Social Influence on the Conformity of People

Social Influence is the change in behaviour that occurs in an individual through another individual or a group of individuals, either deliberately or involuntarily. This change usually occurs through; conformity or obedience. (Kelly & Barker, 2016) This essay will firstly introduce the topic of conformity followed by; a thorough outline of the study used to elaborate conformity and an evaluation of the study. Secondly the topic of obedience will be introduced, followed by; a thorough outline of a study to explain obedience and an evaluation of the study. Which will then be followed by; evaluation of the methodologies used and concerned ethical issues in both studies. The ending will be based upon a summary of the essay and a deciding factor to whether people like to conform or obey more.

Conformity is the tendency to replicate our actions or cognitive thinking in response to the influence of individuals or due to pressure from society. There are three different types of conformity, according to Kelman (1958); Identification, Internalisation & Compliance. Psychologists have suggested that there are two main reasons for conformity; Normative social influence (NSI) & Informational social influence (ISI). Other reasons for conformity are; “Power of social roles" & “Social impact theory".

Solomon Asch was a Polish-American psychologist best known for his experiments in social conformity, called the Asch Paradigm or Asch Conformity Experiments. The series of experiments he conducted was to deduce the impact of social conformity due to social pressure. He also believed that the main problem with Sherif’s (1935) conformity experiment was that there is no conscience to the ambiguous autokinetic experiment. He then devised which is now known to be a classic experiment in the field of social psychology, stating that there is always an answer to the “line judgement task".

During the series of trials he conducted, he placed naïve individuals within a group of “stooges" having not known whether or not they were real participants. This led the course of the impact of social pressure when the naïve participant would always answer last, given that the theory of social pressure and conformity would impact the naïve participants judgement.

Asch then analysed the results of each time an individual would conform to the majorities view, and concluded that 75% of the participants conformed at least once, and 25% never conformed. Despite that, in a group without social pressure, less than 1% of the participants were subdued to giving a wrong answer. The overall evaluation of this experiment is the cause and effect resulted after the trials were concluded. Asch proved the theory of social influence as a cause of conformity and thus making an individual withdraw from their true capabilities due to social conformity and trying to “fit in" to groups, regardless of knowing who the other individuals are. This experiment was necessary in order to comprehend the understanding of influence and social groups. The conclusion of his trials questioned why an individual would conform in the first place, and the answer was that they feared being ridiculed or thought of as peculiar. They would rather fit in with the group (normative influence) than outstand it (informational influence). (Asch, 1951)

One limitation of the investigation is that it’s utilized a one-sided test. Every one of the members were male pupils who all had a place with a similar age gathering. This implies the examination needs population validity and that the outcomes can't be summed up to females or more established gatherings of individuals. Another issue is that the test utilized a fake undertaking to quantify conformity - passing judgment on line lengths. How frequently would we say we are looked with making a judgment like the one Asch utilized, where the appropriate response is plain to see? This means that the study has low ecological validity and the outcomes can't be summed up to other genuine circumstances of similarity. (Kevin, 1999)

On the other hand, Obedience is when an individual does something in response to an order given by an authority figure. It is said that without this order given, the individual would not act this way. Obedience can be negative due to an individual obeying orders by a malevolent authority. There are two opposing explanations as to why individuals obey; situational & dispositional. Situational explanations include; Socialisation, Graduated commitment, Legitimate authority and The agentic state. Dispositional explanations include; The authoritarian personality. (Milgram, 1974) Stanley Milgram was an American social psychologist professor in the University of Yale, and is well-known for his controversial experiment on obedience which was conducted in the 1960s. Milgram conducted an experiment focused on the conflict in obedience, authority, and personal conscience.

Milgram (1963) devised an experiment on the main factors of justification on the main principles of genocide offered by those who were accused during World War II. They defended the situation with the idealism of “obedience", as they were just following orders from their superiors. He then depicted the outcome of how Germans were particularly obedient to the Nazi killings during the war as their determination to follow “orders" were clearly an excuse for justification.

The following procedure to analyze the experiment on obedience was to act on paid volunteers who were around 40 males between the age group of 20 to 50. The course of these lab tests included a volt scale that ranged from 15 - 450 volts. He would then strap them to an electric volt chair and act upon instructions for the individual to subdue and see if they would comply given they had no other choice but to continue. Each participant complied and the volt scale would increase, thus provided that after each series of shocks, the individual would continue. Milgram (1963) then analyzed the results of each participant on a volt scale to depict the outcome of submission to obedience. 65% (two-thirds) of the participants (i.e. teachers) hit a volt scale of 450 (Maximum), while all others continued to 300. (Kevin, 1999)

Milgram (1963) then concluded that ordinary people are likely to follow an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent, Obedience to authority is engraved within an individual throughout their lives and is an act upon what they believe to be morally right and/or legally based. Milgram finally concluded that an individual’s awareness is either classified as the autonomous state – people who direct their actions and take responsibility for it, and the agentic state – people who allow others to direct their actions, then pass off the responsibility of all consequences to the person giving the orders. In contrast, they act upon the will of others.

The evaluation of this lab experiment was to comprehend the factor of obedience due to authority. Milgram depicted the cause and analysis of this compound behavior and resolved the conflict between what an individual may subdue to depending on how the figure of authority would play out. As people grow up the main idea of obeying a represented figure influences the mind and may be a significant factor to the capabilities, they develop in order to attain that behavior.

In both the studies explained above [Asch (1951) & Milgram (1963)], they were performed in a controlled environment, also known as a laboratory experiment. In this type of an experiment, all accurate measurements are taken. The specialist chooses where the test will happen, at what time, with which members, in what conditions and utilizing an institutionalized method. Members are randomly assigned to each independent variable group. The positives of this method are that It is simpler to imitate a research laboratory experiment. This is on the grounds that an institutionalized methodology is used. They take into account exact control of superfluous and independent variables. This permits a cause and effect relationship to be built up. The negatives on the other side are the simulation of the setting may create unnatural conduct that does not reflect reality, for example low ecological validity. This implies it would not be conceivable to sum up the discoveries to a genuine setting. Request attributes or experimenter impacts may bias the outcomes and become confounding variables. (McLeod, 2012)

Another unfortunate similarity in both these studies [Asch (1951) & Milgram (1963)] include the ethical issues which include; Deception, psychological harm and the right to withdraw from the experiment. The participants were deceived by not knowing the real experiment being conducted but this was done in order to get ‘valid results’. Psychological harm was caused as they felt forced to conform or obey. The participants were forced to carry on and complete the experiment and at no time were they allowed to withdraw. (McLeod, 2012)

To conclude with, conformity is when people try to think or act the way an individual/society do, in order to fit in. Obedience is people obeying commands due to the presence of a higher authority. The studies of Asch (1951) & Milgram (1963) prove to be the pivot of social influence in the world of psychology. Where both the studies have their weaknesses in ecological validity, being one-sided, population validity and ethical issues they also have the strengths of being reliable, a controlled experiment and elaborate main reasons to why people conform or obey. In todays world majority of the people tend to conform in order to show other that they belong to be a part of it. Obedience on the other hand is quite common as well, the fear of a higher authority is the driving factor as to why people obey.