Why People Conform
Social pressures have a significant impact on opinion change and push individuals to conform to their peers. According to Stallen and Sanfey (2015), the concept of social influence denotes others’ effects on people’s opinions, attitudes, and opinions. Individuals that conform change their behaviors to fit in a group. Yu and Sun (2013) assert that when people have different views in a group, they often adjust their attitudes and behaviors to match the group’s opinion. The behavior change defines the concept of social conformity, whereby individuals seek to match the group’s view. In most situations, people interpret strong compliance and agreeing with the group as a strategy and a way to gain social affiliation and be normal (Cordonier, Nettles, & Rochat, 2018). Therefore, individuals conform as a way of compliance and accepting the majority beliefs and opinions that they may consider correct.
Normative Social Influence
Humans face significant social influence in their existence within a group situation. According to Yu and Sun (2013), a person’s judgment might conflict with that of the group, which leads him or her to adapt to the majority group’s opinions. There are numerous intrinsic motives for behavior and attitude change to match the majority’s view, one being the normative influence where a person adjusts behavior to fit in with the rest (Yu & Sun, 2013). The normative form of social impact majorly concerns social interaction and entails behavior change under social pressure, without necessarily changing one’s opinion. Yu and Sun (2013) emphasize the affiliation theory that perceives the conscious and deliberate attempts by the individual to gain the social approval of others and building rewarding relationships in the process. Hence, the majority controls the minority by making them uncomfortable about any mismatches in their preferences and pressuring them to adjust to feel accepted. Abrams and Hogg (1990) add that the pressure to comply and feel accepted by the group is strong in any context where the source has more power than the target, and where the target depends on the source for reward or survival.
Thus, social power plays a significant role in pressuring the individual to comply with the group in search of approval. According to Abrams and Hogg (1990), the normative base of influence works to enforce compliance by increasing the numbers that exert pressure on a person. Public accountability represents the mechanism for influencing group members, with the forms of social power, including the ability of the source to reward, coerce, and legitimately instruct the target. The pressure for the individual to comply with the group increases when the source has referent power, an aspect denoting the target’s desire to be like the source (Abrams & Hogg, 1990). The influence of the majority, emergent norms, and poor quality group decision-making, are all dependent on the level of social power. Additionally, normative social influence exposes the members to majority views and contributes to the adoption of the proposed solution while neglecting novel solutions (Abrams & Hogg, 1990). The majority can exert more social pressure and stress, thereby contributing to arousal and the ultimate emission of a dominant response. The stress individuals face within the group leads to a narrowing of attention, to discount the alternative non-majority perspectives. Besides, the targets are inclined to assume the positions of majorities are correct, while minorities are incorrect.
Informational Social Influence
Individuals within a group may rely on others to determine the correct action when faced with uncertain contexts. Hence, informational conformity denotes people’s concern with accuracy and their search for information about reality (Yu & Sun, 2013). The situation describes instances in which an individual is influenced by the existence of instinctively valid reasons to agree with a view because he or she perceives it to be correct (Allan, & Wilder, 1980). Besides, the informational aspect of conformity considers group unanimity as a significant factor that influences an individual’s behavior. The group’s consensus generates compliance indirectly by modifying the meaning of the stimulus (Allen & Wilder, 1980). For instance, the unanimous group changes the subject’s interpretation of the stimulus being judged, with its reinterpretation making the espoused group position appear more acceptable and leading the subject to shift toward the stance. Hence, the influence of the group is more indirect and subtle. Conformity is likely to increase when the primary source is a knowledgeable person with access to critical information, and when there is a clear course of action (French & Raven, 1959).
Additionally, the referent informational influence captures individuals’ search for contextually relevant ingroup norms for social identification and self-categorization. Abrams and Hogg (1990) argue that the social categorization aspect entails people’s perception and comparison of their attitudes, feelings, and behaviors in a subjective social frame of reference. Therefore, the individual conforms to the group norms out of self-inclusive social categorizations. French and Raven (1959) distinguish referent power under the informational social influence as having its basis in an individual’s identification with the group and having a feeling of oneness. Therefore, the group’s attractiveness drives a person to seek membership or desire to join or maintain the existing relationship to the category. In other words, the individual behaves, believes, and perceives as the group does, thereby identifying with the other members. Besides, expert power under informational social influence entails the individual’s trust that someone else is telling the truth because he or she is more knowledgeable.
Social Impact Theory
Dependence represents the process by which influence operates between the majority and the minority. Accordingly, the size, status, and power of the majority play a significant role in social impact (Latane & Wolf, 1981). Markedly, where individuals are highly dependent on the group, they are more likely to conform to the group’s position or norms. Latane and Wolf (1981) also distinguish between information dependence, in which an individual relies upon others for information about the environment or its meaning, and effect dependence explaining reliance on others for the direct satisfaction of needs. Furthermore, the presence of many individuals conforming results in high conformity levels, which explains why a more significant number of individuals espousing a position provides a better basis for establishing social reality (Latane & Wolf, 1981). Besides, the extent of a person’s importance also matters because if the individual is essential, the level of conformity also rises. Thus, Latane and Wolf (1981) consider the majority’s superior size as a factor in the enhanced capacity to satisfy the dependence needs. Whereas the majority influence by the numbers, minority affects conformity by the consistency of behavioral style and position to establish the group norms. A repetition of response demonstrates the influence agent’s confidence and commitment to his or her position and the unwillingness to compromise it.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Conforming
One of the upsides of conforming is that it encourages positive public behavior that can be utilized for policy advocacy. For example, Jilani (2019) observes that conformity has helped in promoting public smoking laws, whereby bans in Californian witnessed high compliance and few reports of violations in three cities in the state. In other words, conforming works by instilling the belief that behavior, such as smoking in public places, is wrong. Therefore, by conforming to the laws, people influence potential smokers to avoid the action because of the fear of criticism or reprimand (Jilani, 2019). In other words, the power of popular public law is based on conformity. People are willing to follow policy orders because of the informational signals they receive from the group. Reputational signals also play a role in encouraging individuals to conform because people seek to be in good terms with the other members while suppressing their dissent.
However, the downside of conforming might entail its ability to encourage individuals to take an extremist position on an issue. According to Jilani (2019), the power of conformity and cascades has profound implications for political polarization, whereby “like-minded people go to extremes” due to the influence of information, corroboration, and social comparison. Hence, individuals face a limited pool of data in making decisions about an issue in homogeneous groups. For example, membership to a social group that opposes abortion rights exposes a person to a situation where there is no argument supporting the rights. Therefore, the limited information forces the individual to adopt the majority’s position rather than opposing the other members. The aspect of corroboration entails a situation where people who lack confidence in their views tend to have more reasonable opinions. Accordingly, they are unsure of what they should think and moderate their viewpoints ad corroborating personal beliefs with what the others believe.
Conclusion
The arguments above reveal that there are various reasons people conform, including normative social influence, which relates to one’s compliance with the group norms. Another reason is informational social influence where one conforms because of their perception, as a product of the view that the group is more knowledgeable and right. Lastly, social impact theory is another reason that deals with numbers, strength, and immediacy. The paper also identifies the advantage of conformity, which entails encouraging positive public behavior. However, the downside of it is that compliance encourages people to take an extreme position in alliance with the group ideals.
References
Allen, V.L., & Wilder, D.A. (1980). Impact of group consensus and social support on stimulus meaning. Mediation of conformity by cognitive restructuring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1 1 16-1 125.
Cordonier, L., Nettles, T., & Rochat, P. (2018). Strong and strategic conformity understanding by 3‐and 5‐year‐old children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 438 451.
Abrams, D. & Hogg, M.A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1:1, 195-228,
French, J.R.P., & Raven, B.J. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, pp. 118-149.
Jilani, Z. (2019, May 30). How conformity can be good and bad for society. Greater good magazine. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_conformity_can_be_good_and_bad_for_society
Latane, B. & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psychological Review, 88, 439-453.
Stallen, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2015). The neuroscience of social conformity: Implications for fundamental and applied research. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, 337-.
Yu, R., & Sun, S. (2013). To conform or not to conform: spontaneous conformity diminishes the sensitivity to monetary outcomes. PLoS One, 8(5).