|
Conformity And Obedience
What is conformity? What does it mean to conform? According to Francis Heylighen, conformity means "The more people already agree upon or share a particular idea, the more easily a newcomer will in turn be be converted to that idea, and the more difficult it will be for one already converted to reject that idea. This "conformity pressure" can be explained by the fact that the newcomer will be subjected to expressions of the idea more often, and will more likely get in trouble if he expresses dissonant ideas (Heylighen, 1992)".
Conformity within a group calls for members changing their attitudes and beliefs to match those others within the group. Those who conform tend to be seen as "obedient and compliant". In order to conform, the group member must attribute someone as having the legitimacy and credibility to lead or influence the group's behaviour, in other words, an authority figure. Without the authority figure, conformity toward the group's goals will be less prevalent. If a member of the group fails to conform to the groups needs, s/he would lose credibility with the rest of the group.
The concept of compliance is similar to conformity, but is slightly different. For compliance to occur within groups, one must adapt his/her actions to another's wishes or rules. A person that conforms must be pre-disposed towards allowing him/her to yield to others. Requesting for an act of compliance has occured in everyone's lives. By simply asking someone to perform a task or a job, we are asking for compliance. This is not done in order to change the beliefs or attitudes of a person or a group, but simply to perform the requested task or job.
Identification is where the subject accepts and believes the group view, because he or she wants to become associated with the group. This happens when an individual accepts influence from other group members, because s/he wants to establish or maintain a satisfying, self-defining relationship to another person or group. That is, changes in beliefs and/or attitudes in order to identify with the influencing source or authority figure that is respected or admired.
Internalisation occurs when an individual changes his/her beliefs, attitudes or behaviour, and accepts that influence because s/he genuinely believes in the position advocated by the influencing source or authority figure.
Asch's 3 lines experiment ~
Asch devised a means of testing people as to whether or not they would conform by giving them a test in which they must look at 3 lines, and decide which of the lines was the longest. In independent testing, in other words, when lone subjects were being tested, they answered correctly 99% of the time. Then Asch added more subjects to the tests and asked the subjects for their responses. The larger the group, the more the subjects tended to answer similarly, even if the responses were incorrect. In the control experiment, only 1% of trials resulted in an error. In the non-control experiment, 75% of participants made at least one error. Although Asch was generally concerned with how one can resist majority influence and pressure, his experiments are generally deemed to be demonstrative of the power of majority influence, thus showing that conformity took place within larger groups as opposed to independently.
Factors influencing conformity ~
Studies show that people will tend to conform when the situation is ambiguous, when there is a crisis, and when there are those who are experts. People conform to a group's social norms, the implicit or explicit rules a group has for acceptable behaviour, values, and beliefs of all its members. People in general, have a need to belong and form a social companionship, which is the basis for being liked and accepted by others. When an individual attempts to resist conformity, the rest of the group will attempt to get the individual to conform. If this is unsuccessful, the individual will most likely be rejected by the group. Asch's research shows that conformity does not increase much after group size reaches 4 or 5 members, but that if the pressure comes from group members who are friends or relatives, the impact will be much stronger, and have better powers of persuasion. There is also evidence to show that those with lower self-esteem are more likely to conform than those with higher esteem.
Milgram's study on obedience ~
Between 1961 - 1962, Stanley Milgram, whilst studying for his PhD, undertook a study at Harvard University, in which he paid volunteers to take part in an experiment involving obedience disguised as memory and learning. The subject plays the part of the "teacher" and is told that the "learner" will be in another room, awaiting instruction. The "learner" is wired to an electrode device which, upon giving an incorrect answer, will emit an electric shock which the "teacher" is supposed to employ, ranging from a mild shock to a severe shock.
The "teacher" is overseen by an "experimentor" who is wearing a white lab coat, and is the responsible authority figure in this experiment. After a time, when the teachers witnessed what they assumed was the discomfort of the learners, they began questioning the authority figure as to who will take responsibility for the continued shocks. When the experimentor assumed full responsibility, the teachers, while extremely uncomfortable with continuing, went ahead anyway, and carried out electric shock until they had gone through the full range of shock treatment.
The theory here was to show that it doesn't take a sadistic monster to carry out such inhumane brutality, but that seemingly "normal" people could be made to carry out such random acts of human injustice. In all the testing, all who took part, gave the full range of shocks to the learners, and not one suject stopped before reaching the full 300 volts. It also bears mentioning that there was no difference in obedience between males and females, except to say that the females tended to be more nervous.
What, exactly, are the abovementioned statements saying? They are saying that if you make use of some basic conditioning tactics, which are enforced by others within the group who have also had it conditioned into them that certain ways of believing and behaving are accepted as the norm, that ANYONE can be made to conform and become obedient. This is especially clear within religion, in which people are conditioned from a young age to believe that certain ways of living/thinking/behaving/believing are accepted as "normal", and those which are seen as unacceptable, are subject to punishment from mild to very severe, in some cases. People aren't born with guns and other weapons in their hands, nor with the desire to lay waste to other nationalities simply because their beliefs and ways of living are not the same as theirs. But Milgram's experiments show without a doubt that anyone mete out such "punishment" if they feel it becomes necessary to do so.
An excellent example of this in recent terms are the atrocities committed by both American and British soldiers upon Iraqi prisoners. The use of abuse and humiliation becomes very easy when a group carries it out rather than a few individuals. For proof of this, Zimbardo's prison experiment can be taken into consideration. He chose some men to play the role of prisoners, and others to play the part of guards. None of them had any actual experience, yet those who played the roles of guards seemed somehow to be able to pull it off as though they had known how to behave like a prison guard all their lives. Graner, a Pennsylvania prison guard in civilian life, about the Iraqi prisoner photographs replied: "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, "I love to make a grown man piss himself".
When questioned why they behaved as they did, some soldiers stated that they were "just following orders", or just doing their job. Attorneys for several of the charged MPs said their clients were acting at the behest of military intelligence officers at the prison to soften up the detainees for interrogation sessions. "They were following orders", said Danielle Guebert, an attorney for England. "The orders came from military intelligence". This is where Milgram's experiments make sense - he stated that it doesn't take a sadistic monster to carry out inhumane brutality - but that seemingly normal people could be made to carry out random acts of human injustice.
Clearly, he was correct. And the same is true for those Iraqi militants who took a hold of Nick Berg and decapitated him in the name of their god. Compliant behaviour on the part of the men who played out the roles of executioners of an innocent man, was necessary in order to carry out such a grisly task. Conditioning from a very young age helps to ensure emotional detatchment, and religious beliefs that those who believe the victims will move on to the afterlife, and so escape the hell of this earth, is also necessary in order to keep the mind focused that the behaviour is somehow correct and acceptable. Obedience to their faith, and believing that their deity instructed them to do it makes conformity and obedience possible. It doesn't make it right - just possible..
Copyright ~ Silver Rainbolt 2006 ~ All Rights Reserved You may not legally copy any part of this document without prior written consent of the author. Doing so, infringes upon copyright, and is punishable under the law. Copyright 2006 held by Silver Rainbolt/In Medias Res, and Damien Daville/Vampire Church
|
