Explain the Distinction Between Obedience and Conformity (Essay Sample)

EXPLAIN THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY
By Name:
Name of the Course: Psychology
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University)
The City and State where it is located
The Date
Explain the Distinction between Obedience and Conformity
Conformism is the change in feeling, thinking or acting because of imaginary or real pressure exercised by a given group. On the other hand, obedience is the manifestation of behavioral change produced due to the instructions given by people having authority. Social norms are instrumental when discussing the concept of conformity. The paper addresses the distinction between conformity and obedience with the aid of psychological studies such as those of Asch, Sherif, and Milgram.
Obedience and conformity shape cognition and behaviors. Carter (2012) defines conformity as ‘the act involving the aligning of your behavior or thoughts with those of another.’ Evolutionary roots of conformity suggest that conforming to other people’s way of likelihood reduces the chances of exclusion from the society. A proper discussion of conformity needs a profound understanding of social norms. A norm is a threshold for reference when judging what is right and appropriate in the given circumstances that provide the validity criteria. In the same vein, a social norm connotes to the accepted standard of feeling, thinking or acting in a given social group or community (Bocchiaro, P. 2012, 47). The norms affect the manner in which the people look at reality and the axiological functioning.
A proper exegesis of conformity is to look at the distinction between normative influence and informative influence that are factors relating to conformity. According to Brehm & Kassim (1999), the normative influence discussion rests on the issue of norms. It is trite that norms derive their validity from a grundnorm, basic norm, as espoused by Hans Kelsen in the pure theory of law concept. An individual ascribing to normative influence affiliates to the assumed norms to avoid exclusion or embarrassment from the society. The informational influence resolves ambiguous circumstances or situations by using the position taken by others. There is an offer of informational influence to the members of the group. Both normative and informative influences result in psychological effects on the society.
Social psychologists also refer normative influences as ‘normative social influences’ and informative influences as ‘informative social influences’. According Eysenck (2014), conformism has two forms: acquiescence and internalization. Acquiescence occurs when the individual externally agrees to avoid polemics with the group although the person disagrees. On the other hand, internalization occurs when the individual fully agrees and trusts the responses of the group as being of goodwill. Two classical psychological pieces of research were those of Solomon Asch experiment and Sherif’s experiment (Eysenck, M. 2004, 98). The psychological experiments help to show the normative and informative influence on the sampled group. For instance, the Sherif’s autokinetic effect experiment evinces the informative influence of internalization by the group (Hayes, N. 2000, 56). The deductions from the experiment posited that individuals accept the group’s influence authentically in ambiguous or dangerous situation.
In the Ash’s line experiment, the sampled individuals had to identify which of the three lines was of similar length with the target line. According to Fiske (2010), only one of the lines was similar to the target line whereas the other two lines were indifferent. The answer of each of the five was subject the same in the first round of the experiment. However, in the third round of the experiment, there was a change in the responses. Despite the obvious answer to the experiment being Exhibit A, the second person chose Exhibit C as the correct answer since the first person in front of him had confidently chosen C as the right answer. The last one was the only one who gave the true response to the test (Bocchiaro, P. 2012, 102). The Ash’s test posited that the first two participants were accomplices who depicted the desire of being correct over the desire of conformity. The Asch’s experiment findings favor the normative influence more than informative one.
The Asch group experiment is pivotal in the study of psychology. However, the experiment received criticism for the application of tasks that had no real value to the subjects who participated. The proponents of the importance of task were VanDello, Baron, and Brunsman. The critique about Asch experiment rested on the usage of strangers as the subject instead of using social groups. The bottom line argument that the results would be different if the participants perceived that the other individuals belonged to a certain group. The experiment of Wetherell, Abrams, Hogg, Turner and Cochrane substantiated the Asch’s criticism by using first-year learners of psychology as the subjects or participants. The phenomena of internalization and acquiescence form a continuum rather than the exclusion of the phenomena (Hayes, N. 2000, 187). The theory covering cognitive dissonance substantiates the change of an individual’s behavior due to a force of situational circumstances.
Group dynamics plays an important role in the concept of conformism. The size of a particular group tends to be a factor relating to conformity. According to Hogg (2003), there is a proposition that when the group increases in number, conformity level tends to augment. The concept of leadership serves as an outstanding example of group dynamics. A group that ascribes to the psychology of leadership or followership tends to show a high level of conformity. Evolutionarily, the acceptance of leadership traits depends on the different circumstances. For example, a political leader who is masculine having facial morphologies – traits of aggression and competitiveness, is more preferred in times of war than peace. An age difference affects the stakes of conformity. For instance, during the adolescence period, there are high tendencies of conformity to the peer pressure. Gender differences form part of conformity (Fiske, S. 2010, 17). Male leaders tend to manage the intergroup competition whereas intragroup competition is for the female leader.
Obedience encapsulates how an individual responds to another person perceived to have power or authority. Obedience is ‘the behavioral change produced by the commands of authority (Brehm, S. 1999, 232). The key studies in point are the Bickman and Milgram studies. Bickman (1974) psychological research entailed the ordering of people to do a particular thing by the lead researchers in the streets. At one point of the research, people wore security guards clothing and ordered the passing people to perform certain acts. The research found out that nine of ten people obeyed the individuals dressed in security guard uniforms. People tend to obey when there is perceived authority as per the Bickman’s research.
The Milgram’s research is the cornerstone experiment describing the phenomenon of obedience. Milgram conducted experiments with a certain set of variations to the reaction of electric shocks ranging from 75 volts to 450 volts (Carter, K. 2012, 300). According to Matsumoto & Juang (2012), the finding was that there was 95% of maximization of obedience when the individual participants aided another person in the administration of the electric shocks. Additionally, there was 68.75% obedience when the participants observed full compliance to the experiment by a peer (Milgram, S. 1963, 371). The inducing of the stimuli in the teacher-learner experiment showed an inverse proportion between the administration of the shocks and the proximity of the study’s victim. Under the purview of the proximity of victim, Milgram discovered a decrease of about 40% obedience when the Confederate and the participant were in the same place.
Personal responsibility is a factor relating to obedience. The Milgram’s study substantiates the personal responsibility for any harm that might arise. According to Roy & Bushman (2010), the experiment’s finding was that obedience drops when there is an assumption of responsibility by a person for any particular harm arising from obedience. Furthermore, the case study infers that the proximity of the victim creates a nexus between the action and the consequence (Packer, J. 2008, 423). The suffering incurred raises the personal responsibility. However, despite application of ferocious acts on a victim whether close or far away did not change the morality of the action.
An escalation of harm contributes to obedience. The Milgram’s experiment entailed the increase in electric shocks by the teachers on the Confederates. According to Sanderson (2009), the gradual increase of the potential harm through shocks showed that the level of obedience increased as well. From the experiment, it is clear that; only 40 percent of the total participants reached the 450 volts stage (Weiten, W. 2007, 545). It is evident that when the teacher forced the hands of the participants to the electric shock plate, registered a 30% drop of obedience.
Authority factors or figures tend to influence the stakes of obedience. In the Milgram’s studies, there was a low rate of obedience from the individuals who were high in authority. According to Turner (1991), the presence of an authoritative figure or by virtue of a person being in higher authority causes obedience. The 1966 Hofling’s research refuted the argument of higher obedience only when the authoritative figur...