Conformity

Conformity is behavior that complies with socially accepted standards, conventions, rules, or laws among groups, which occurs when members of a group give in to perceived pressures from the other group members. This article will focus on the concept of conformity. There will be an introduction to the four types of conformity as well as research conducted on the topic by scholars such as Asch and Sherif. Finally, the article will explore why groups behave the way they do and how groups can influence individual behavior.

Social Interaction in Groups & Organizations > Conformity

Overview

Group Socialization Theory

Theorists like Turner, Tesser, and Brewer have all shown how social-cognitive approaches can illuminate otherwise inexplicable aspects of human group behavior. One of these aspects is how people can "belong simultaneously to many groups and can shift their allegiance from one to the other, without moving an inch, in response to changes in relative salience" (Harris, 1995, p. 465). Because of this ability, a person can identify with a group even if the group is never all present in one location or the person never meets all or even any of the group members.

Judith Harris' group socialization theory, which is based on the four fundamental predispositions which humans and primates hold in common, is used to explain these unique human behaviors. The four predispositions, which can be correlated with the basic types of behavior, are:

• Group Affiliation: By identifying themselves as part of a group, group members tend to favor each other above non-group and out-group members.
• Fear: Group members exhibit apprehension about or aggression toward strangers. If group members demonstrate strong in-group favoritism, this predisposition may manifest itself as out-group hostility.
• Within-group Jockeying for Status: Group members attempt to raise their prestige within the group in order to gain greater power over group resources.
• Seeking Close Dyadic Relationships: Group members attempt to develop loving relationships with other group members.

Social psychologists have defined groups as entities with two or more individuals who have some type of relationship and interact with one another (i.e., a class, a team, and coworkers). As a result of the relationship, most groups tend to establish

• Norms to govern behavior
• Roles to define responsibilities and position
• A communication system that provides guidelines for how the group will communicate with one another, and
• A hierarchy that determines who has power and influence within the group.

What is Conformity?

Conformity occurs when members of a group give in to perceived pressures from the other group members.

Why do People Conform?

There are several reasons why people may feel the need to conform to the standards of a group. Some of the reasons include:

• Need to feel liked and accepted by the group.
• Desire to be a part of the "in" group.
• Fear of rejection by the group.
• Desire to have access to information.
• Desire to obtain a reward from the group.

Further Insights

Two important scholars in the field of conformity are Muzafer Sherif and Solomon Asch.

Muzafer Sherif

Sherif's most famous research is his autokinetic effect experiment, which was conducted in 1935. An autokinetic effect occurs when one, seeing a small, stationary spot of light projected on a screen in a darkened room, believes the spot is moving. When Sherif asked his participants how far the light moved, how they responded varied depending on whether they were tested and asked individually or in groups. When tested and questioned individually, participants' responses tended to vary across a wide range. However, when participants were tested and questioned in groups of two or three, their responses varied less.

Sherif's findings demonstrate how people conform to group norms when they are in highly ambiguous situations. For the participants whose initial estimates of the spot's movement were at variance the other participants' estimates tended to eventually conform to the others' estimates. The results of the experiment suggest that people tend to prefer group consensus rather than individual decision-making, especially when placed in a situation in which information is ambiguous or vague. This experiment can be described as an example of informational conformity.

Solomon Asch

Asch's most famous experiment was conducted in 1955 and sought to determine the effect of group pressure in an unambiguous situation. Asch showed his participants a single, standard line and three comparison lines and asked them to determine which comparison line was of the same length as the standard line. When the participants in the control group were tested individually, very few incorrect responses were given. However, when the experimental group participants were tested within a group of confederates who gave the wrong answers on purpose, the participants tended to answer incorrectly, too. Asch's findings demonstrated that a majority response, even when it is incorrect, can have a profound influence on how an individual responds. The results of the study also revealed that:

• As a group gets larger, more people tend to conform. However, there is a limit: once the group reaches a certain size, the members' need to conform will plateau.
• People tend to conform if the group agrees unanimously. Conformity is easy to achieve when there are no dissenters in the group.

Asch took his study a step further by interviewing the participants after the experiment to determine what types of factors can affect an individual's desire to conform to the group norm. He found that:

• All the participants indicated that they had been influenced by the pressure from the group. Many did not want to appear stupid and had a need for social respect from the group.
• As with Sherif's study, some participants elected to use other members' responses as a guideline for their individual estimates.
• Some of the participants expressed a need to identify with members of their reference group.

Viewpoint

Behaviors of Groups

The level of conformity can be tied to the behaviors and patterns exhibited by groups. Over the years, scholars have conducted research on how groups influence the behavior of their members and how groups make decisions. It has been found that groups influence their members through a variety of techniques. Some of these techniques can be direct (i.e., ordering members to do something) or indirect (i.e., manipulating members into conforming behavior). In addition, some research suggests that group members feel less responsible for group decisions than their own individual decisions.

Group Decision-Making

Due to the bond that is formed among group members, it should be expected that the members will seek consensus among themselves when making a decision. The first two questions that the group must agree on are the type of decision that needs to be made and how the decision will be made. In order for a group to agree on a decision, there must be a group decision rule in place to determine what constitutes the position of the group. Three types of group decision rule are unanimity rule, majority-wins rule, and plurality-plus wins rule.

When the group is attempting to make the decision, three major concepts that may factor into the equation evolve:

• Minority Influence — Under certain circumstances, a group member who does not agree with the opinion held by the majority of the group will be able to win the majority over to their own opinion. This is most likely to happen if the minority stands firm in their opinion and is consistent.
• Groupthink — In certain circumstances, the group becomes uniform and the differences between the members fade. As a result, the group will tend to think and speak as one voice. Unfortunately, under groupthink circumstances, group decision-making processes often do not evaluate the "big picture" and consequences of particular decisions. Most groupthink scenarios feature a strong leader who has the ability to direct the group's focus to information that supports a particular position, eliminate dissent, pressure members to conform, and ignore external influences and information.
• Group Polarization — Studies have shown that group polarization can occur as a group makes a decision. It has been found that people who make decisions in groups will lean toward more extreme positions and request riskier actions than people who do not make decisions alone.

Group Influence on Individual Behavior

Research has found that social facilitation, social loafing, and deindividuation can all result from group interactions. Social loafing and social facilitation are seen as examples of productive output, while deindividuation is viewed as antinormative behavior.

• Social Facilitation — When people perform simple tasks in the presence of others, their performances tend to be better. This phenomenon is called social facilitation, and researchers have offered three different explanations for it. First, the presence of others may increase arousal and thereby, the subject's ability to perform rote tasks. Second, the presence of others may serve as a distraction which, because of the cognitive overload it creates, increases the subject's ability to narrow their attention to the task at hand. Third, the subject's concern about how they appear to others may motivate them to give a better performance than they would have if unobserved. However, research suggests that when a subject is given a difficult, new, or complex task, their performance may be worsened by the presence of others.
• Social Loafing — When people perform tasks in groups, some individuals in the group may exert less effort than they would if performing the task alone. This phenomenon is called social loafing, and it can occur when the group is large, it is difficult to identify individual contributions to a project, and the individual group members assume that other group members will pick up the slack. On occasion, a person may feel as though their contributions are not important because so many people are involved in the process. As a result, the individual may slack off and become less productive. Research has shown that individuals may engage in social loafing when they believe that their contributions are irrelevant or unnecessary. One way of preventing social loafing is to create a system wherein individual efforts are always identified, evaluated, and acknowledged.
• Deindividuation — When in large, anonymous groups, an individual may lose their sense of individual identity. This phenomenon is called deindividuation, and social psychologists have used it to explain mob behavior. As the individual becomes submerged in the group, their sense of personal identity weakens, and they adopt the group's norms, which can cause the individual to lower their inhibitions and decrease their sense of personal responsibility.

Applications of Conformity in the Twenty-first Century

The rise of the Internet and social media provided a new perspective on and applications of conformity in the twenty-first century. With the use of the Internet, individuals gained instant access to large groups and myriad opinions. People often looked to the Internet for guidance, to avoid social isolation, and to affirm opinions and self-esteem. Social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok have also been tied to an increase in conformity. The process of sharing personal information about oneself on a social media site can to both positive and negative feedback that can greatly influence an individual. Further, people have instant access to others' likes and dislikes, who they follow and are influenced by, and a spectrum of opinions on myriad topics. Conformity and social media were intrinsically linked in the 2020s as the dissemination of political ideas became widespread and led to the creation of radical outlying groups that used social media platforms to organize. The Internet and social media will continue to affect conformity as the twenty-first century progresses.

Terms & Concepts

Conformity: Behavior that complies with socially accepted standards, conventions, rules, or laws.

Deindividuation: A psychological state in which one loses one's sense of individuality and personal responsibility as one is submerged within a group.

Group Polarization: The tendency of people to make decisions that are more extreme when they are in a group than when they are alone.

Group Socialization Theory: A theory developed by Judith Harris which holds that, although parents' influence on their children is great, children's peers actually have a greater impact on children's development.

Groupthink: A type of group decision-making process in which group members make decisions without critically analyzing and evaluating all of their options.

Minority Influence: A phenomenon through which a minority opinion in a group is able to win over those holding a majority opinion in a group.

Social Facilitation: The tendency of people to perform simple, rote tasks better when observed by others than when they are alone.

Social Loafing: The tendency of people to exert less effort to achieve a goal when they work in a group than when they work alone.

Bibliography

Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.

Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.

Cherry, K. (2024, June 22). What is conformity? Verywell Mind. www.verywellmind.com/what-is-conformity-2795889

Guandong, S., Qinhai, M., Fangfei, W., & Lin, L. (2012). The psychological explanation of conformity. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 40, 1365–1372. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete

Guerin, B. (1999). Social behaviors as determined by different arrangements of social consequences: Social loafing, social facilitation, deindividuation, and a modified social loafing. The Psychological Record, 49, 565–578. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete

Harris, J. (1995). Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458–489.

Kundu, P., & Cummins, D. (2013). Morality and conformity: The Asch paradigm applied to moral decisions. Social Influence, 8, 268–279. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete

Mann, L. (1969). Social psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. © 2001 Tom Postmes All rights reserved.

Rosander, M., & Eriksson, O. (2012, Sept.). Conformity on the Internet – The role of task difficulty and gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1587-1595. ScienceDirect. Retrieved May 28, 2023, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563212000891?via%3Dihub

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27.

Täuber, S., & Sassenberg, K. (2012). Newcomer conformity. Social Psychology, 43, 138–147. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 21 (pp. 81–227). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Turner, J. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell

Velez, V. (2020, Mar. 13). Social media affects go beyond what we see; conformity. Medium. Retrieved May 28, 2023, from https://medium.com/@vidalvelez93/social-media-affects-go-beyond-what-we-see-conformity-211cb259368a

Suggested Reading

Haun, D. M., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Conformity to peer pressure in preschool children. Child Development, 82, 1759–1767. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete

Mori, K., & Mori, H. (2008). Conformity among cowitnesses sharing same or different information about an event in experimental collaborative eyewitness testimony. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 106, 275–290. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete

Welch, M., Tittle, C., Yonkoski, J., Meidinger, N., & Grasmick, H. (2008). Social integration, self-control, and conformity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24, 73–92. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete

Yair, G. (2008). Insecurity, conformity and community: James Coleman's latent theoretical model of action. European Journal of Social Theory, 11, 51–70. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.