conformism in the relationship between members of the group manifests itself in the form of the so-called social influence on a person.
The group puts pressure on a person, requiring him to follow group norms, rules, requiring subordination to the interests of the group. A person can resist this pressure, that is, be nonconformist, or it can yield to the group - to obey, i.e. be a conformist.
It is impossible to state unequivocally that one type of relationship between a person and a group is correct and another is not. Obviously, conformity can lead to the fact that a person, even realizing the wrongness of his actions, carries out them, because the group does it. At the same time, it is obvious that without conformism a cohesive group cannot be created, a balance cannot be established in the relationship between a person and a group. If a person stands on rigid nonconformist positions, then he will not be able to become a full-fledged member of the group and, at a certain point between him and the group, he is forced to leave it.
Since conformity in the relationship of a person with a group, on the one hand, is a condition for the integration of an individual into a group, and on the other hand, it can give rise to negative consequences both for the environment and for the group as a whole and for this individual in particular, it is important to find out which factors and to what extent require a member of the group to make concessions to public influence.
The nature of the tasks to be solved has a significant impact on the degree of conformity in human behavior. If tasks are not clearly defined if they do not have a clear answer, then they make a man performing them more be influenced by a group.
Group characteristic also has a great influence on the development of conformism in a person in relation to the requirements of the group. Unanimity in group behavior increases the degree of influence of the group on the individual. It is easier for a person to object or disagree if someone else in the group has an opinion different from the group's.. Conformity in human behavior in a group is influenced by the number of group members. If there are five people in the group, then unanimity has a strong influence on the individual. A further increase in the number of members of the group has little effect on the increase in the influence of the group on the person.
The desire to submit to the influence of the group directly depends on the personal relations between the members of the group, their likes and dislikes, friendship, etc. The better the personal relations between members, the higher the degree of conformity in their behavior in the group and the higher the degree of conformity in their behavior in the group and the greater the possibility of social influence on the members of the group.
Conformity - submission to the group
The influence that social groups have on the behavior of individuals is not a random factor. It is based on serious socio-psychological premises. In a special experiment by an American sociologist Solomon Ash the task was to find out the nature of the influence of the peer group on its member. The psychologist used the dummy group method, which consisted in the fact that the members of the group - six people of both sexes - gave deliberately incorrect answers to the experimenter's questions (which the experimenter had agreed with them in advance). The last, the seventh member of this group, was not aware of this circumstance and played the role of the subject in this experiment.
First, the experimenter's question was addressed to the first six members of the group, then to the subject. The questions concerned the relative length of different segments, which were proposed to be compared with each other. The picture shown to the group showed three segments, with two segments being the same length and the third shorter than the other two (not by much, but quite distinguishable). The participants in the experiment (six members of the group), by agreement with the experimenter, stated (despite the obvious difference in the length of the segments) that the segments are equal to each other.
Thus, the subject was experimentally placed in the conditions of a conflict between his perception of reality (the length of the segments) and the assessment of the same reality by the people around him, members of his social group, before a difficult choice. Unaware of the "conspiracy" of the experimenter with his group mates, with whom he had a close relationship, he had to either refute the opinion of the group, actually oppose it, oppose himself in such a situation to the whole group, or not believe himself, his perception of that what he sees, and his own assessment of what he saw. It turned out that a significant percentage of the “victims” of such an experiment preferred “not to believe their eyes”, but not to oppose their opinion to the opinion of the group.
This kind of consent of the subject with obviously incorrect estimates of the lengths of the segments, which were given with him by other members of the group, was considered as a criterion for the subordination of the subject to the group, subordination, denoted by the concept conformism. Conformism is the submission of an individual to the opinion of the majority, unconditional agreement with the position of others, regardless of whether it corresponds to the assessment of the person himself, rejection of one's own opinion, acceptance of the position of a social group, regardless of whether such a position corresponds to one's feelings, logic, accepted norms or moral and ethical standards .
In the experiment of the Russian psychologist A.P. Sopikov, students of both sexes aged 7 to 18 were examined. During the experiment, the members of the group and the subject were selected from the same class. The experimenter's conclusions were as follows: a) there is a clear fact of group pressure (it affected the behavior of 550 people); b) all people are more or less conformal (subject to the giving of the group); c) conformism is a fundamental socio-psychological phenomenon that does not disappear if one wants to get rid of it; d) conformism in complex issues is higher than in simple ones; k) conformity in people varies depending on the type of their permanent occupations; c) with age, conformity decreases and becomes constant in a given person from the age of 15-16.
Consequently, a social group, firstly, is the bearer of social values, including certain norms of behavior, and, secondly, serves as a source of coercive influence aimed at ensuring that the behavior of group members conforms to these norms.
Coercive influence can often (in cases of direct communication) be associated with the so-called suggestion effect. It has been experimentally proven that a suggestion directed at a member of the collective far exceeds the effect on a relatively isolated individual. In the first case, the personality is affected not only by the primary source of suggestion (for example, the leader), but also by each member of the group. Therefore, the opinion of the group has more power than the opinion of its individual members. Several people united in a group, acting together, collectively exert on the corresponding individual much greater impact than in cases where the same people are trying to influence such an individual, acting in isolation, one by one.
The following two fundamental points predetermine conformity as an individual's reaction to the influence of a group:
normative influence of the group: obedience to its norms, fear of being rejected by the group, losing its support, striving to earn the approval of the group, fear of being expelled, becoming a stranger, etc. Conformism increases with the growth of the intensity of intragroup ties;
information influence: the desire in conditions of non-obviousness, ambiguity of the situation to rely on the opinions of others, who supposedly have more reliable information. Conformism is the higher, the more complex, the more ambiguous, uncertain the situation assessed by the person.
Conformity and level of moral maturity
The fact that conforming behavior is not the highest form of social command is confirmed in the socio-psychological experiment of the American researcher L. Kohlberg.
The experimenter previously identified and formulated six steps for a person to achieve moral maturity:
- the first stage - the behavior of the individual is determined by obedience and the desire to avoid suffering;
- the second stage - the individual is guided by the satisfaction of his own physical needs;
- the third stage - the behavior of the individual is derived from the role he performs in interpersonal relations and is associated with the desire to earn the approval of those persons with whom he is connected by these relations (conformity);
- the fourth stage - the individual seeks to strengthen the power of the group, to approve group rules;
- the fifth stage - a person seeks to strengthen social norms, social obligations and individual rights;
- sixth - the highest stage of moral maturity - the individual is guided by the universal principles of conscience and social ideals.
Following the determination of the signs by which the indicated levels of moral maturity can be distinguished, the researcher, using a special technique, identified two polar groups of adolescents: one with the highest, the other with the lowest level of moral maturity. Then the experimenter instructed each of the teenagers from both groups to turn on an electric current, supposedly connected to one of the teenagers. It was clear from the experimental setting that the electric shock should be clearly painful for the teenager “connected” to the wire - the “victim” of the experiment. (In fact, the current was not turned on and the "victim" was in collusion with the experimenter, imitating acute pain sensations.)
Of the group of morally mature adolescents, almost two-thirds (76%) refused to comply with this instruction of the experimenter (to hurt their friend), i.e. showed non-conformal, but morally oriented behavior. Of the morally immature, only 13% of adolescents refused to fulfill it. In other words, the higher the moral maturity of a person, the lower the degree of his conformity. At the same time, it was experimentally confirmed that a high degree of personality conformity is more inherent in individuals with a relatively low level of moral maturity and, on the other hand, that with an increase in the level of morality of individuals, the elements of conformity in their behavior decrease.
Degree of conformity
The norms of a certain group are only one of the interacting elements of the "personality-group" system. Other interacting elements include the social situation in which the individual finds himself. The latter, in turn, is associated with his belonging to a particular social community, depends on the specific characteristics of this community. The degree of conformity in the behavior of a person within a social group depends on two main factors: 1) the basis that predetermines the inclusion of an individual in a social group; 2) the socio-psychological mechanism operating in the group, which influences the behavior of all members.
As a general principle, it can be stated that the stronger an individual's desire identify himself with a social group, the more conforming his behavior, i.e., the more his behavior obeys the norms, rules of behavior that are actually embodied in the behavior of members of this group. The degree of conformity of behavior also depends on the extent to which such behavior is rewarded by the group or the extent to which non-conformal behavior is condemned or punished.
In turn, the reaction of a social group to deviations in the behavior of its members from the norms shared by this group depends on both internal (for this group) and external factors. Among the internal factors is the degree of unity of the group, the degree of unity of the positions, views, attitudes shared by its members. An important factor is also the importance of observing one or another norm in the behavior of group members for the existence of the group itself. The group exerts the greater pressure, subordinating the behavior of its members to certain norms, the more important such norms are for the preservation of the group, for the protection of its collective interests. The higher the degree of unity of views and positions of group members, the higher the likelihood of identifying deviant behavior and the more often conforming behavior is rewarded.
Different social groups demand from their members different kinds of behavior - more conformal or less subject to group norms. Primary groups - the family, a close group of constantly communicating individuals, etc. - are usually not satisfied with external conformism, that is, the formal observance of certain norms of behavior.
Primary groups, within which constant and intensive interaction takes place, are characterized by the desire to ensure complete unity of opinions, positions, and socio-psychological values. This is not accidental, since this kind of maximum conformism is vital for the functioning of these groups, and discord in their activities most often begins with the separation of values, i.e., the emergence of different assessments, positions, and opinions among different members of such a group. This may be the source of conflict and the appearance of deviations in behavior.
Each social group has a certain degree of tolerance for the behavior of its members, and each member of such a group allows himself a certain degree of deviation from the norms of the group, which, however, does not undermine the position of the individual as a member of the group, does not damage his sense of unity with the group. Conflicts in the relationships between members of the group can arise precisely because of the transition by one of them of the boundaries of a tolerant attitude.
Deindividualization
A significant negative result of the influence produced by a group on its member is the effect of depersonalization (deindividualization). Depersonalization It manifests itself in the loss of a person's awareness of himself as an autonomous, independent person, the refusal to independently evaluate his actions. In turn, the effect of depersonalization is arbitrary from the process of social multiplication of the intensity of the behavior of individuals taking place in the group (for example, the simultaneous effort of several persons acting together is much higher than the simple addition of the strength that each of them would have shown acting alone), and also significant erosion of individual responsibility (“everyone did it”).
The cumulative consequence of such processes is the possibility for individuals in a group to do things that are unlikely or seem impossible for the same individuals to do alone. The social significance of the effect of deindividualization, depersonalization, the loss by the individual of the consciousness of his autonomy, the loss of the ability to act in spite of everyone is clear.
The social multiplication of the intensity of behavior is associated with an experimentally confirmed phenomenon: the simultaneous performance of jointly carried out actions (or simply the presence of other persons involved in this situation) increases emotional arousal, provides mutual infection with mood, and mutually reinforces the desire to achieve results. In such conditions, a sense of personal responsibility is also lost, which opens the way for acts of extreme cruelty, gang vandalism, violence and other forms of aggressive behavior. The personality loses itself, dissolves in group emotions and a sense of group irresponsibility.
Conformal behavior on command
A special kind of conformal behavior is the automatic subordination of a person to the command of a person who (in the opinion of such a person) has an imperious authority. It has been experimentally proven that in a significant percentage of cases people are able to inflict pain, suffering, even encroach on the life of another, solely guided by their idea that the person giving such an order has the right to do so. At the same time, a person’s own assessment of the content of such an order is eliminated, as are such restraining motives as a feeling of pity, moral requirements, etc.
In an experiment by an American researcher S. Milgram subjects were asked to teach another person to memorize a list of paired words. In case of an incorrect answer, the subjects were asked to first subject such a person to a weak electric shock. With a repeated incorrect answer, each time the force of the electric shock was proposed to be increased. In fact, there was no electric current, the “trainee” was the assistant to the experimenter, and each time he only depicted the suffering allegedly caused by the electric shock. The electric shock intensity scale ranged from weak to strong and very strong (from 15 to 450 volts). The “trainee” at first groaned, then shouted, demanded to stop the experiment, and then, with a very strong blow, he fell silent. But this did not stop the subjects. Automatic subordination of the subjects to the authority of the experimenter, up to applying a shock to the "trainee" with a voltage of 450 volts, was shown in the Milgram experiment by 63% of the subjects. At the same time, the subjects themselves did not depend on the experimenter in any way; at any moment they could freely refuse to continue the experiment. Obedience to authority in such an experiment modeled a picture of conformal criminal behavior, committing a crime on orders.
conformity". Conformity or conformal behavior is a psychological characteristic of the position of the individual relative to the position of the group, the acceptance or rejection of a certain standard by him, the measure of the subordination of the individual to group pressure. The measure of conformity is the measure of subordination to the group in the case when the opposition of opinions was subjectively perceived by the individual as a conflict. External conformity - the opinion of the group is accepted by the individual only externally, but in fact he continues to resist it; internal conformity (genuine conformism) - the individual really assimilates the opinion of the majority.Internal conformity is the result of overcoming the conflict with the group in its favor.
Conformity (majority influence)
A kind of social influence, the result of which is the desire to conform to the opinion of the majority. The term is often used in a negative sense as "thoughtless obedience to popular views, bordering on rigidity". However, from the point of view of recognition and submission to the norms of social behavior, conformism can be considered as a socially desirable phenomenon. Conformity is believed to be due to two main reasons: 1. Normative impact: conformity is caused by a sense of belonging to a group or society, as well as the need for the approval of others. 2. Information impact: conformism is caused by uncertainty and the desire to do the "right". The most famous studies in the field of conformism were carried out in the 1950s by Solomon Ash. To this day, any situation in which the majority influences the views of the aberrant* personality is known as the "Ash effect". Ash found that when faced with the opinion of the majority, individuals show a tendency to reject the evidence received through their own senses and agree with the majority. Further studies have shown that the tendency to conformity is sharply weakened under certain conditions - for example, if other people who share the opinion of a minority join the person. However, a distinction must be made between public compliance (when a person does and says what others say) and private recognition (when a person changes their core views and beliefs). Both in experimental conditions and in real life, it often happens that we give in to the desires of other people without changing our true beliefs (normative influence). Some critics argue that the study of conformism is conditioned by a specific cultural and historical context. The need for conformity, in their opinion, is not so great (see also Innovation: Minority Influence). * Abberate (lat.) - to err, deviate from something (for example, from the truth).
conformism
lat. conformis - similar, similar] - the behavior of people, characterized by opportunism, conciliation, fear of resisting the prevailing opinions and views of others (the desire not to be a "black sheep"). In totalitarian communities, states with a police regime of government, sects, etc. the predominant form of behavior, determined by pressure from the authorities and fear of possible reprisals. Antonym K. - nonconformism. The true alternative to both K. and nonconformism is the self-determination of the individual in the group. A.V. Petrovsky
CONFORMISM
from lat. conformis - similar, consistent) - opportunism, passive acceptance of the existing order, prevailing opinions, lack of one's own position, unprincipled and uncritical adherence to any model that has the greatest force of pressure. The main reason for the survivability of K. lies in the natural desire, readiness to give up any principles, if this gives at least temporary benefits and benefits, and allows you to get rid of troubles and conflicts.
conformism
from lat. conformis - similar, consistent), the same as conformity - a person's susceptibility to real or imagined group pressure, manifested in a change in his behavior and attitudes in accordance with the position of the majority that he initially did not share. Distinguish between external (public) and internal (personal) K. The first is a demonstrative obedience to the imposed opinion of the group in order to earn approval or avoid censure, and possibly more severe sanctions from the members of the group; the second is the actual transformation of individual attitudes as a result of the internal acceptance of the position of others, which is assessed as more reasonable and objective than one's own point of view. Inner K., as a rule, is accompanied by an external one, which, on the contrary, by no means always implies personal agreement with involuntarily observed group norms. With all the differences, both forms of coercion are close in that they serve as a specific way of resolving a conscious conflict between personal and dominant opinion in the group in favor of the latter: a person’s dependence on the group forces him to seek genuine or imaginary agreement with it, to adjust his behavior to seemingly alien or unusual standards. A special kind of the same dependence is negativism (non-conformism) - the desire to act at all costs contrary to the position of the ruling majority, at any cost and in all cases to assert the opposite point of view.
conformism
from lat. conformis - similar, consistent] - a manifestation of the activity of the individual, which is distinguished by the implementation of a distinctly adaptive reaction to group pressure (more precisely, to the pressure of the majority of group members) in order to avoid negative sanctions - censure or punishment for demonstrating disagreement with the generally accepted and generally proclaimed opinion and the desire not to look not like everyone else. In a certain sense, such a conformal reaction to group pressure is demonstrated by a fairly large number of people who are at the first stage of entering the reference group - at the stage of adaptation - and solving the personally significant task "to be and, most importantly, to seem like everyone else." Conformity manifests itself especially clearly in the conditions of a totalitarian social system, when a person is afraid to oppose himself to the ruling elite and the majority subordinate to it, fearing not just psychological pressure, but real repressions and threats to his physical existence. At the personal level, conformism is most often expressed as such a personal characteristic, which in social psychology is traditionally referred to as conformity, that is, the willingness of the individual to succumb to both real and only perceived as such group pressure, if not aspiration, then, in any case, a predisposition change their position and vision due to the fact that they do not coincide with the opinion of the majority. It is clear that in some cases such “compliance” can be associated with a real revision of one’s positions, and in another, only with the desire, at least at the external, behavioral level, to avoid opposing oneself to a specific community, fraught with negative sanctions, be it a small or large group. Thus, it is traditionally customary to talk about external and internal conformity. Classical experiments according to the scheme proposed and implemented by S. Asch, being aimed at studying, first of all, external conformity, showed that its presence or absence, as well as the degree of severity, are influenced by the individual psychological characteristics of the individual, his status, role, gender and age characteristics. etc., the socio-psychological specificity of the community (in the framework of classical experiments, this group is dummy), the significance of a particular group for the subject, whose propensity for conformal reactions was studied, as well as the personal significance for him of the discussed and solved problems and the level of competence as a subject, and members of a particular community. As a rule, the opposite reaction to conformity - the reaction of non-conformism, or negativism - is considered a real alternative to the manifestation of conformism. At the same time, this is far from being the case, since a nonconformal reaction, like a conformal one, reflects a personal concession under conditions of group pressure. Moreover, behavioral negativism is often associated with the fact that a specific person finds himself in an equally specific group at the individualization stage of entry, when the primary personal task is the task of "being and, most importantly, seeming different from everyone else." The real alternative to both conformism and non-conformism is the socio-psychological phenomenon of self-determination of a person in a group. It should be specially noted that both conformal and nonconformal behavior, being fairly common in groups with a low level of socio-psychological development, as a rule, is not characteristic of members of highly developed prosocial communities.
Along with the above-mentioned experiments of S. Asch, the experiments of M. Sheriff and S. Milgram, which we have already described in articles on authority and influence, are usually referred to as classical studies of conformism in social psychology. An experimental test of how far a person is ready to go, acting contrary to his beliefs and attitudes under the pressure of a group, was carried out by S. Milgram. To do this, his classic experiment, already mentioned in the article on authority, was modified as follows: “In the basic experimental situation, a team of three people (two of them are dummy subjects) tests the fourth person on a test of paired associations. Whenever the fourth participant gives an incorrect answer, the team punishes him with an electric shock. At the same time, the participants in the experiment receive the following instruction from the leader: “Teachers independently determine which blow to punish the student for a mistake. Each of you makes a suggestion, and then you punish the student with the weakest of the blows offered to you. In order for the experiment to be organized, make your proposals in order. First, the first teacher makes a proposal, then the second, and the third teacher makes his proposal last ... Thus, the role played by the naive subject gives him a real opportunity to prevent the toughening of punishment - for example, he can offer to punish the student with an electric shock throughout the experiment at 15 volts”2, as for the dummy test subjects, each time they propose to use a stronger blow, and it is they who are the first to express their opinion. In parallel, a control experiment was carried out, in which group pressure was excluded. The subject single-handedly made the decision on what category should be punished "student" for the wrong answer. According to S. Milgram, “the study involved 80 men aged 20 to 50; the experimental and control groups consisted of an equal number of participants and were identical in age and professional composition ... The experiment ... clearly demonstrated that group pressure had a significant effect on the behavior of the subjects under experimental conditions .... The main result of this study is in demonstrating the fact that the group is able to shape the behavior of the individual in an area that was thought to be extremely resistant to such influences. Following the lead of the group, the subject inflicts pain on another person by punishing him with electric shocks, the intensity of which far exceeds the intensity of the shocks applied in the absence of social pressure. ... We assumed that the protests of the victim and the internal prohibitions existing in a person on inflicting pain on another would become factors that effectively counteract the tendency to submit to group pressure. However, despite the wide range of individual differences in the behavior of the subjects, we can say that a significant number of subjects readily submitted to the pressure of dummy subjects.
No less impressive examples of the manifestation of conformism are provided by real life. As D. Myers notes, “in everyday life, our suggestibility is sometimes amazing. In late March 1954, Seattle newspapers reported on auto glass damage in a town 80 miles to the north. Similar windshield damage was reported 65 miles from Seattle on the morning of April 14, and only 45 miles the next day. In the evening, an incomprehensible force that destroys windshields reached Seattle. By midnight April 15, the police department had received more than 3,000 reports of broken windows. That same night, the mayor of the city turned to President Eisenhower for help. ... However, the newspapers hinted on April 16 that mass suggestion might be the real culprit. After 17 April, no more complaints were received. Later analysis of the shattered glass showed that these were normal road damages. Why did we pay attention to these damages only after April 14? We were tempted to stare at our windshields rather than through them.”2 Not so large-scale, but, perhaps, even more striking example of conformity from his own life is given by the famous English writer George Orwell. This incident took place in Lower Burma, where Orwell served as an officer in the English colonial police. As J. Orwell writes, by the time of the events described, “... I came to the conclusion that imperialism is evil, and the sooner I say goodbye to my service and leave, the better it will be”3. One day, Orwell was called to the local market, where, according to the Burmese, everything is destroyed by an elephant that has broken loose from the chain, in which the so-called. "hunting period" Arriving at the market, he did not find any elephant. A dozen onlookers pointed out a dozen different directions in which the elephant had disappeared. Orwell was about to go home when, suddenly, heart-rending cries were heard. It turned out that the elephant was still there and, moreover, crushed a local resident who turned up inopportunely. As J. Orwell writes, “as soon as I saw the deceased, I sent an orderly to the house of my friend who lived nearby, for a gun for hunting elephants.
The orderly appeared a few minutes later, carrying a gun and five cartridges, and in the meantime the Burmese approached and said that the elephant was in the rice fields nearby ... When I walked in that direction, probably all the inhabitants poured out of their houses and followed me. They saw the gun and excitedly shouted that I was going to kill the elephant. They didn't show much interest in the elephant when it was destroying their houses, but now that it was about to be killed, things were different. It was entertainment for them, as it would have been for the English crowd; in addition, they counted on meat. All this drove me crazy. I did not want to kill the elephant - I sent for a gun, first of all, for self-defense. ... The elephant stood about eight yards from the road, turning his left side to us. ... He pulled out grass in bunches, hit it on his knee to shake off the ground, and sent it into his mouth. ...
When I saw the elephant, I clearly realized that I did not need to kill him. Shooting a working elephant is a serious matter; it's like destroying a huge, expensive car .... From a distance, an elephant, peacefully chewing grass, looked no more dangerous than a cow. I thought then, and think now, that his urge to hunt was already passing; he will wander without harming anyone until the mahout (driver) returns and catches him. And I didn't want to kill him. I decided that I would keep an eye on him for a while, to make sure he didn't go crazy again, and then I'd go home.
But at that moment I looked back and looked at the crowd that was following me. The crowd was huge, at least two thousand people, and everyone was coming. ... I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the bright clothes .... They followed me like a magician who should show them a trick. They didn't love me. But with a gun in hand, I received their close attention. And suddenly I realized that I still have to kill the elephant. This was expected of me, and I was obliged to do it; I felt two thousand wills pushing me irresistibly forward. ...
It was very clear to me what I had to do. I have to approach the elephant... and see how he reacts. If he shows aggressiveness, I will have to shoot, if he does not pay attention to me, then it is quite possible to wait for the mahout to return. And yet, I knew it wouldn't happen. I was not a good shooter.... If an elephant rushes at me and I miss, I will have as much chance as a toad under a steamroller. But even then, I thought not so much about my own skin, but about the yellow faces watching me. Because at that moment, feeling the eyes of the crowd on me, I did not feel fear in the usual sense of the word, as if I were alone. A white man should not feel fear in front of the "natives", so he is generally fearless. The only thought was spinning in my mind: if something goes wrong, these two thousand Burmese will see me fleeing, knocked down, trampled .... And if this happens, then, it is possible, some of them will begin to laugh. This shouldn't happen. There is only one alternative. I loaded the cartridge into the magazine and lay down on the road to get better aim.
The above passage is interesting, first of all, because the situation of subordination to group influence is clearly described not from the standpoint of an external observer, which is almost always the experimenter, but from the inside, from the standpoint of the object of this influence. The power of such an impact is literally amazing. Indeed, in the perception of the situation described by its main character, there are no signs of cognitive dissonance. Both rational (absence of signs of aggression in the elephant's behavior, its high cost, obvious catastrophic consequences of a possible unsuccessful shot of an "unimportant shooter"), and emotional (pity for the elephant, irritation against the crowd, and finally, natural fears for one's own life) aspects of J. Orwell pushed him towards personal self-determination and appropriate behavior. It should also be taken into account that the biography and work of the writer do not give any reason to suspect him of a tendency to conformism, rather the opposite.
Apparently, the fact that in the situation under consideration the individual was subjected to the simultaneous influence of, in fact, two groups - directly, from the native crowd, and implicitly - from the white minority to which he belonged, played a role. At the same time, both the expectations of the crowd and the attitudes of the white minority about how an officer should act in this situation completely coincided. However, both of these groups, as follows from the above passage, did not enjoy the sympathy of J. Orwell, and their beliefs, traditions, prejudices were by no means shared by him. Yet J. Orwell shot the elephant.
Something similar can be observed in much more horrifying examples of participation in genocide and other crimes of totalitarian regimes by the most ordinary people who are by no means bloodthirsty by nature and who are not at all convinced adherents of racial, class and other similar theories. As D. Myers notes, the employees of the punitive battalion, which destroyed about 40,000 women, the elderly and children in the Warsaw ghetto, “... were neither Nazis, nor members of the SS, nor fanatics of fascism. They were workers, merchants, employees and artisans - family people, too old to serve in the army, but not able to resist a direct order to kill.
Thus, the problem of conformism is highly significant not only in relation to the relationship of the individual and relative to the local group (study, work, etc.), but also in a much broader social context.
At the same time, as is clearly seen in the example from George Orwell's story, conformism is the result of the action of a multitude of both socio-psychological and other variables, which is why identifying the causes of conforming behavior and predicting it is a rather difficult research task.
A practical social psychologist, working with a specific social community, must, on the one hand, clearly know, based on experimental data, the group of what level of development he is dealing with, and on the other hand, be aware that in a number of cases the consent of specific members groups with the position of its majority, and attempts to contradict this majority do not yet allow us to speak of a mature personal position.
Conformism is opportunistic behavior, passive acceptance of public morality and the social position of the majority. Often this word is used to explain the absence of one's own active position or personal opinion. However, conformity also has its positive aspects. The opposite of this phenomenon is considered nonconformism.
History of occurrence
For the first time this phenomenon in psychology was described by Muzafer Sherif, who studied the emergence of certain patterns in groups of subjects. However, the term "conformism" was first introduced in 1956. It was then that for the first time Solomon Asch conducted a psychological experiment with a group of people to prove the so-called conformity effect.
He was watching a group of 7 people. All of them had to determine which of the three presented segments corresponds to the reference. If people answered this question individually, then more often the answers were correct. When working in a group, one "dummy" subject had to convince the rest to change their minds. An interesting fact is that 40% changed their minds and succumbed to someone else's influence. The same data were obtained from many similar studies.
Conformism continued to be explored in the future. In 1963, the famous Milgram experiment was carried out. This scientist studied human behavior and became one of the founders of social psychology. On the basis of the study, a documentary film " Obedience".
Main types
Conformity is also called conformity. This term refers exclusively to a psychological phenomenon and is not used in other areas of human activity.
Conformism or conformity have their own types or subspecies. It is very important to be able to classify them correctly.
Allocate:
- Internal conformism, which is associated with a reassessment of values based on one's own experience. It can also be compared to self-criticism and introspection;
- Adaptation to the norms and rules of the society in which a person is located is called external conformity.
Since conformity has been studied by many talented psychologists, they naturally offered their own gradations. G. Kelman identified three levels:
G. Song singled out only two types of conformity. He spoke about rational conformism, in which a person is guided by sound reasoning. Whereas irrational conformism is akin to the herd instinct, in which human behavior is guided by emotions and instincts.
Origin factors
Not always a person tries to adapt to the opinion of the crowd. There are a number of factors that contribute to this.
First of all, it is necessary to take into account the individual characteristics of the person himself, namely the degree of his suggestibility. How 
the higher his intellectual abilities and the greater the store of knowledge, the more likely he will criticize any judgment or doubtful fact. It is also important to assess the stability and level of self-esteem and self-esteem. After all, those who are in dire need of recognition and approval of society, most often go on about the crowd.
No less important is the social status of the individual. After all, someone who occupies an important post and is used to moving up the career ladder is more often a leader than a follower.
Every situation is different. The same person in some situations shows conformism, while in others remains a bright individualist. In this case, the person's personal interest in the issue or situation plays. He also pays attention to the competence of his opponent.
Conformist Differences
If we consider conformism as a social value, then we can distinguish several groups of social conformists. They differ in the degree to which their opinions change under the pressure of others.
The first group includes situational conformists. These people are very dependent on the opinions of others and strongly crave the approval of the majority. It is stronger and more habitual for such a member of society to follow the opinion of the crowd. They live with the idea that "the crowd cannot be wrong." They are excellent performers and subordinates, but they do not like and do not know how to take the initiative. They calmly replace their own representation of the surrounding reality with a public one.
The second group are internal conformists. These are people with a very unstable position and their own opinion. In a conflict or disputable situation, they accept the opinion of the majority and internally agree with it, even if initially their opinion was different. Such behavior is considered a type of conflict resolution with the group in favor of the group. Representatives of the first and second groups are considered excellent performers and a godsend for a leader.
The third group consists of external conformists. They pretend to agree with the opinions of others, but only outwardly. Inside, they still do not agree and remain their own. A certain lack of self-confidence or an abundance of external factors does not allow them to openly protest, and not everyone dares to be an outcast.
The fourth group of people act from a position of negativism. They vehemently deny the opinion of the majority, try not to follow the lead. But this is not true non-conformism. The goal of such people is to resist everything, no matter what the cost. Their position was perfectly voiced in the Soviet cartoon with one phrase: “But Baba Yaga is against it!”. For such people, the protest itself is important, and not the defense of their own opinion, which they often do not have.
True conformism must be distinguished from unanimity and unity of opinions and views. Acceptance of other people's thoughts under the pressure of people, circumstances or individual personality traits is conformity.
from the late conformis - similar, consistent) - a moral-political and moral-psychological concept denoting opportunism, passive acceptance of the existing social order, political regime, etc., as well as the willingness to agree with the prevailing opinions and views, general sentiments common in society. How K. is also regarded as non-resistance to prevailing trends, despite their internal rejection, self-withdrawal from criticism of certain aspects of socio-political and economic reality, unwillingness to express their own opinion, refusal of excellent responsibility for their actions, blind obedience and following any requirements and instructions, emanating from the state, society, party, leader, religious organization, patriarchal community, family, etc. (Such submission may be due not only to internal beliefs, but also to the mentality, tradition). A high degree of k. based on fanaticism, dogmatism, and authoritarian thinking is characteristic of a number of religious sects. K. means the absence or suppression of one's own position and principles, as well as the rejection of them under the pressure of various forces, conditions, and circumstances. The role of the latter, depending on the situation, may be the opinion of the majority, authority, traditions, etc.
K. in many cases meets the objective interest of the state in maintaining control over the population, and often corresponds to the ideas of power structures about reliability. Therefore, K. in society is often implanted and cultivated by the dominant ideology, which serves it with the system of education, propaganda services, and the mass media. First of all, states with totalitarian regimes are prone to this. Conformist in their essence are all forms of collectivist consciousness, which involve the strict subordination of individual behavior to social norms and requirements emanating from the majority. Nevertheless, in the “free world” with its inherent cult of individualism, uniformity of judgments, stereotyped perception and thinking are also the norm. Despite outward pluralism, society imposes on its member the “rules of the game”, consumption standards, and lifestyle. Moreover, in the context of globalization, the spread of unified international forms of culture throughout almost the entire territory of the globe, K. already acts as a stereotype of consciousness, embodied in the formula “this is how the whole world lives.”
Conformity (conformal reactions) studied by social psychology should be distinguished from conformity. Assimilation defined. group norms, habits and values - a necessary aspect of the socialization of the individual and a prerequisite for the normal functioning of any social system. But the socio-psychological the mechanisms of such assimilation and the degree of autonomy of the individual in relation to the group are different. Sociologists and psychologists have long been interested in such issues as imitation, social suggestion, "psychic. infection ", etc. Since the 50s. 20th century the subject of intensive experimental psychological. studies have become methods of selection and assimilation by the individual of social information and his attitude to group pressure. It turned out that they depend on a whole set of personal factors (the degree of suggestibility of an individual, the stability of his self-esteem, the level of self-esteem, anxiety, intelligence, the need for the approval of others, etc.; in children, conformal reactions are higher than in adults, and in women - higher than in men), group (the position of the individual in the group, its significance for him, the degree of cohesion and value-oriented unity of the group), situational (the content of the task and the interest of the subject in it, his competence, whether the decision is made publicly, in a narrow circle or alone, etc.) and general cultural (to what extent is personal independence, independence of judgment, etc., valued in a given society). Therefore, although high conformity is associated with def. personality type, it cannot be considered an independent personality trait; its relation to other socio-psychological. phenomena such as suggestibility, rigidity (rigidity) of attitudes, stereotypical thinking, authoritarian syndrome, etc., requires further research.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
