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.