Define Compliance, Obedience, And Conformity: Which Article

Define compliance, obedience, and conformity. Which article goes with which term

Compliance, obedience, and conformity are fundamental concepts in social psychology that explain how individuals behave in group settings and social influence processes. Compliance refers to the act of changing one's behavior in response to a direct request from another person or group, often to gain approval or avoid disapproval, without necessarily changing underlying beliefs. Obedience involves changing behavior due to a command or authority figure instructing one to act in a certain way, often entailing a relinquishment of personal judgment. Conformity is the process of aligning one's attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors with those of a group, often due to social pressure or the desire to fit in, even if the individual does not agree with the group opinion.

The article by Asch (1955), titled "Opinions and Social Pressure," primarily relates to conformity. It explores how individuals often adjust their opinions to match the group even when they believe the group is wrong, demonstrating the power of social influence on personal judgment. The Milgram (1963) article, "Behavioral Study of Obedience," pertains to obedience, as it investigates how ordinary people comply with authority figures' commands to harm others, highlighting obedience's role in authority dynamics. Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo (1973), in their article "Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison," relate to both conformity and obedience, as the study demonstrates how individuals conform to assigned roles and obey authority within a structured environment, leading to behavioral changes.

How does the Asch article apply to previous readings on self-justification? That is, can you see a group process occurring when most people agree? Apply what you learned in the Milgram and Haney and colleagues' article to more current events.

The Asch (1955) article offers critical insights into self-justification and social pressure mechanisms that contribute to conformity. In the experiment, individuals often conformed to the group's incorrect opinion despite knowing it was wrong, illustrating how group consensus can override personal judgment. This relates to the concept of self-justification, where individuals may rationalize their conformity to avoid cognitive dissonance—the discomfort experienced when one's actions conflict with personal beliefs. When most group members agree, a group process occurs, often reinforced by social norms and a desire to be accepted, leading individuals to align their opinions even against their better judgment. This collective behavior minimizes individual disagreement and encourages group cohesion.

The Milgram study (1963) demonstrates obedience to authority, which remains relevant today in understanding events like military misconduct, political atrocities, or corporate misconduct, where individuals follow orders despite moral conflicts. For instance, the misconduct of soldiers in war zones or employees in corporate scandals can be viewed through the lens of obedience pressure. The Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment further illustrates how situational factors and assigned roles can foster conformity and obedience, resulting in abusive behaviors. This understanding is crucial in current events such as the abuse of power in institutions, the militarization of police, or the compliance of employees under authoritative regimes.

In current contexts, these studies shed light on phenomena like online mob behavior, where individuals conform to group opinions or exhibit obedience to digital leaders. Similarly, the enforcement of pandemic restrictions or climate change policies involves conformity and obedience dynamics, where individuals comply with social norms or authority directives to maintain social order or avoid conflict. Recognizing these psychological mechanisms helps in designing interventions that promote ethical decision-making and foster critical thinking, especially in environments prone to groupthink or authoritative influence.

References

• Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31-35.
• Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
• Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House.
• Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
• Powell, D. (2010). Power and obedience in modern society. Journal of Social Psychology, 150(5), 463-471.
• Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2007). Socialidentity and the dynamics of obedience: A message for the movement against violence. Journal of Social Issues, 63(2), 417-432.
• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 1-40.
• Blass, T. (2004). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some concerns and alternative approaches. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(9), 1976-1990.
• Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Sage Publications.