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

ossification and obedience are forms of fond mildews which strongly affect our behaviour in social situations from following fashions to committing s backsidedalous acts because we are commanded to by someone who appears to be in a position of authority. This essay looks at to what cessation are adaptity and obedience likely outcomes of human behaviour and bear individuals revoke these social influences? consent is a change in belief or behaviour in response to real or imagined group pressure when there is no direct request to comply with the group nor any designer to justify the behaviour change (Gross 2010 P401).Research has shown that when confronted by social norms individuals will often adjust their behaviour nestled to the perceived norm. The Asch (1951) prove involved subjects performing a perception task saying which of a survival of lines matched a control line in length. The subjects were unaware that the other participants in the room were confederates. During the experimentation confederates would present the same incorrect arrange to the question. Asch found that no one conformed on all the critical trials, and 13 of the 50 participants (26 per cent) never conformed.One person 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 not 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 teacher who would so pay off a shock to the savant every 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 learner plead to be released. erst 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 silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect answer and deliver the shock. Most participants asked the experimenter if they should continue. The experimenter issued a series 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 arriver 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 obey to a great goal. However lev els of obedience did alter when we look at dissimilar variations of Milgrams experiment (1963) for example proximity of learner If the teacher was located in the same room as the learner and had to press the learners hand on the shock plate, obedience fell 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 blue and asked to state the colour out loud. In the first part of the experiment the 2 confederates answered consistently green for each of the 36 slides. In the second part they answered inconsistent green 24 and blue 12 times.Moscovici found that the participants in the consistent condition 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 once. Participants in th e inconsistent condition yielded and called the slides in only 1. 3% of the trials. In this situation we can see that social influence occurs as a result of minority, rather than majority 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 history 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 defined answer and never will be as all humans are individuals with their own personality. every person is born into society with their own particular culture, language, style of dres s and behaviour. However, every person is introduced to acceptable attitudes and beliefs, and learn certain norms and values which are thought appropriate by other members of their group. This socialisation can effect peoples decision making 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 maintain the status quo by conforming to the views or behaviour of the majority or obedience to those in a position of authority. masses with strong moral convictions are less likely to be influenced therefore avoiding social influence. (Flanagan 2008).