How does conformity encourage social change

How and when deviants can persuade the group majority. What do the words "conformity" and "deviance" mean to most people? If we took a survey and asked a group of people if the term "conformist" has positive or negative connotations, most of them would probably answer that it has negative connotations. Their response to the term "deviant" would probably be the same. Both "conformity" and "deviance" seem to have negative connotations in our society. Why do people associate negative stereotypes with these terms?

For instance, the word "conformist" perhaps conjures in their minds the image of a stereotypic "corporate man. In contrast, their minds may jump to another extreme when they hear the term "deviant. For our discussion, we need to look at the terms "conformity" and "deviance" in a new light. They are important concepts in small-group research. The popular beliefs about them, with their unfair stereotypes, have little to do with the ways in which the two concepts apply to groups.

The issue of conformity versus deviance is very important in small-group research. It becomes relevant whenever a person must choose between going along or not going along with a group. A group member in such a situation faces two or more viable options, or courses of action. This predicament can come about in two ways. First, it may be that general social acceptance supports one of the options.

For example, in a group of doctors, it may be socially acceptable for each person to use the title "Doctor. Second, the group member might face a voting majority. He or she must decide between the action the voters support and another action.

For instance, a majority of the doctors in the group could vote that all members must use the formal title. A person conforms if he or she chooses a course of action that a majority favors or that is socially acceptable. In contrast, an individual deviates if he or she chooses an action that is not socially acceptable or that a majority does not favor.

Clearly, there are countless situations when a person faces a majority opinion. For example, every time you perform the simple action of dressing in the morning you face a group of people who, as a majority, dress a certain way. Will you dress as they do, for instance in jeans and a T-shirt, or will you dress in another style if you prefer to be different? As you can see, any action that a person takes in such a circumstance is necessarily either conformity or deviance. A person can conform to or deviate from many behaviors.

For example, he or she may conform to a group standard of honesty and integrity. Is such a conformist bad? Analogously, he or she could deviate from a group whose ideal is thievery and corruption. This would probably be a good deviate. Thus, neither conformity nor deviance is intrinsically good or bad.

The popular beliefs are unfair. However, scientists have differentiated between the ways in which people conform or deviate, asking why a person behaves as he or she does. In contrast to the action, the reason behind the action may be either good or bad. For example, conforming to a group ideal of honesty and integrity not out of belief in the ideal, but only to go along with the group, probably is not good.

Researchers have labeled this kind of undesirable conformity compliance. It occurs when someone conforms in behavior alone. The member who complies simply does whatever he or she thinks the group wants him or her to do. It is usually, but not always, bad for the group. A second type of conformity, in contrast, occurs when a person conforms in beliefs as well as in behaviors.

This is called private acceptance. It is usually, but not always, good for the group. For instance, a good conformist in a group that wishes its members to be honest is someone who truly believes in honesty and all for which it stands.

This person is honest in all situations, not just to please the group. Experimenters have made similar distinctions between good and bad forms of deviant behavior. In this chapter we will study the concepts of conformity and deviance from the structural perspective. As we discussed in Chapter 1, scientists who use the structural perspective believe that there is a process by which expectations of how behaviors "will be" in groups turn into evaluations of how those behaviors "should be.

For example, Jan may tend to speak up first during the first few times a group meets. The group comes to expect that she will do so at each meeting. As time goes on, the group may develop a norm that Jan always talks first when the members get together. They could finally come to say that Jan talking first is the way it should be. The concept of norms is very important to the study of conformity and deviance.

Norms are the socially acceptable behaviors in a group. It is in relation to them that people either conform or deviate. For instance, a group has the norm that Jan always talks first.

When the other group members choose to wait for Jan to speak first, they conform. If one day Harold says something before Jan, Harold has deviated from the group norm. Before we begin our examination of conformity and deviance, we need to discuss some important points about norms. Groups can establish norms concerning almost any behavior, as long as they consider the behavior important. However, all norms are not created equal.

They have different qualities, such as whether the group itself created the norm, or how much the group accepts the norm. Here is an example. At Good Old State University , it has long been normative to dress in the "international student uniform," which consists of clothing such as blue jeans, tennis or running shoes, sweatshirts, T-shirts, and the like.

At West Point , on the other hand, it is normative to dress in a very different kind of uniform, the cadet uniform. These "dress" norms may have qualities that vary greatly. We can classify them and all other norms according to different criteria. For instance, we can group them according to their degree of formality versus informality.

Another criterion is the extent to which they are imposed upon the group from outside or from within the group itself. Scientists have found that formal norms tend to come from an outside source. We can see this at work in the example of.

In contrast, informal norms tend to emerge, as in the "international student uniform," from the group itself. A further criterion is the degree of permissible deviation.

Norms can also vary in degree of group acceptance. We can assume that the students at Good Old State U. Most West Point students probably do not wear their uniforms while on vacation, for example.

One last important point to remember about norms is that they can apply to group members in different ways. Some norms may apply to all members; other norms are relevant only to people taking specific roles in the group. As we begin our discussion, we need to point out that there will be some ambiguity in this chapter. You may find yourself wondering at times if we are examining our topic in relation to how a group does things or in relation to the group's outcome.

You can intuitively see that norms apply to both behaviors. Groups create norms to direct their members' actions in the group, and they also approve norms that relate to specific policy proposals they consider. For example, a group develops norms that apply to how it runs its meetings. Beth always calls the meeting to order, Rob usually makes a joke to break the ice, the group votes on important topics, and so on.

These norms relate to how the group does its job. The group might also, for instance, decide that all the members must wear green shirts to the meetings and that all must agree with a certain political philosophy. Such norms apply to the group's outcome. In short, there is a distinction between how the group makes decisions and what the decisions are. However, this distinction is not very important from the structural perspective.

For this reason, we will not specify when we are describing norms that apply to how a group works and when we are looking at norms regarding the outcome of a group. This ambiguity does not affect our discussion. Why do people conform to group standards? First and foremost, group members must conform to make decisions. Conformity occurs when members choose the course of action that the majority favors. For instance, a group may have a norm that requires group consensus before it can adopt a course of action.

A group consensus exists if every member of the group is willing to accept a proposal. Consensus does not imply that every member of the group really likes the proposal; it does imply that they all feel they can live with the proposal. Every person in the group must eventually conform to some decision, or the group remains stalemated. Another group might have a norm that a voting majority will dictate what the group does.

In this case, only a majority of the members must conform to an option. However, all group members need to conform to the idea that "majority rule" is the accepted procedure. Hence, group members in any kind of group must conform in some way before the group can successfully reach any decision.

Without conformity, the group will stand still. We can take this idea a step further. Members must conform to some operating procedure before the group can perform any task, including the task of making a decision. We can see why conformity is essential before a group can reach a decision. For example, three people might come together in a school lunchroom.

They consider themselves a group and have met to plan a school dance. However, the three people are not willing to agree on how the group should operate. They sit at their table and argue over whether the group should vote on topics or whether they should select a leader and allow that person to have a majority of the power.

Without solving this problem, the group members try to decide if they should write a list of tasks, but they cannot make a decision because they do not know whether they should vote on it.

As you can see, the group is unable to accomplish anything because the members will not conform in any way. Motivational Reasons. The same motivational reasons that people have for joining groups in the first place can also cause people to conform. Their reasons for conforming are:. To gain acceptance from the other group members. To achieve goals that the group intends to reach.

To achieve personal goals that they can reach through group membership for example, impressing another member to whom they are attracted. To enjoy taking part in group activities and wanting to ensure the group's continuation. There is an additional motivational reason that could lead to conformity. People may conform because the group succeeds in persuading or pressuring them to do so.

We will discuss this possibility further in the next section. Social Comparison Theory. Some researchers have proposed that people also conform as a result of a psychological need to evaluate themselves. The theory is that people want to know whether their beliefs and opinions are what they should be.

Festinger described this as a process of conformity for the sake of correctness. Researchers call his hypothesis "social comparison theory. According to Festinger , humans have a need to be "correct.

There are different kinds of standards. In the case of a belief about "physical reality," the criteria are absolute. For example, if we want to know whether we should think that an object is breakable, we only need to hit it with a hammer to find out what we should believe. In contrast, the standards concerning beliefs about "social reality" are relative. Festinger divides beliefs about social reality into two categories.

The first includes "beliefs about abilities," and the second involves "opinions. An important point is that these people cannot be too divergent from us. If they are, our comparisons with them will be meaningless.

For instance, a high-school basketball player who wishes to make a self-evaluation of his abilities as a player would be foolish to use either Michael Jordan as a standard or, at the other extreme, a three-year-old who is trying to dribble. As another example, a moderate Democrat wants to judge herself regarding an opinion. She should not use either a member of the Socialist Workers Party or a person from the Libertarian Party as a criterion.

Festinger's theory also maintains that people will attempt to change their abilities and opinions if they are not satisfied with their self-evaluation.

However, the reactions to opinions and abilities differ because people cannot react to the two categories of beliefs in the same way. People can rank abilities on a scale from "good" to "bad. It is clear that a person must move toward the "good" direction on the ranking scale in order to improve. People react to opinions differently. Instead of rating their opinions on a scale of "good" to "bad," they rate from "correct" to "incorrect.

For the Democrat to "improve" her opinions, she must change them until they are closer to the opinions of other members of the Democratic Party. She does so because she considers the opinions of other members of the Democratic Party correct.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory Social comparison theory has been very influential in the field of small-group research. However, it is not a satisfactory explanation for conformity. The weakness in the theory is that the link between a need to evaluate oneself and a tendency to change oneself is not clear.

Why should a negative self-evaluation lead someone to change and conform? Perhaps a person is satisfied with his or her lot, whether good or bad. Festinger saw this weakness in the theory.

He offered one explanation for why a person would change in reaction to a negative self-evaluation of abilities. Festinger felt that there is a cultural value for self-improvement in our society. This, he said, is the link between judgment and change when abilities are involved.

However, social comparison theory still could not explain why people would change their opinions in order to conform. Festinger created a new theory to help explain why this might happen. In he proposed the theory called "cognitive dissonance.

Festinger hypothesized that two beliefs are dissonant if one of them implies the opposite of the other. For example, a person may say, "I like my group," and also, "I disagree with my group. Without the third statement, the other two may never cause a conflict for the person. The implications of cognitive dissonance become more interesting if one of the "belief" statements involves an actual behavior. For example, an individual may have three opinions about a group.

One of these opinions involves a behavior. He or she might say, "I don't like the group," and "I don't like the task," but also, "I helped the group with the task. The first outcome is that the person experiences dissonance and must change something to be consistent. The third statement above involves the idea that the person agreed to do something.

This is relatively impervious to change because it is about an actual behavior. Thus, the person can only really change the first two statements.

The theory is unable to predict for certain which of the two opinions will most likely change. This inability is a weakness of the dissonance hypothesis. The second possible outcome when a behavior statement is part of the equation is that the person will not experience dissonance and will not need to change beliefs. This can happen because he or she may come to believe that the act of compliance is a result of pressure from the group.

The group, and not the person, is responsible for the conforming action. If this occurs, the fact that the person complied is irrelevant to his or her beliefs. There is no need to change opinions. For example, Heidi agrees to paint a house with a group. After doing so, she realizes that she does not like the group, and she does not like to paint. She may feel that she has agreed to be part of the group and is herself responsible for joining it. If she feels this way, Heidi probably will experience some internal conflict.

In that case, she needs to decide either that she does not really mind the group or that she likes painting. Or Heidi may tell the group that she wants to quit painting, but the group pressures her and says that she must continue. In such a case, Heidi probably feels no dissonance; and she does not feel a need to change her beliefs.

She can continue to paint, feeling inside that she does not like what she is doing or the group around her. Thus, dissonance is a factor only when there is inconsistency between a person's beliefs and a behavior for which the person feels personally responsible. If someone does not feel responsible for a conforming action, there is no internal conflict.

We can find similar conclusions regarding responsibility for actions within attribution theory, which was described in Chapter 3. This similarity is no accident, as Bem has shown. Kiesler and DeSalvo study. Kiesler and DeSalvo performed a study in to explore the idea that a feeling of personal responsibility is necessary before someone will experience dissonance. In their study, the researchers assigned women to task groups. They also led these women to believe that they disagreed with the rest of their group members regarding which tasks the group should perform.

There were two possible tasks. The experimenters further "gently" induced half of the participants to perform the "disapproved" task, while the other half merely "knew" of the disagreement but did not act on it. Lastly, they led the participants to believe that they would either like or dislike the group. For example, Mary and Sue come to the experiment.

The researchers tell Mary that the best task to do is Task Alpha. However, they also tell her that the group will want to do Task Beta instead. They further tell Mary that she can feel free to go ahead and pursue Task Alpha when the group meets and that she will like the other group members.

Sue, on the other hand, hears that Task Alpha is the best, but the researchers do not comment on whether she should work on Task Alpha or Task Beta. Sue hears that she will dislike her group. Kiesler and DeSalvo placed their participants in conditions similar to the ones we have described for Sue and Mary. Results showed that there were differences between the participants who simply "knew" about the disapproved task and the subjects who were "gently" induced to perform the disapproved action.

Those who merely "knew" of their disagreement with the group came to see less difference between the two tasks if they liked the other members, rather than if they disliked the group. The participants started to agree with their groups.

They liked the task they had originally preferred less and liked the task the group preferred more. In contrast, participants who complied with the "gentle" inducements came to see less difference between the tasks when they disliked the group, as opposed to when they liked it.

This outcome fits cognitive dissonance theory. When a person dislikes the group, he or she must come to like the task to alleviate the internal conflict that results. As we have seen before, performing a duty and feeling personally responsible is very difficult if a person dislikes both the group and the task.

It is best if the person can come to like either the group or the group's task. As we can see, the study results agreed with cognitive dissonance theory. The less a group pressures a person to comply with the group, the more "inside" pressure a person will feel to accept the beliefs that compliant behavior would imply. For example, Matt belongs to a group that voluntarily helps clean inner-city parks and playgrounds. When Matt helps clean, his compliant behavior implies certain beliefs about the value of cleaning the parks.

In order not to experience dissonance, Matt is likely to come to believe that there is value in his task. However, the amount of pressure that Matt feels from the group affects how much he personally urges himself to believe that cleaning is valuable. For instance, he may belong to a group with a carefree leader who lets people work at their own pace. In such a group, Matt will probably feel "internal pressure" to like the task of improving the inner-city areas.

In contrast, Matt might be in a group with a leader who starts to pressure group members, demanding compliance with the leader's rules. In this group, Matt will probably feel less compelled to believe personally in the project. Reactance theory. Brehm extended this notion in in his reactance theory. He claimed that people need to feel as if they have freedom to control their behavior. If a group threatens this freedom, individuals will be aroused to protect it.

Thus, extreme pressure from a group can backfire and lead to increased deviance. Matt, for instance, may even begin to dislike the very work he volunteered to do, cleaning parks, if his group becomes too pressure-filled. Compliance Versus Private Acceptance. In the previous section we summarized some reasons that people conform to their groups. However, in our discussion, we have not formally divided these into the reasons behind compliance versus the causes that foster private acceptance.

It may be impossible to make a clear division between the causes. It is true that, as one of their tasks, some theories definitely attempt to explain why private acceptance can occur. One study found that when public smoking bans were enacted in three California cities, compliance was high, and the cities received few reports of violations. And if most people think it is wrong to smoke in public places, would-be smokers are less likely to smoke, in part because they do not want to be criticized or reprimanded.

But conformity also carries with it the power to make human beings ignore their own consciences, sometimes to the point of committing atrocities. Milgram found that all of the participants were willing to shock the confederate at volts, and two-thirds continued to administer shocks at the very highest level of voltage.

The participants were simply willing to trust the instructor that what they were doing was okay. In order to understand how conformity works—from fairly banal examples such as public smoking bans all the way up to atrocities committed during World War II—Sunstein breaks it down into its component parts:. Signals from in-groups—people you like, trust, or admire—are far more valuable than information signals from out-groups. Reputational signals: We may have private qualms about a point of view or given course of action, but because we want to remain in the good graces of our social grouping, we suppress our dissent and eventually fall in line.

To demonstrate how a cascade can work, he cites a study by sociologist Duncan Watts, in which study participants were asked to rank a group of seventy-two songs from best to worst.

A control group was not given any information other than the songs themselves. But eight other subgroups could see how many people had previously downloaded the songs within their subgroup. Watts found that the songs the control group had labeled as the worst songs generally ended up toward the bottom, while the ones the control group favored generally ended up toward the top. If the deviant act blocks attainment of the group's goal, the members have little choice: they must label the high-status member a deviant and apply severe sanctions.

This phenomenon is known as status liability - high-status members are more liable than low-status members for major offenses. The group can reject the deviant. If majority members in a group lack the capability or the inclination to apply pressure to a deviant, they have another option available to them: they can reject the deviant. Reject can assume various forms.

Psychological isolation - The majority will ignore the deviant and refuse to interact with him even though he is physically present. Rejection and sanctioning often occur at the same time. Rejection of the deviate is a means of reestablishing equilibrium within the group because it "purifies" the membership. After the deviant is ostracized, only the conforming members remain. The group can change its own position and move into line with the deviant's.

A small minority will sometimes sway, and then even become, the majority. Even when the majority does not accept the minority's views, dissent often increases the majority's self-doubts and prompts it to consider other alternatives more seriously. Galileo, Lincoln, Freud all advanced minority positions and eventually induced the majority to adopt their beliefs. Deviant behavior is a potential threat to the group's effectiveness. Sometimes, however, an individual will engage in independent behavior not because he wishes to disrupt the group or pursue selfish objectives, but because he wants to change the rules or the procedures used by the group in pursuing its goals.

In spite of the dissident's good intentions, the group may prefer to leave well enough alone, and will attempt to suppress the proposed changes.

Question: When is independent behavior likely to produce changes rather than meet with suppression by the majority? Answer: Have to distinguish between group norms, and the goals that underlie those norms. If a member's behavior departs from group norms, but points to new ways to more fully realize the group's goals, the changes may be accepted by group members..

If a member tries to force a change in the group goals, he or she will likely meet with resistance. Only if a group has drifted aimlessly or has failed repeatedly to achieve its goals will an effort to change goals be favorably received. Innovative suggestions are more likely to be adopted if they are proposed by a well-established or high-status member. One study suggests that leaders are more able to introduce changes after they have first demonstrated commitment to the group's norms and values.

High-status members are more successful because they are usually considered more skillful and are more committed to group goals than other members. Deliberate attempts to bring about social change are made not only by individuals, but also by small subgroups called active minorities.

The majority can often dismiss the disagreement of alone minority member as the product of that person's idiosyncracy, but it is harder to discount two or more minority members who support one another. What makes a minority persuasive? The style of behavior adopted by the active minority is important in determining its success. Several studies have shown that an active minority is more likely to change the opinion of group members if its position is distinctive and consistent over time.

Whereas majorities can often gain compliance regardless of member's underlying attitudes, active minorities must truly persuade group members.

A consistent position is persuasive because it implies that the minority is clearheaded, confident, and purposive. A consistent minority causes the majority to rethink its positions. It can also stimulate creative thinking. Consistent minority becomes the focus of debate. EX: Moscovici argued that the Asch experiments actually illustrated minority influence.

The subject was a representative of the majority - perceptual competents. The other six were from the minority of perceptual incompetents. This minority was influential because of its consistency. EX: Conservative Republicans were badly beaten in In , they won with Ronald Reagan.

This may be because of their consistency. Democrats may be suffering because of their inconsistency. Self confidence. Any behavior by a minority that conveys self-confidence - for example, taking the head seat at the table - will tend to raise self-doubts among the majority. Self confidence tends also to be a trait of leaders. Charismatic leaders tend to have an unshakable faith in their cause, utter confidence in their ability to succeed, and an ability to communicate this faith in clear and simple language.

Defections from the majority. Members of the majority who might otherwise have censored their self-doubts feel freer to express them, and may even switch to the minority position. Defectors are often more persuasive than those who have been with the minority position all along. Defections can often lead to a snowball effect.

It can also help you see how other people's behavior may influence the choices you make. Ever wonder what your personality type means? Sign up to find out more in our Healthy Mind newsletter. Breckler, S. Social Psychology Alive. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Eysenck, M. Psychology: An International Perspective. Front Neurosci. Published Feb Deutsch, M. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment.

The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51 3 , — Quantifying compliance and acceptance through public and private social conformity. Conscious Cogn. Le texier T. Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. Am Psychol. The biological bases of conformity. Published Jun Asch SE. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments.