, and if anybody disagrees we stay away from them. The final group is we like to do it in groups. The first point is Phenomenon Deindividuation. Phenomenon Deindividuation is where an individual identities becomes lost with in a group. The second point is Group shopping. Group shopping and behavior and home shopping parties: People more likely to buy more when shopping in a group, where pressure to conform may be intense (bandwagon effect). The reason we do this is because if we don’t buy what everyone else is buying then we can become an outcast. The last part of the story is Conformity. Conformity is a change in beliefs or actions as a reaction to real or imagined group. The norms of conformity are unspoken rules that govern many aspects of consumption. There are five factors that influence of conformity. They are: Cultural Pressures, Fear of Deviance, Commitment, Group Unanimity, Size, and Expertise and finally Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence. Cultural Pressures is when different cultures to the greater good or lesser degree encourage
Feedback influences the amount of time the group members spend discussing the topic and could be used to dispute flows. The experiment was conducted and presented to a dozens of individuals in large electronic rooms with the "Lost in the Desert" survival scenario. Participant were given a list of fifteen objects where they must select five that would help them survive. After the picked their items were instructed to enter an assigned chat room and discus the possible choices, they had no obligation choose the same item as other groups. The discussing ensued with no one knowing whose group they are in. This created disconnect to all for a more analytical process. The results indicated that positive feedback results more in the production blocking and less effective decision-making. Negative feedback increases the amount of time spent on group discussion. Evidence suggests that groups whom receive negative feedback during decision-making process engage in more argumentation, likely an effort to support their own argument in the face of criticism. The use of devil 's advocacy by a group requires more discussion to reach agreement than is normally needed. In comparison, groups who receive positive feedback will likely require less time to reach consensus by virtue of not requiring the same amount of argumentation. (Marler & Marett, 2013).
There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ...
In her essay “Group Minds,” Doris Lessing discusses our paradoxical ability to call ourselves individuals and our inability to realize that groups define and influence us. We, as humans, hold individualism in the highest regard yet fail to realize that groups diminish our individuality. Lessing writes, “when we’re in a group, we tend to think as that group does... but we also find our thinking changing because we belong to a group” (p. 334). Groups have the tendency to generate norms, or standards for behavior in certain situations. Not following these norms can make you stand out and, therefore, groups have the ability to influence our thoughts and actions in ways that are consistent with the groups’. Lessing’s essay helps set the context to understand the experiments that social psychologists Solomon Asch, Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo conducted to explain conformity and obedience.
Participants were not under any explicit demand to conform, as they received no physical or verbal coercion to do so. The specific hypothesis centered on the idea, “if group pressure can play influence and effect individuals perception, decision and attitudes”. The independent variable will be “Procedure”, and the dependent variable is the “level of conformity did change”.
I chose to do my Social Group Analysis Paper on the McDonald’s where I have been working the past few months. The crew is a hodgepodge on Spanish-speaking peoples, Blacks, and Whites, and of all different ages and backgrounds. I was needing a job after my last one laid me off and I got an interview and a job offer the day within two days of when I applied. I’ve had my share of ups and downs there but all in all, it’s been fun. Fast food is no picnic and I have observed a lot of people who have varying degrees of psychological problems. Come for the psychological disorders, stay for the Prozac!
One psychological process underlying majority influence is through direct public compliance. The dual-process dependency model which was postulated by Deutsch and Gerard, (1955 in Hogg and Vaughan 2007) proposes two important motives for conformity: normative social influence and informational social influence. Normative social influence refers to the need to be accepted and approved by society. This involves individuals to modify their behaviours and to adopt new/current ones that are associated with the particular social group so that they are not rejected (in Hogg & Vaughan 2007). An example of this situation can be reflected in Asch’s (1956 in Baron et al. 2008) study of conformity in which participants conformed to the majority group but at the same time maintained their own private opinions and disagreed. This process is known as compliance (in Bailey, J.et al. 2008).
Some cultures encourage individualism while other cultures encourage collectivism. In most collectivist cultures, people are interdependent within their group, whether it involves family, tribe, or nation (Suh ...
On a daily basis, people are being influenced by the people around them, whether it is directly or indirectly. A person’s thoughts, feelings and actions can influence and be influenced by society. These social interactions provide enough opportunity for the presence of people to influence and change behavior, views, and attitudes of an individual. There are several forms of social influences, such as conformity, which I will be discussing. Why we conform has been a topic of considerable interest to social psychologists in particular such as he classic and well-known studies of Muzafer Sherif and Solomon Asch. In addition to researching why we conform, there’s also the question of whether conformity is good or bad.