Part Three: Analyzing How Group Dynamics Arise from Pressures to Conform
To Conform or Not to Conform.
In my past two posts, I've tried to outline how the nature of social accreditation processes are dynamic and heavily influenced by conformity and deviance. Our human nature compels us to mold our beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes to align or differ with the existing sentiments of our communities, even if it comes at the expense of personal convictions.
Every group of people establishes norms and values as informal accreditation markers. Conformity to these standards allows us to gain group endorsement (validation), while deviations can lead to negative reactions (sanctions). The pressure we feel to align with group expectations stems from motivations like social approval and our perceived value of group membership in different settings. To deepen our understanding of these dynamics even further, I think it's valuable to reference some foundational studies in social psychology.
Our first notable example is Solomon Asch's research on independence and conformity (1956), which investigates the tendency of individual people to align with group opinions, even in instances where the group's perspective seems flawed. Solomon Asch's experiments on conformity stand as some of the most iconic studies in the field of social psychology, shedding light on the complexities of group conformity and its ties to social accreditation.
These studies revealed how people often conform to group opinions, even when they know they are wrong, to avoid social disapproval. Participants matched line segments while confederates, essentially actors playing the role of participants, purposely gave incorrect answers. About one-third of participants conformed to the group's wrong answers, highlighting the strong human tendency for social validation and reluctance to challenge group consensus.
The Asch experiments involved groups of male college students, with all but one participant being actors. The true focus was on how the remaining participant would react to the actors' behavior. Participants viewed a card with lines on it and were asked to say which one matched the length of a line on another card. Actors were instructed to unanimously nominate one comparator but give either correct or incorrect responses. The real participant always responded last.
Notably, Asch's setup lacked any explicit rewards or penalties. The urge to conform stemmed purely from social and perceived pressures, accentuating the nuanced and elusive nature of the forces driving social accreditation. The Asch experiments vividly illustrated how far people may go to gain social approval, sometimes abandoning their own beliefs.
Throughout our history, there have been various events that highlight the significant impact of social validation and group conformity. One great example is the Salem Witch Trials in the seventeenth century. In colonial Massachusetts, widespread fear of witchcraft led to numerous hearings and prosecutions of those accused of practicing dark magic. During this time, intense interrogations and beliefs about witchcraft compelled many people to confess to crimes they didn't commit or accuse others based on false premises. Fear, combined with a drive for social accreditation (in this context, evading persecution), significantly influenced this grim episode in American history.
The infamous Salem witch trials started in the spring of 1692 when a group of young girls in Salem Village, Massachusetts, alleged that they were possessed by the devil and accused numerous local women of practicing witchcraft.
Conformity embodies the act of succumbing to peer or group pressures, which might manifest as bullying, persuasion, teasing, or criticism. As per Asch's study, the motivations for conformity can be segmented into two types:
Informational Influence, conformity rooted in the belief that the collective holds more informed perspectives. This variant emphasizes the informational dimension of social accreditation, viewing group consensus as a seal of approval. For example, when a university awards a degree, it serves as a testament to the recipient's knowledge or abilities. In professional contexts, others might be inclined to align with the graduate's ideas, presuming their degree reflects expertise.
Or, Normative Influence, conformity driven by the desire for group approval and connection. This aspect highlights the emotional and relational aspects of social approval. People may not conform to the group because they believe it's right, but mainly to fit in and gain social recognition. For instance, in a work environment that rewards overtime with bonuses, employees who value a work-life balance might still work late to secure the bonus and societal commendation. The inherent benefits of blending in or the disadvantages of differing can strongly influence behavior.
In summary, we may adopt others' behaviors either out of uncertainty, seeking direction (informational social influence), or a desire for group acceptance (normative social influence). The systems of both implicit and explicit accreditation lay the groundwork for the effects of informational and normative influences. They construct the framework that determines incentives and pressures, steering us towards either adhering to or diverging from societal standards.
When societal expectations are met, we typically receive validation, acting as a form of positive reinforcement, both amplifying the behavior and solidifying its cultural acceptance. Conversely, behaviors that diverge from what is conventionally accepted often face repercussions, which can discourage such actions and reinforce the existing cultural standards.
We can understand normative influences further by exploring the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct, which asserts that norms only influence behavior when they are in focus or salient. As I mentioned with Asch's study, normative beliefs are understood as beliefs about what is typically approved or disapproved by others. They can influence behavior, especially when they are prominent or activated by cues.
The Focus Theory of Normative Conduct theory introduces the concepts of descriptive norms (what is typically done) and injunctive norms (what is typically approved or disapproved). It also discusses the activation of norms by environmental cues, making them salient and influential. Basically, certain cues in the environment can make specific norms more salient or "in focus," thereby influencing behavior.
Just as certain cues can activate norms, explicit forms of accreditation can make certain societal values or standards more salient. Seeing a police cruiser parked along the road can cause a driver to slow down to ensure they're not speeding in the moment. But receiving a speeding ticket itself might prevent the driver from speeding in the future, changing their driving behaviors. The potential for social sanctions (both positive and negative) can serve as a mechanism to ensure adherence to norms. While this theory acknowledges the potential for social sanctions to ensure adherence to norms, its primary emphasis is on how norms become salient and influence behavior.
Asch's experiments demonstrate individuals adjusting their behavior based on group influence and the desire for conformity. The Focus Theory emphasizes the importance of visible social norms in context, where individuals conform for societal validation. Both theories highlight how social norms and group consensus impact individual behavior.
This tendency to conform can significantly impact how we see ourselves, as we align our self-image with a group's perspective to maintain social harmony and avoid dissonance. Recall that Cooley's 'Looking Glass Self' theory emphasizes that our self-concept is shaped by how we believe others perceive us. This reflective process is influenced by social norms and expectations. When norms are salient (as highlighted by the Focus Theory), we are more likely to believe that others are evaluating us based on these norms, thus shaping our self-concept accordingly.
Festinger's Social Comparison theory showed that we also evaluate ourselves based on comparisons with others. The norms and standards set by the group (as seen in Asch's experiments) provide a basis for these comparisons. People assess their abilities and opinions against those of the group, leading to adjustments in their self-perception and behavior. The distinction between descriptive and injunctive norms in the Focus Theory plays a role in these comparisons. We gauge our behavior and beliefs against what is typical (descriptive) and what is approved (injunctive) within the group, which in turn influences our identity formation.
The interaction of Cooley’s and Festinger’s theories with the Focus Theory and Asch’s experiments underscores the dynamic social accreditation feedback loop.
Individuals constantly compare themselves with others (Festinger) and adjust their self-concept based on how they believe others perceive them (Cooley), all while navigating explicit and implicit norms (Focus Theory) and experiencing pressures to conform or deviate from those norms (Asch).
This comprehensive view illustrates that the quest for personal validation and the formation of identity are complex processes shaped by both internal perceptions and external social forces. People strive for a positive self-concept by aligning with group norms and expectations, even when it requires modifying their genuine opinions or behaviors.
Different social environments (e.g., family, work, online communities) can have varying norms and expectations, leading us to present different facets of our identity in each setting. The salience of particular norms in each environment influences which aspects of our identity we choose to express or suppress.
Having already explored the fictional setting of "The Breakfast Club," we can see how various types of recognition, whether obvious or nuanced, shape the social structure of academic environments.
From the early steps of preschool to the hallowed halls of universities, each educational experience is built on unique traditions and standards. For example, in numerous societies, achieving academic excellence aligns with norms and often garners accolades and commendation like Honors. However, choosing to drop out might draw societal criticism. These implicit norms become explicit standards through labels.
Labels like "nerd," "jock," or "rebel" are not merely tags and titles; they're explicit markers of disapproval or social accreditation. Each label carries its own set of expectations, influencing our societal interactions. Someone branded as a "rebel" might face exclusion from certain social circles or activities.
Over time, these labels become internalized, influencing self-perception, conduct, and interpersonal dynamics. We might even begin to manifest behaviors associated with our label, regardless of whether it was a genuine facet of our character.
Labeling theory is a concept within sociology and criminology that explores how and why certain people are labeled or classified as "deviant" and how this label affects both their own self-identity and societal reactions towards them. The theory suggests that we come to identify and behave in ways that reflect how others label us. The labeling theory emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, drawing on symbolic interactionism, which emphasizes the roles of symbols and meanings in social interactions.
Edwin Lemert, a key proponent of labeling theory, distinguished between primary and secondary deviance. Primary deviance refers to initial acts of rule-breaking or non-conformity. Secondary deviance occurs when an individual accepts the label of "deviant" and begins to act accordingly, often as a result of societal reaction and alienation.
Just like Bender’s character in “The Breakfast Club,” we continuously adapt and refine our self-concept based on the feedback we receive from different social circles.
A crucial component of labeling theory is the societal reaction. It's not the act itself but the reactions to the act that make it "deviant." This can set the stage for self-fulfilling prophecies. For instance, a person labeled a "rebel" might lean further into this role, increasingly challenging authority, partly driven by the validation from peers who admire such defiance. Many studies have shown that first time offenders are more likely to repeat criminal behavior after being labeled a criminal sent to a prison in which they are isolated from civilian society and surrounded by other people labeled as criminals.
Social influences from norms and labels are not necessarily a bad thing though. Positive aspects of these social dynamics have also evolved over time, enabled by interpersonal connections and human cooperation. Next time, I'm going to explore mutual validation in one-on-one interpersonal relationships, pulling insights from attachment theory.
If you like this blog, buy me a coffee! https://ko-fi.com/callmebryy
References/Further Reading:
Conformity and Social Influence: Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 70(9), 1.
The Power of Social Norms: Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
Social Comparison Theory: Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140.
Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social Pathology. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.