Conformity - According to Leon Mann, conformity means yielding to group pressures

Conformity

According to Leon Mann, conformity means ‘yielding to group pressures’. Everyone is a member of one group or another and everyone expects members of these groups to behave in certain ways. If you are a member of an identifiable group you are expected to behave appropriately to it. If you don’t conform and behave appropriately you are likely to be rejected by the group. Like stereotypes, conforming and expecting others to conform maintains cognitive balance.

There are several kinds of conformity. Many studies of conformity took place in the 1950’s which led to distinguish between compliance, internalisation, and
identification. Compliance is the type of conformity where the subject goes along with the group view, but privately disagrees with it. Internalisation is where the subject comes
to accept, and eventually believes in the group view. Identification is where the subject accepts and believes the group view, because he or she wants to become associated
with the group. Leon Mann identifies normative conformity which occurs when direct group pressure forces the individual to yield under the threat of rejection or the promise of reward. This can occur only if someone wants to be a member of the group, or the group’s attitudes or behaviour is important to the individual in some way.

In the 1950s a psychologist named, Solomon Asch, devised a conformity experiment that eliminated the ambiguity factor. Subjects were asked to match lines of different lengths on two cards. In this experiment, there was one obvious right answer. However, each subject was tested in a room full of "planted" peers who deliberately gave the wrong answer in some cases. About three-fourths of the subjects tested knowingly gave an incorrect answer at least once in order to conform to the group.

Asch's experiment revealed other factors, notably agreement and size of the majority, that influence conformity even when uncertainty isn't ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Asch's experiment revealed other factors, notably agreement and size of the majority, that influence conformity even when uncertainty isn't an issue. Conformity of opinion is extremely powerful in influencing people to go along with the group. Even one dissenter decreases the incidence of conformity noticeably. Individuals are much more likely to deviate from a group when there is at least one other person to share the potential disapproval of the group. People who follow the lead of an initial dissenter may even disagree with that person and be dissenting from the group for a totally different reason. However, knowing there is at least one other dissenting voice makes it easier for them to express their own opinions.

Individual differences also determine the degree to which conformity will occur. Although the uncertainty and agreement of the situation are powerful contributors to the occurrence of conformity, they are not the sole determinants. Personal characteristics and the individual's position within the group play a role as well. Individuals who have a low status within a group or are unfamiliar with a particular situation are the ones most likely to conform. Thus, students who are new to a class, new members of a study or activity group, or new residents to a community are more likely to be affected by the pressure to conform. Personality traits, such as concern with being liked or the desire to be right, also play a role.

Cultural factors are also influential. Certain cultures are more likely than others to value group harmony over individual expression. In fact, school administrators, organization managers, and even parents can establish an atmosphere or "culture" that either fosters conformity or allows for disagreement and individualism.

The problem with this study, for understanding of conformity, as one aspect of social psychology is that it is a total artificial experimental situation - there isn’t even a right
answer. Asch’s study is also a product of the early fifties America, where quite a lot was happening. They had the McCarthy which hunts, the cold and Korean wars and a very strong anti communism influence to contend with. Asch’s experiment was also accused of lacking in ecological validity as it was un-lifelike.

There is also “the experimenter effect” were the subjects might have tried to please the experimenter by saying what they thought he would like to hear. They were also deceived by being told that the experiment was a study of perception. They could have guessed it was really a study of conformity. Although it must be stated, that Asch’s experiment must have had an element of reliability as numerous other studies have confirmed his findings.

One of them being Crutchfield’s (1955) study that was modified so that the face to face set up of Asch’s study could not influence the outcome. A thirty percent conformity level was found using Asch’s line comparison tasks. When the difficulty level was increased the conformity also increased. Further studies were carried out years later and different levels of conformity were found, this suggests that cultural changes play a very important role in the findings of these studies. This was apparent when Perrin and Spencer (1981) replicated Asch’s experiment using British students; they found only one conformity response on 396 trials. Although Doms and Avermaet (1981) found the same conformity as Asch did.

My personal view is that the studies are totally unreliable as it seems that far too many things can influence the end results. You can change the conformity levels by changing the participants from an average group of people off the street to a group of engineers. I think the surroundings can also have a major effect on the results. Although conformity does exist to a great extent and Asch’s studies are the backbone and comparison studies for other experimenters to use and base their studies upon.

The End