Society and Academic Achievement Motivation

Recent development of research on motivation in education has tried to understand the role that sociocultural contexts play on students' academic motivation.

Liem and his colleagues (2012) conducted a study aimed at testing the mediating role of individual-orientated and social-orientated achievement motives in linking value orientations (e.g. achievement, security, conformity)  to achievement goals (mastery-approach, performance-avoidance etc.).    

They state that:

values and achievement motivation orientations are socioculturally-rooted antecedents of achievement goals because individuals develop these basic personality factors through socialization. As societies and cultures are associated with different sets of affordances and constraints that facilitate and inhibit the internalization and expression of values (Schwartz, 2005) and motives (McClelland, 1985;Yu & Yang, 1994), a particular set of values and achievement motivation orientations is more strongly endorsed in one culture than those in others. 

For example, Australian adolescents were higher than their Singaporean, Filipino, and Indonesian counterparts on values serving individual interests (e.g. self-direction, hedonism), whereas the reverse was true for serving collective interests (e.g. conformity, security). Similarly, Lieber and Yu (2003) demonstrated that US students were higher than their Taiwanese counterparts in individual-orientated achievement motive whereas the reverse was true for social-orientated achievement motive.  

 "Achievement goals are not only posited to lead to achievement but are also catalyzed by different sources" (Liem 2012). Competence-based variables (achievement motive, fear of failure) and relationally-based values (e.g. affiliation motivation, fear of rejection) are among intrapsycholgical antecedents of achievement goal endorsement (Elliot, 2006).

Earlier, I have mentioned that achievement motivation positively predicted mastery-approached and performance-approach goals, whereas fear of failure positively predicted mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals. In addition, Spence (1985) argues that competence-related constructs that have been studied as predictors of achievement were characteristically 'individual orientated' or mirror individualist values. However, 'other-orientated' competence-related predictors were less frequently studied.  

Liem's study sought to distinguish individual-orientated and social-orientated achievement motives and relate them by assessing their differential effects on the four types of achievement goals. For example, Yu and Yang (1994) argued that individual-orientated achievement motivation might not fully explicate achievement-related processes and outcomes in Eastern and collectivist culture, in which individual prioritizes the primacy of their family's goals and accomplishments than those of their own. "Further, in collectivist cultures, conformity values and social norms play a key role in individual's behaviors more so than individual personality dispositions" (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Putting this in perspective, we can now conceptualize achievement motivation differently when taking social values into account.

 For example, early definitions of achievement motivation tried to define it as an internal drive to meet or fulfill a particular standard. Similarity, Yu and Yang (1994) conceptualized achievement motivation orientation as a cognitively-based general inclination that energized behavior and orients individuals to pursue a certain achievement standard. Specifically, socially-orientated achievement motivation was defined as an inclination to achieve a standard of excellence set by significant others (e.g. teachers, parents), whereas individual-orientated achievement motivation is an inclination to achieve a self-determined standard of excellence.

Furthermore, Liem used Schwartz's (2005) cultural value theory in which 10 values (security, conformity, tradition benevolence, universalism, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and power) to try to explain individual and social orientated achievement motivation and motivational goal perusal.

Finally, Liem found that security and conformity values positively predicted social-orientated achievement motivation, self-direction values positively predicted individual achievement motivation and hedonism values negatively predicted both achievement motivation orientations.Also, some values were found to be direct predictors of academic achievement.  

Overall, we can see that society can have a significant effect on academic achievement motivation particularly when there is is a strong infleunce to conform and compare one's performance with others. Also, we learned that values and achievement motivation orientations can be sociocultural antecedents that give rise to achievement goals and achievement.          

Semajno Naŭ (9)

Hello again fascinated - and fascinating - psychology readers! This week I did quite a few statistical analysis tests in order to derive some meaning from all the numbers.

At first, I did a factor analysis on the items of conformity and derived factors that had statistical significance present in the study.

In statistics, underlying correlations between certain items that have a role in the data are called factors. For example, factor one for conformity might indicate being persuaded by others while factor two is the desire to match one's standards to others. All of these factors are a specific indication of something greater happening "behind the scenes" of the numbers and reflect some aspect of conformity.

Here is a picture of the factor rotation that I did when I was looking into potential factors that existed.

This indicates that there are only three factors with an Eigenvalue greater than one. As a result, I checked the component matrix to see which items were associated most strongly with factors 1, 2, and 3.

After that, I did item analyses to see which items correlated most strongly within the factors. In statistics, items are the formal definition of the questions/statements that are answered in the survey by the participants.

The most exciting outcome of these tests was that I was able to narrow down the original 8-item scale to a 4-item scale with two distinct factors that controlled for over 64% of the total variance! Sweet!

The important thing to note is that actually performing a statistical test is simple as the program computes the numbers for you. However, the challenging part is when you attempt to assess all the components of your study and figure out how you are to approach it statistically. Essentially, statistics is easy to do once you know what you are doing and why you are doing it.

Finally, I wanted to see how conformity related to everything else so I did correlation analyses between the factors and all the other variables. This meant having TONS of correlation tests between the conformity factors and each of the other variables (there about 12 sets of variables).

There is much to describe here but its more technical and numerical than what can easily be understood. But I promise it will all be incorporated in my final research paper.

As always, stay motivated and see you next time!

Literature Review: Conformity and Deviation (Part 3)

Resuming my previous post on Berg and Bass' Conformity and Deviation, I will now go over some of the problems of conformity and deviation and highlight the importance of them being used relative to the situation at hand. 

There are certain questions that should be raised in dealing with problems of conformity and deviation. "An item of behavior, taken in and by itself, cannot be labeled either conformity or deviation. There is no such thing as conforming and deviating behavior in the abstract" ( p.159). That means that terms "conformity" and "deviation" only make sense in relative to certain scenarios, such as when the following questions are raised: 

1. Conformity to what? Deviation or departure from what? Conformity is always conforming to something while deviation is always departure from something, whether the referent of that "something" is made explicit or not. What is that 'something'? The referents may be the prevailing, usual, or expected ways of doing things in the individual's surroundings. This is the normative basis of the problem. The referents may be the individual's particular place of position in the scheme of interpersonal or group relationships. This is the organizational basis of the problem. Does the individual accept and behave in term of the place and position expected of him and his kind in the scheme of things?

2. What is the relative importance of the behavior area in which conformity and deviance occur? For example, is it a matter of whether a father takes care of his family as he should, or is it a question of whether he keeps up with the baseball scores in the World Series as his friends do?

3. Is the normative basis of the behavior shared and upheld by other groups to which the individual is related in some capacity? Or do his or her multiple groups put contradictory or even conflicting demands and expectations on the individual for his or her behavior in given dimensions? This, of course, relates to the problem of integration or conflict of social values in the psychological world of the individual.

4. Does conformity or deviation occur through coercion or threat of subsequent coercion and force, or is the behavior in question prompted by the individual's inner convictions and personally cherished values?           

5. What are the alternatives available for the individual in the stimulus situation with respect to the area of behavior in question? Are they clearly defined or difficult to distinguish? In other words, what situational factors enter into the picture, both as to the physical setting and the other people involved?

When studied in the context of these questions, conforming or nonconforming behavior can be taken as 

an index of the degree of stability or the extent of change in the human relations of a given setting and specifies whether change occurs primarily through coercion or through the voluntary interaction of individuals (p.161).

Thus viewed, conforming and nonconforming behaviors can serve as a basis for evaluating the trends in human relationships: how a group is doing and in what direction it is headed. 

Taking a stand as an apologist of conformity could amount to the praise of blind subservience. Conversely, singing the praise of nonconformity, apart from the evaluation of the norm value to which it is related, may make conformity seem righteous. As a result, nonconformity or conformity cannot be evaluated in its own right apart from its referent, namely the normative basis of the behavior in question. 

The representative problems of conformity and nonconformity can be more effectively singled out through due recognition of man's behavior relative to significant other persons. This is because conforming or nonconforming behavior makes very little sense when it is not analyzed within a framework of these relationships.

 An observation will illustrate this point. Bass cites a 1958 study in which a group of liberal students in the southwest was interested in persuading shopkeepers to cater to Negro students. The response of the shopkeepers was that they were willing to do so but each individual was concerned about what the other shopkeepers in the area would do. From this, he states that,

Our image of ourselves, our appraisals of our own practices, are not self-generating. They are not independent or our relatedness to people significant in our eyes, whether these significant people are seen as friend or foe (p.174). 

If the problem of conformity and independence is formulated within a framework of the individual's group's setting, we are confronted with relationships in which the problem is an ever-present, integral aspect of interaction situations and not an incidental issue. If the problem is formulated within the concreteness of group relations, as these relations unfold in the actualities of social life, then conformity and nonconformity acquire a functional significance which loses meaning apart from these relations. When man enters into repeated interaction with others, directed toward similar concerns and goals, he takes part in a process of norm formation and stabilization.  

Furthermore, issues are not necessarily in a dichotomous form, that are either for the individual or for the group; it depends on the specific scenario. "Within the framework of man's ties with other men in lasting relationships, the conflicting or harmonious character of interests is itself a problem of study. With the vantage point, thus gained, the external stimulus can be studied as it becomes relevant to relationships among individuals facing definable problem situations" (p.175).

To summarize, "in all phases of his daily living- social, political, economic, etc.- man is confronted today with pressures to regulate his behavior within advocated mold and directions"(p.193). An item of behavior, whether in social, political, or economic spheres, cannot be characterized by itself either conforming or deviating. It is always conformity or deviation relative to some premise, canon, standard, or value- in short. to some norm. Finally, since social value, moral standards, or norms are products of interactions between human beings over a period of time, issues of conformity and nonconformity must be analyzed in such a context.   

This concludes my literature review series on Conformity and Deviation by Berg and Bass.  I will continue future posts by analyzing more modern psychological studies that I can relate to my senior project.

If you're interested in the book (or dubious about my claims), you can pick it up from Amazon here: Conformity and Deviation.

   

What is Power Distance?

Power distance is an index that measures the distribution of power and its effect on individuals in various societies and cultures. This corresponds with the notion of lower-ranking people accepting and expecting that power is distributed unequally. High power distance cultures are very deferential to authority and accept an unequal balance of power. Conversely, low power distance cultures often question authority and expect to participate in decisions that affect them.  

Looking at different nations and how their cultures value different things, we can see this concept unfold. Asian countries are considered to have high power distance, because their cultural norms are very collectivistic, and therefore believe that power and social hierarchy are facts of life. In such cultures, people are taught that they are unequal - consciously or unconsciously - and social hierarchy then institutionalizes such inequality.

Politics is usually centralized and opposition to authority is undesirable. Nations who value individualism, such as the United States or the United Kingdom, tend to have lower power distance since they see others as more equal. These nations believe in independence, equal rights, approachable leaders, that the chain of command should only be for convenience, and that supervision should facilitate and empower. In low power distance societies, power is typically decentralized, such as through a democracy, and leaders often consult the advice of their subordinates. First names are commonly used, even with superiors, and communication is direct and two-way.  

This cultural difference is also seen in the amount of respect given to foreign diplomats. For example, emissaries and ambassadors might be ceremoniously welcomed in high power distance countries (because they perceive the diplomat as having high-appointed status) while only being casually welcomed in countries of lower power distance.

Additionally, power distance equally applies in the context of business. In psychology and sociology, power distance is predominately used in management and how people perceive management. A high power distance culture believes that the relationship between a boss and a subordinate is that of dependence. Bosses are seen with prestige and therefore expected to resolve disputes as well as make important decisions. Leaders are expected to be autocratic and to instruct their subordinates on what to do.

On the other hand, a low power distance culture would view that same relationship as one of interdependence.Employees have a preference for consultation, and they will quite readily approach and contradict their bosses.  Leaders actually encourage independent thought and contributions to problem-solving and therefore provide their employees with a certain level of autonomy (within reason). As a result of cultural differences, the index of power distance is an extremely useful tool when looking at cross-cultural management or international marketing. A manager who wants to broker a deal with a foreigner needs to be courteous of the other person's customs, such how to shake their hand and how long they should look someone in the eyes while speaking. Also, if a manager purchases a foreign company, they need to be aware of how the employees expect to be treated in order to optimally operate.    

Finally, power distribution can vary within families across cultures. For example, power distance in the context of a family can refer to how much responsibility and autonomy is given or expected of children. Simply put, it can be seen in how much a parent treats a child as a child - in need of constraint or structure - or as an individual who is mature enough to start doing things for themselves. For example, in American culture, a child's safety when home alone or out in a park is highly stressed and, as a result, parents often desire to provide a babysitter or adult supervision. However, in Europe, it is not uncommon for parents to allow their children of age 12 to go play outside with friends or kids around age 14 to be sent out buy groceries.  

All in all, power distance is a very important sociological and psychological tool that can be used to compare different social and cultural values. Understanding differences in culture are becoming more and more important, especially now that we live in a very interconnected world. How one views others in power relationships will affect how that person will act in business negotiations, as managers, leaders, and employees. This phenomenon is vitally important with regards to social conformity because we can observe how other societies define individuals and structure themselves.    

Literature Review: Conformity and Deviation (Part 2)

Continuing with Berg and Bass' Conformity and Deviation, I will now go over psychological behaviorism and the traits related to conformity.  

What are the exact phenomenal means by which conformity can be induced into groups and individuals? Rather than looking at the occurrences of group situations and viewing the factors that impact them, I will now dive into how behaviors are psychologically formed to produce conformity and the individual traits that affect it. 

Berg and Bass strive to reconcile three separate dispositional theories from various other conformity psychologists: the hypotheses of Murphy's (1947) "unity of perception and action", Asch's (1952) "isomorphism of experience and action", and Sherif's (1956) "unity of experience and action". They believe that in doing so they can reconcile theories that express past experiences, social perceptions, etc. with the theories that describe the elicitation of responses in the presence of external stimuli.  

In psychology, dispositional theories are otherwise known as traits and experimenters who measure these traits are primarily interested in how they form habitual patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion. "The conscious, perceptual experience thus referred to contains within it both central nervous system projections of the current external objects plus residues of past experience with similar objects" (p.101). With context, this means that whenever a person formulates a behavior through interacting with something they have their immediate perception of the object as well as the knowledge they have acquired about it in the past. Sensory neural inputs are filtered through the brain's association areas in which learned meanings are represented. Such awareness or perceptions are hypothesized to be isomorphic to - or corresponding with - behavior or action. 

Conformity research is typically research in composite dispositions. This means psychologists measure traits that correlate with a behavior and calculate them into composites The research is usually centered around instances of incompatible dispositional tendencies caused by individual and social modes of behavior. To clarify, I am describing conformity through the lens of behavioral psychology and how people acquire certain dispositions. "For social beings, learning by direct experience is only one of the several ways of acquiring behavioral dispositions" (p. 103). The authors articulate on six distinguishable methods or 'modes' by which people's behavior is shaped. The first two are personal while the other four are considered social modes: 

1. Learning, blind trial and error, or locomotor exploration. This means that if an experiment was done where a child was blindfolded, it could learn its way about in a room through a series of explorations, and eventually interpret its surroundings.

2. Perception. If a child is placed in a balcony overlooking the room, by which the experimental scenario is made visible, then the behavioral dispositions acquired are equivalent to trial and error. This would mean that mnemonic expectations of a scenario would coordinate with perceptual expectations and the behavior that is produced is not likely distinguishable to personal exploration. Amusingly, Berg and Bass mention an experiment that involved elevating animals before they entered a maze where this theory, to some extent, applied.

3. Perceptual observation of the outcomes of another person's trial-and-error exploration. Postulate a scenario you were to take two children, both equally unaware of the contents of a room, in which one explores by trial and error and the other watches. Logically, the observing child should acquire behavioral dispositions very similar to those acquired simultaneously by the model through trial and error. This is especially important in society since human beings are successfully equipped so as to learn and profit from the experiences of others.

4. Perceptual observation of another person's responses. If a child had learned behaviors based on the whereabouts of the room, an observing child can see the results of his responses and later mimic their pattern. This produces an overt response sequence indistinguishable from that of the model (the first child). "Miller and Dollard (1941) have called this matched dependent behavior and have demonstrated that both rats and children can learn to initiate responses independently of mode 3, in which information about the environment is obtained by observing the outcomes to another when that other explores" (p.105).

5. Linguistic instruction about the characteristic of objects. Once one child has learned the room, he can easily induce a parallel set of behavioral dispositions in a second child by saying: "The green box will give you a shock. The red box has candy in it. The other boxes are all empty".

6. Linguistic instruction about responses to be made. Finally, a knowledgeable child could tell another child "Take three steps forward and two steps to your right. Open the red box and place your hand inside. Then completely ignore the green box".

Though this sounds boring at first glance, if you were to stop and think about the ways that humans shift behaviors, in general, you would eventually come up with: "Well, they can experience something themselves, see someone else do it, see someone else's reactions, or be told how to do it".

After the authors list each mode related to behavior, they provide us with traits that are directly related to conformity associated with each mode. Here is the practical sociological stuff! Of the six modes of dispositions, giving weight to social modes (such as 3, 4, 5, or 6) is regarded as synonymous with conformity, suggestibility, persuadability, or yielding. As a result, relying on individual dispositional source or personal modes (1 or 2) will lead to decreased conformity while strengthening social sources lead to increased conformity. 

1.      Learning and competence.

a.      Learning

                                                    i.   The stronger the specific individual disposition (attitude, habit, knowledge, belief, response-tendency, expectancy, etc.)against which social-dispositional sources conflicts, the less the conformity

The more difficult the subject material, i.e., the less well learned and unfamiliar the task, the more the conformity.

                                                  ii.     The greater a person’s knowledge on a subject, the less conformant he is.

                                                iii.     The older a person is, the more established his dispositions and therefore the less conformant he is.

                                                iv.     The more certain the person is about a judgment, the less conformity he will demonstrate (These principles deal with the strength of the specific disposition when conformity pressures are involved. These subsequent principles are not specific to a single disposition).

b.     Competence

                                               i.        The more competent the person has been in learning and generating valid dispositions through individual modes the more heavily he weigh in individual modes over social modes.

                                            ii.         The more intelligent and generally competent a person is, the less he will conform. (This rationale is actually important in the survey that I am doing for my senior project).

                                          iii.         The higher a person’s status, the greater his influence on others, the less conformant,  he will be.

                                          iv.         The greater a person’s self-perceived own ability, the less his conformity. The more self-esteeming, self-assured, aggressive, impulsive, self-confident, etc. persons are less conformant.

                                             v.        The greater the general value placed upon individual achievement, the less conformity will occur.

2.      Perception.

a.      The clearer and more distinct the perceptual situation, the stronger the perceptual disposition, the less conformity is likely to occur.

b.     Judgments based upon memory are more subject to conformity influence than those based upon immediate perception.

3.      Observational Learning.

a.       Simple vicarious reinforcement. A person observing the behavior of a model will acquire the same incentives or valences which the model is acquiring, providing the conditions of observation and communication are adequate to inform the observer of the rewards and punishments being received by the model. Simply put, The more rewarded the model for the act or response, the more conformant will be the observer. The more punished the model the more the observer will tend to inhibit the punished act.

b.      Prestige generalization across behavior samples for one model. A person observing the responses of a model in a situation in which the reinforcement for the model cannot be observed will acquire positive valence and incentive for the response being made by the model to the extent that the responses of the model have been observed to be rewarding to the model in previous situations. (Translation: The more the observer sees the model be rewarded, the more conformant will be the observer).

                                                    i.     Intelligent, strong, successful, high-status persons will induce more conformity than low-status ones. Adults induce more conformity in children than peers. Older students as models induce more conformity than younger ones.

c.      Prestige generalization across models. Persons raised by the more competent, effective parents, and surrounded by the more effective adequate, teachers and peers will be more gullible and conformant to a new model. This makes sense considering that in the individuals perceive their social groups to be very reliable and therefore will be more willing to conform. Meanwhile, Persons raised by ineffectual parents and surrounded by failures, will be less conformant to a new model.

                                                    i.     The average person from a stable social background will tend to conform to new models.

d.     The more numerous the models modeling the same act, the stronger the incentive for the act. With groups of four, five, and six more conformity was found in the larger groups. It is noted that with regret that this principle has had only partially consistent conformation, or that the asymptote occurs at a very low number of others. Asch (1951) found that three other people were more persuasive than one or two, but more numerous models had no additional effect.

4.       Reinforced initiative responding 

a.       Rewarding observers for imitative responses led to increased imitation of a given model.

b.     Imitation generalizes across models. Observers reinforced for imitating a given model will tend to imitate new similar models.  

c.      The more rewarding a model has been, the more an observer will tend to imitate the model’s acts in the model’s absence.

5.      Verbal Instruction

a.      The more a communicator's own responses have been known the have been rewarding to the communicator the more his communications about the goodness and badness of descriptions and actions will lead to positive and negative incentives for those descriptions and actions.

b.     The more that similar communicators have been observed to have their own actions rewarded in the past, the more influential a new communicator will be.

c.      The more similar the communicator to past effective communicators, the more persuasive he will be. For these reasons, ceteris paribus, movie and TV presentations are more effective than radio, which is more effective than the printed page.

To summarize, the authors focused on combining dispositional theories that are borrowed from both cognitive and behavioristic psychological sources. "Social-observational modes of acquiring dispositional strength have been given particular emphasis" (p. 132). Finally, conformity research is typified as one in which individual dispositional tendencies or simply traits are compared with social sources. These traits and correlations are measured and general findings of conformity can be confirmed and published.

If you're interested in the book  (or dubious about my claims), you can pick it up from Amazon: Conformity and Deviation.

  

Literature Review: Conformity and Deviation (Part 1)

    

Conformity is one of the most notorious areas of study in the field of social psychology. Earlier we mentioned it as “the act of changing one’s behavior to match the responses of others" (Cialdini, 2004). But now we are going to investigating it through the lens of the earliest formalized studies of it and how it relates to conversion, deviation, and other significant sociological tendencies. Without further ado, I bring to you Conformity and Deviation by Berg and Bass! 

"Conformity, resistance, and conversion share basic psychological processes in common, based on the fact that an individual requires a stable framework, including salient and firm reference points, in order to orient himself and to regulate his interactions with others" (Helson, 1955; Sherif, 1936). An individual's framework provides them with the opportunity to establish themselves and, as a result, controls their behavior with regards to internal and external influences. Therefore, someone with a well-defined personal composition would be said to be capable of filtering out information that is inconsistent with themselves. 

In the absence of such a framework, the individual can seek ways to orient themselves in social contexts which may lead them to consider or accept conforming attitudes. For example, subtle influences to someone's behavior, under optimal conditions, can cause shifts in attitudes, opinions, and understandings even when the person is unaware of this. In other words, "Conversion can be produced by demonstrating the inadequacy of as a presently accepted frame of reference and then introducing another which is more satisfactory"(Berg & Bass, 2). An example of this occurs when a person comes into a social situation where his actions, judgments, or opinions different than those of others. This leads to a dilemma, in which the individual must decide to either succumb to peer influence and conform or maintain his personal position and deviate from the group. Successful influence or pressure towards conformity is called conversion and occurs when someone corresponds his behavior to match that of others. On the other hand, not deciding to change one's framework and remaining independent of the group is called resistance or deviation.

Individuals appear to be more susceptible to conformity pressures when expressing social opinions and ideological attitudes and when dealing with abstractions rather than concrete experience or well-acquainted, factual subjects. When an individual is uncertain about their own beliefs or is uninformed, they tend to be easily influenced by others.  Tendencies toward conformity and conversion are heightened when an individual is with others, at least three in member, where the others are in uniform agreement or whose opinions are only slightly off from that of the individual's beliefs. "From a personality angle, the kind of individual who is least able to resist conformity pressures, and probably interrogation pressures as well, is submissive, lacking in self-confidence, less intelligent, lacking in originality, authoritarian-minded, lacking in achievement motivation, conventional, and searching for social approval"(p.28).       

Berg and Bass cite hundreds of conformity studies explaining how they were implemented to try to find factors leading to conformity. They view conformity as being conceived as the reflection of successful influence. Going from that definition, the authors applied a general theory of interpersonal behavior to create multiple theorems and hypothesizes that affected conformity and deviation. They are as follows:

           1. The importance of the group, the situation, and the individual members are relative
matters. We can increase or decrease the significance of each at will (p.17).

2. Group goals modify subsequent behavior to the extent that they are relevant to the members of the group (p.51)

3. Immediate rather than ultimate effectiveness is more significant for understanding interaction among individuals (p.54).

4. Members will tend to behave in ways to maintain or increase a group's effectiveness to the extent the group rewards its members  (p.75). Assuming that absence of conflict in interactions is rewarding, members will conform to each to each other rather than disagree in the expectation of maintaining secure, harmonious, and satisfying relationships.  

5. Conformity is greater in more attractive groups (p.244).

6. If the group’s source of attraction to members is its control of what is wanted by the members, the group has the power to coerce motivated members, resulting in increase in public but not necessarily private conformity with increases in attraction. The greater the group’s control, the more conformity is likely to occur. (p.241).  

7. If the group’s source of attraction is its perceived greater ability to cope with problems than can be done alone, members can be persuaded by the group’s decisions - resulting in increases in both public and private conformity with increases in the group’s attractiveness (p.240).  

8. The clearer the group’s rewards and goals, the more attractive will be the group (p.65); hence the clearer its goals, the more members will conform to the group.

9. The more members share the same goals obtainable through cooperation, the more likely they will be attracted to each other (p.69); hence the more members will share the same goals obtainable through cooperation, the more likely they are to conform to each other in their behavior.

10. A group is more attractive, the greater the rewards which may be earned by membership and the greater the expectation of earning them (p.60); hence the greater rewards and expectancies of reward for membership, more likely the conformity to group demands.   

11. Current effectiveness promotes subsequent attractiveness (p.79); hence conformity currently is likely to be greater in a group that experienced effectiveness earlier; more dissension and deviation is likely to occur in a group with a preceding history of failure.  

12. Members of groups are motivated by consideration or lack of it: promises of reward, support, affection, or threats of punishment, burdensome demands and deflation of self-esteem (p.99). Since conformity is defined as a reflection of influence,

13. Leadership is accomplished by initiating structure - making others more able to overcome the obstacles thwarting goal attainment (p.101). Assuming conformity is the obverse of leadership, it follows that conformity of an individual will depend on the extent others in his group instruct, supervise, inform, or decide for him.  

14. Influence occurs sooner, to a greater extent and brings more reinforcement as a consequence of interaction (p.129). Assuming that conformity reflects leadership, a function of interaction, conformity to the demands of others is more likely to occur faster when interaction is possible.  

15. As problems facing the group become more difficult or as the members become less able to cope with their problems, more leadership becomes possible (p.134). Since conformity is a reflection of leadership, as problems of the group become more difficult or as the members become less able, conformity is likely to increase in that group.

16. If the difficulties facing a group are too great, members’ expectations of failure may make the groups sufficiently unattractive to cause the members to withdraw rather than attempt to solve the problems or attempt to succeed as leaders (p.137). Assuming that conformity is the observe of leadership, if the group's difficulties are too great, members may deviate further from the norms of the group rather than increase in conformity.  

17.  The task-oriented leader will attempt leadership most often when the group is

attractive to him because of its tasks and the rewards for task success (p. 155). Considering conformity as the obverse of leadership, the task orientated member will attempt to conform to his group to the extent it is attractive to him because of its tasks and rewards for task effectiveness, and when he sees such conformity enables him to achieve task success.    

18. The interaction-orientated member will avoid attempting leadership likely to disrupt current patterns of interaction or likely to involve risks of making mistakes while interacting with others (p. 156). Considering conformity as the obverse of leadership, the interaction-orientated member will attempt to conform to avoid disrupting current patterns of interaction or to avoid making mistakes while interacting with others.   

19. The self-orientated member is more concerned with his success rather than effectiveness as a leader (p.153). Considering conformity as the observe of leadership, it follows that the self-oriented member conforms to the extent that doing so meets his personal needs irrespective of whether it is conducive to the task or interaction effectiveness of the group.   

20. One member can persuade another if he has demonstrated his ability to solve the other member’s problems (p.162). Considering conformity as the obverse of leadership, it follows that one member will conform to the suggestion of another if the other has demonstrated his ability to solve the first member’s problems.

21. In a wide variety of situations, the more fluent, intelligent, original, and adaptable member is more likely to succeed as the leader (p.166). Considering conformity as the obverse of leadership, it follows that in a wide variety of situations, the less fluent, the less intelligent, less original, and less adaptable member is more likely to conform to the suggestions of others.   

22. The would-be leader cannot be too much more able than those he leads to succeed maximally as a leader (p.177). Considering conformity as the obverse of leadership, it follows that a member may be unable rather than unwilling to conform to the norms of his group, because of his very great lack of ability of others in his group.   

23. The ability of the leader must be relevant to solving the problems of the groups he expects to lead (p. 174). Considering conformity as the obverse of leadership, conformity of the less able person will depend on his inadequacies in solving the particular problems of the group in which he is a member.  

24. If he has been successful and effective earlier, a leader will succeed and be effective to a maximum in any situation the more it actually resembles the earlier one (p.183); assuming that conformity is a reflection of leadership, conformity to others will be maximum in a new situation the more the new situation resembles an earlier one in which conformity occurred in the same way for the same reasons.

25. Successful leaders are more likely to have been the youngest child in their family; had  facilitating, stimulating, approving, accepting parents; and come from harmonious, friendly, tolerant, family atmospheres (pp.195-198). Assuming conformity is the obverse of leadership, it follows that, conformists are more likely to have been the oldest child in their family; had domineering, inconsistent, rejecting, parents; and come from discordant, unfriendly, intolerant family atmospheres.     

26.  Conformity to group standards and decisions is greater among more influential members and those closer initially to the majority or group decision (p. 247).   

27. The higher one’s status, the more likely he is to succeed as a leader among those of lower status (p. 269). Assuming conformity is the obverse of leadership, it follows that the lower one’s status the more likely he is to conform to those of higher status.   

28. Conformity to the person with status but without power will continue until it became apparent that the figurehead has only the symbols of status. Even then, others may conform ritualistically to the powerless bearer of status symbols because the ritual is habitual and satisfying in its own right, or is a custom approved by the group whose violation would bring social disapproval (p. 267).  

29. The higher one’s esteem, the more likely he is to succeed as a leader among those of lower esteem (p.289). Assuming conformity is the obverse of leadership, it follows that the less esteem a member has, the more likely he is to conform to the suggestions of others.

30. The more esteemed member can be more persuasive if his esteem depends on being perceived as being able to solve the group’s problems; he can be more coercive if his esteem depends on his personal control of what is desired by others in the group (p.289) Assuming conformity is the obverse of leadership, it follows that (a) a member is more likely to be persuaded, conforming both publically and privately, if his lack of esteem is due to lack of ability and (b) he is more likely to be coerced, conforming both but not privately, if his lack of esteem is due to his lack of personal power.   

31. Conformity to group decisions, modal opinion, or norms of behavior, should be greater among groups where mutual esteem is high.   

32. The person with high self-esteem appears more likely to change others, to lead others, rather than be changed by others to conform readily.

33. Increases in self-accorded status reduce the tendency to conform.

34. Events preceding the conformity behavior or taking place concurrently may result in the failure of what would have been conforming behavior.

35. Conformity is likely to be greater in situations of crisis or emergency.

Hey, nobody said sociology was particularly fun (but understanding others is quite fascinating). To summarize, the authors spend a significant part of the first quarter of the text to enumerate numerous conditions and factors that affect rates of conformity and deviation. They interpret conforming behavior as an aspect of the general phenomenon of interaction. In this sense, they were able to form generalizations about conformity through a wide collection of facts which have been well established.      

If you're interested in the book  (or dubious about my claims), you can pick it up from Amazon: Conformity and Deviation.

What is Deviance?

The most common definition of deviance is when an individual is appearing to stray from or violate social norms and tendencies. In the broadest sense, this is understood to occur when someone does not conform to social expectations or share the same values. Deviance comes in three forms, admired behavior (such as extreme heroism that breaks social expectations), odd but tolerable behavior (such as eccentric individuals), or bad behavior (such as criminals). This can occur through the scope of formal and informal modes of social violation depending on the individual's intent. For example, when someone intentionally commits a crime they are formally deviant but when someone inadvertently strays from traditional social conduct they are informally deviant.    

It is important to note that deviation is relative since it can only be defined in relation to a particular context or social standard which is not fixed or absolute. For example, roughhousing can seem appropriate at a hockey game but would be inexcusable if done in a hospital. Furthermore, since societies continually change and progress, forms of conduct that would be considered deviant in a past era can become acceptable from a modern viewpoint. Sometime ago in Western society, it had been considered deviant for women to smoke, use make-up, and consume alcoholic drinks in public. Today this is no longer the case.

A famous sociologist, Robert Merton, argues that deviance does not result from pathological personalities but from the culture and structure of society itself. Looking at society as a system of interconnected parts that work together in harmony to maintain a state of equilibrium, we can see the significance of shared social values. However, since members of society are placed in various positions in the social structure (like social class) they may deviate since they do not have the opportunity of realizing the shared values. For instance, individuals in an American society may adhere to American culture norms and desire to live up to the standard of "The American Dream". Most people desire to attain a position of power, high achievement or wealth and as a result, there is great social importance attached to success. This results in less concern to the means by which people acquire success because people who are powerful and rich are well-respected regardless of how they earned it (otherwise known as high power distance). Therefore, competition for success may cause people to become deviant through illegal business deals or potentially turn towards crime (such as fraud, theft, or gang involvement as a means of survival).

To summarize, deviance occurs whenever individuals stray from social expectation and this phenomenon can often be seen as a natural result of culture and the structure of society.

What is Conformity?

The earliest definition of conformity is "yielding to group pressures" (Crutchfield, 1955). It occurs when group pressure can successfully influence an individual to comply with the group through a change in belief or behavior. A modern definition of conformity shows that it hasn’t changed much over the years, except in perspective. Cialdini (2004) states that conformity refers to “the act of changing one’s behavior to match the responses of others."

Conformity can come in a few types of forms. Other than compliance or acceptance to group pressure, an individual can internalize beliefs of the group and adopt behaviors consistent with their value system. Another method of conforming involves identifying with the group, by establishing a self-defining relationship to it or another person. For example, this occurs when one fulfills a social expectation of a specific role, e.g. police officers.

Why do people conform? The main reasons people conform is for social rewards such as approval, success, wealth, acceptance into certain groups, etc. Furthermore, there are eight personality traits related to conformity: submissiveness, lack of self-confidence, lack of intelligence, lack of originality, authoritarian-minded, lacking motivation, conventionality and a desire for social approval.

Why does conformity matter? This ubiquitous social force occurs through us every day and understanding its implications gives us tremendous insight into society and ourselves. It is neither good nor bad since society's foundation is based upon it but individuals should be wary of their own self-autonomy. Conformity is such a powerful influence in society that it would be difficult to understand human behavior without it.

Question #2 - Beliefs

To what extent are the beliefs you hold originally your own or adopted from others such as peers, parents, and education? 

Quote #2 - Friedrich Nietzsche

The surest way to corrupt the youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.  

-Friedrich Nietzsche