To What Extent Are Conformity and Obedience Likely Outcomes of Human Behaviour

Conformity and regard ar forms of affectionate influences which strongly affect our conduct in genial situations from following fashions to committing im moralistic acts because we are commanded to by some wizard who appears to be in a position of authority. This essay looks at to what extent are conformity and obedience likely outcomes of human behaviour and can individuals avoid these social influences? Conformity is a change in belief or behaviour in response to real or imagined group pushure when there is no direct request to comply with the group nor any priming to justify the behaviour change (Gross 2010 P401).Research has shown that when confronted by social norms individuals will frequently adjust their behaviour closer to the perceived norm. The Asch (1951) try out involved subjects do a perception task saying which of a selection of lines matched a control line in length. The subjects were unaware that the other participants in the direction were confederates. During the experiment confederates would give the same incorrect answer to the question. Asch found that no one conformed on all the critical trials, and 13 of the 50 participants (26 per cent) neer conformed.One soul conformed on 11 of the 12 critical trials, and about 75 per cent conformed at least once during the experiment. (Gross 2010 P403). This is backed up by Doms and Avermaet (1981) experiment they reproduced the same result as Asch. Obedience means behaving as instructed, but non necessarily changing your opinions. Obedience happens when you are explicitly directed to do something. Most obedience is reasonable, but when it is to unjust authority, the consequences may be disastrous. Flanagan 2008 P125) In Milgrams experiment (1963) each participant took the role of a instructor who would thus deliver a shock to the student each time an incorrect answer was produced. Whilst the participant believed that he was delivering real shocks the student was actually a confede rate in the experiment. As the experiment progressed the teacher would hear the student plead to be released. Once the 300-volt level had been reached the learner banged on the wall and demanded to be released.After this point the learner was completely tongueless and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this lock as an incorrect answer and deliver the shock. Most participants asked the experimenter if they should continue. The experimenter issued a serial publication of commands to prod the participants along please continue and the experiment requires that you continue. The results of the experiment show that of the 40 participants 26 delivered the maximum shocks while only 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels.Some participants became extremely agitated and angry at the experimenter but continued to follow his orders. The findings from both these experiments would suggest that we conform and imitate to a great extent. However levels of obedience did alter when we look at unlike variations of Milgrams experiment (1963) for example proximity of learner If the teacher was placed in the same room as the learner and had to press the learners hand on the shock plate, obedience hide to 30%. Flanagan 2008 P125). Moscovici in his experiment of minority influence showed that people did not conform or obey. He placed 2 confederates together with 4 genuine participants all had no colour blindness. They were shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of toothsome and asked to state the colour out loud. In the kickoff part of the experiment the 2 confederates answered consistently green for each of the 36 slides. In the piece part they answered inconsistent green 24 and blue 12 times.Moscovici found that the participants in the consistent assure yielded and called the slides green in 8. 4% of trials. 32% of the participants in the consistent condition reported a green slide at least on ce. Participants in the inconsistent condition yielded and called the slides in only 1. 3% of the trials. In this situation we can larn that social influence occurs as a result of minority, rather than volume influence therefore minorities can influence the majority but not all the time and only when the confederates behaved consistently.Moscovici shows that if majority influence was the only process, then opinions would never change because we all would continue to follow the majority. Yet level is littered with examples of changing attitudes, such as those towards females and homosexuals. These changes are due to minority influence. These findings to somewhere towards answering the initial question of this discussion to what extent are conformity and obedience likely outcomes of human behaviour?Obviously there is no definite answer and never will be as all humans are individuals with their own personality. Every person is innate(p) into society with their own particular cultur e, language, style of dress and behaviour. However, every person is introduced to acceptable attitudes and beliefs, and learn certain norms and values which are thought take over by other members of their group. This socialisation can effect peoples decision qualification and choices because we as humans feel the need to have acceptance and to be part of a group therefore to conform and obide.In answer to the second question can individuals avoid these social influences? Social influence occurs when ones emotions, opinions or behaviours are effected by others and can be seen in conformity and obedience. Social Influence is largely concerned with the factors that exert the status quo by conforming to the views or behaviour of the majority or obedience to those in a position of authority. People with strong moral convictions are less likely to be influenced therefore avoiding social influence. (Flanagan 2008).