Research Paper on The Effects of Conformity

Conformity refers to a significant change in conduct as a result of perceived social pressure. This phenomenon, which is also known as conformity bias, can be observed at both individual and group levels. It does not merely entail aping others' behavior, but also being affected by the deeds of third parties. Essentially, it marks a considerable deviation from ordinary behavior or line of thought due to others' opinions or actions as opposed to using personal judgment.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Conformity research began with the visual discrimination experiment by Solomon Asch in 1956. In this research, participants were put in a group of six to eight, to select three lines of various lengths that coordinated that of a standard range. During the 18 preliminaries, the confederates effectively distinguished the lines in only six tests. While the participants made less than one percent errors when doing the exercise alone, they fell on 37 percent in the group setting (Berry and Holloway, 2017). This experiment provided a basis for further research into conformity as well as the effects of social pressure on decision-making. Indeed, recent research has repeatedly supported the existence of compliance within group contexts (Kelly et al., 2017). Studies uncover three primary explanations behind this circumstance, including the requirement for affiliation, want for precision, and the support of a positive self-impression. These discoveries demonstrate individuals' inclination to oblige the well-known view to keep away from analysis and social analysis, even at the danger of controlling specific ethical standards.

The results obtained from the research support the hypothesis that collective views typically influence individuals' opinions. In other words, people tend to conform to widespread beliefs even when such canons contravene their ethical judgments, especially in group settings. Specifically, the conformity effect occurs when social consensus influences decision-making concerning moral issues. People will involuntarily side with the majority even when they have a chance to air their genuine opinions due to the need for accuracy, affiliation, or a positive self-image. Typically, going against the most common view is considered to be a source of criticism for not adhering to the perceived social norm (Kundu & Cummins, 2013). People often rely on implicit or explicit rules that dictate what is permissible, forbidden, or obligatory under certain circumstances. Consequently, social consensus creates some perceived pressure that compels people to violate the norms of rationality and overlook the facts. This tendency gives room for confusion and error in decision-making, whereas resisting conformity and making independent choices could facilitate error correction.

Self-presentation is commonly a significant part of life. It has been psychologically demonstrated that women place a higher need for making a positive self-introduction. Men will, in general, be less worried about the eye to eye introduction. This is since ladies depend on long-range informal communication for contrasting themselves as well as other people. Men, then again, will, in general, utilize different profiles to build up a system (McNicol, and Thorsteinsson, 2017). With the strength of long-range interpersonal communication stages, the requirement for the eye to eye circumstances has been altogether diminished. This implies ladies utilize web-based life significantly more to publicize themselves. In a study of 106 user profiles, the motives for the usage of social network sites gathered that women use the platforms to search for information (McNicol, & Thorsteinsson, 2017). This information reiterates that women conform to influences on social media. If women are gathering information on what's in style, potential drama topics, or other similar ideas, they are fallen victim to social media conformity.

It is believed that finding ways to belong to a social group is just as crucial to life as fulfilling our basic biological needs. This makes sense in away. If you think of the idea that creating a larger social group supplies an opportunity to increase safety and get resources needed to thrive (Messing & Westwood, 2014), to get these social groups, users must engage by commenting and supporting other's content. The consequences of this are validity and addiction. People get satisfaction from people defending their content, but much of that support may be without purpose.

Conformity bias is uncovered by the research on the effects of social consensus and conformity on moral decisions. In particular, individuals regularly feel a progressively extraordinary desire to restrict a social issue on the off chance that they harbor substantial honest feelings about the subject. This circumstance is especially evident when such people accept they hold a minority viewpoint than when they bolster the more significant part see. However, these intentions rarely translate into actions. In an experiment to research this phenomenon, found that despite respondents' earlier individual socio-political perspectives and ethical responsibilities toward torment, 80 percent of them communicated less resistance to the utilization of misery when presented to a gathering setting. However, those that revealed the most grounded moral convictions against torment depicted the least expert torment demeanor change during bunch conversations. This activity gives proof of the helplessness of ethical decisions to conformity bias.

Other than the two groups that read consensual sentiments concerning Abigail's cheating, the principal concentrate likewise joined a benchmark group. This cluster read mixed opinions whereby some of Abigail's friends opposed her behavior while others supported it. The findings of this study supported the premise that this group would have a considerably lower variation in opinions than the other two. Specifically, the respondents in the control group may have expressed excellent views that were least affected by social pressure. They were under no perceived or actual obligation to conform since there was no consensus. These results encapsulate the assertion that conformity is not necessarily irrational unless one trusts that universal agreement is less influential in decision-making than personal beliefs. These results encapsulate the statement that compliance is not necessarily irrational unless one believes that widespread agreement is less prominent in the decision than own opinions. Kundu and Cummins (2013) argue that rational-actor models confirm that conformity in human actions and decision-making processes may be rational to the extent that such behavior is considered to maximize a decision's expected value. Indeed, from the perspective of game theory, individuals may prefer to air genuine views and attitudes, but the potency of this conviction depends on others' actions. This way, participants are guaranteed the highest payoffs.

In the first study, the members put together their appraisals concerning Abigail's lead on the perspectives communicated by her companions' remarks. The subsequent examination explored the impacts of admonishing on dynamic. The members were educated regarding the assessments communicated by others concerning an ethical problem. Their consequent suppositions concerning the issue were altogether unique concerning those of the primary investigation. This change in attitude amongst the participants is accurately depicted in studies on deindividuation. The physical presence of other people and their opinions is sufficient to instigate conformity in real-life settings. However, the situation is significantly different in online contexts. Perfumi, Bagnoli, Caudek, and Guazzini (2019) define deindividuation as the perceived decline in one's character. This state may occur due to sensory overload, anonymity, involvement in an act, or arousal, among other causal factors. When people make decisions in this condition, the effect of normative social influence decreases or disappears altogether. Similarly, respondents in the second study did not have any pressure to kowtow to the views expressed by Abigail's friends because they were fully aware of the potential for conformity bias.

Various scholars have attempted to provide reasons for conformity in group settings. One of the most common views is that social belief often indicates the conception of a social norm, either explicitly or implicitly. This defines the limits of what is acceptable, proscribed, or obligated under particular circumstances. Indeed, deviations from these standards entail emotional and neural activities that activate brain regions that regulate disgust or anxiety, such as the insula. These signals then alert an individual when decisions are at conflict with social norms that obligate people to either show unconditional trust or reciprocate it to others (Kundu & Cummins, 2013). In this study, the participants may have conformed due to the perception that airing opinions contrary to the consensus may violate a social norm. They may have felt compelled to support the agreement because they trusted that the widespread belief expressed by Abigail's friends was accurate. However, this obligation was not present in the control group, which was in a position to make an independent judgment, free of any influence from perceived social norms.

Conformity may result from the uncertainty that arises when consensus differs from personal beliefs and opinions. People may suspect that an agreement of views may indicate a lack of relevant information in which the consensus is based. This phenomenon is especially evident in information cascades, whereby one person is believed to have unique details. In contrast, each subsequent individual is assumed to have some private information in addition to insight into others' decisions. Any consensus between the first two people compels the third person to believe that they share some confidential information, which then forms the basis for decision-making. This cascade continues so long as that information concurs with that of the subsequent person. In the event of a disagreement between two consecutive people, it is assumed that they have different information (Kundu & Cummins, 2013). Eventually, group consensus influences judgment even when it differs from then personal beliefs. This scenario can be observed in the first study. Participants who read comments that had a unanimous verdict assumed that Abigail's friends had some private information to which they were not privy. Therefore, to avoid uncertainty, they chose to conform to the prevailing view. Similarly, the second study proves that prior warning of the possibility of conformity bias may eliminate risk and enable people to make impartial decisions.

Conformity in ethical decision-making causes both positive and negative effects. Indeed, the social support that yields conformity may generate direct upshots as well as buffer effects, such as protection from the detrimental influence of stressors. Nevertheless, Buunk and Hoorens (1992) argue that conformity may lead to a deterioration of adverse situations rather than an improvement. Specifically, social support may cause people to change existing opinions toward dangerous or stressful circumstances by propagating inaccurate views. New group members may then assimilate these beliefs since such conduct is considered reasonable or appropriate in a particular situation (Kelly et al., 2017). In this study, the unanimous support for or opposition against Abigail's cheating during an exam may be used by other students as a basis for decision-making. Therefore, another student who reads the unanimously supportive comments, for instance, has a high chance of being compelled to...