Social influence is best understood when scholars study it in the context of psychology which offers direct reaction to the social forces. The response of individuals to the actions of the people in different circumstances depicts the personal judgments in that phenomenon. From this point of view, it is indispensable that social influence and conformity refer to the situation where the minority influences the majority in the society. For the swaying to occur, there is the need for the minority to emphasize on consistency influence for the majority in the group. The minority influence occurs only after a period of consistency influence. The results produced by the social influence experiment are a private acceptance of the investigation. The minority may influence the decision by the opposition through a polite request or communication. The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the various experiments regarding the social influence and conformity thus providing the reasons for compliance.
In the evaluation of the social influence and compliance, it is indispensable that there is the need of considering the principles of conformity. In this case, the focus is on power, obedience, and leadership. The power to influence others is an essential aspect of every form of social interaction. Social control refers to the ability of the minority to influence the thinking of the group to conform to a particular circumstance even when the majority are in a position to resist the change (Butera et al. 2017, p 317). For instance, the supervisors in an organization possess the social power as they always in a position to influence the employees’ thinking for efficient operation. The social influence and conformity aspect borrow idea from various studies such the Milgram’s obedience experiment, Zimbardo, and Moscovici and Minority Influence.
In performing the experiments, Milgram had the motive of understanding how the presence of an influential person in the community influences the thinking of the majority in the society. In this case, Milgram’s desire concurred with that of many psychologists who focus on explaining how influential people compel the majority to conform to the individual’s thinking. In examining the conformity of the people, Milgram used the newspaper to recruit men from entirely distinct social backgrounds who would take part in the experiment. After the training process, the researcher presented the men to a particular man whom they believed was another researcher participant (Cialdini, and Goldstein 2004, p 592). However, the reality was that the man was a research confederate. In this case, the goal of the research was to examine the influence of punishment on the learning process. One of the participants acted as the teacher while the other became the learner. The role of the learner remained sitting down and listening to the reader while the teacher controlled all the activities in the room punishing the learners whenever they go wrong. The teacher demonstrated how the electrode shocks were painful and upon the exposure of one of the participants into the electrode, he depicted the behavior shown by the teacher.
The findings from the Milgram’s experiment indicate that the authority plays an essential role in conformity. For instance, the decline in power depicted a positive relationship with compliance. The increase of the level of authority led to the rise in the level of obedience while decrease illustrated a decrease in the level of willingness. At the level when the power was high, 48% of the participants depicted high levels of obedience while 20% responded to the shocks when the teachers exposed the learners to the limited degrees of shocks (Zhu and Huberman 2014, P 1321). Additionally, the research established that unanimity is a crucial element in producing conformity and influencing the thinking of the people in the society. At the beginning of the experiment, the researcher exposed the participants to high levels of shocks which continuously declined as the test continued. However, upon the withdrawal of the exposure to the shocks, only 10% of the participants reacted to the electrode shocks. Therefore, it is undeniable that the participants had a standard behavior in complying with the authority. Through the experiment, power and unanimity are the essential factors contributing to the conformity of the individuals. Though individuals would consider it to be unethical to expose individuals to death shocks, the researcher did not have the intention of killing the participants. The focus was on establishing the reasons as to why people conform to the influence of the minority in the society.
The Zimbardo experiment set up a prison in the basement of psychology and advertised for students to participate in the investigation. In this case, the prisoners arrested at home were recruited on how to participate in the experiments research and respond to the prisoners’ social roles (Hogg 2016, p 214). There was a distinction between the positions of the prison guards and the duties of the prisoners. The experiment required the guards to work in shifts in an attempt to enforce the set rules governing the prisoners. Throughout the test, Zimbardo never used the names of the prisoners but assigned them identification numbers while the identification of the guards was through the uniforms. At the beginning of the experiment, the participants started responding to the rules with a lot of enthusiasm. However, as the condition continued becoming a threat to the physical and psychological aspects of the prisoners, they depicted high levels of resistance to the rules (Zhu and Huberman 2014, P 1321). The concern of the retaliation was to resist from the rules together with the uniform worn by the guards. However, the guards continued to harass the prisoners reminding them that they are always monitored. The guards presented the differences in social opportunities and continued to enjoy the authority over the prisoners. The released prisoners depicted the symptoms of psychological disturbance thus the need to relieve them from the imprisonment rules.
The research revealed that power is essential in influencing the situation to change the behavior of the people. In this case, the researchers, prisoners, and the guards adhered to the rules governing the prisons. The participants played their roles in the prison where the prisoners played active roles in resisting the duties of the guards. In the resistance, process, they complained of the poor condition of the cells and the uniform worn by the guards (Takala and Auvinen 2016, p 21). The researchers played a vital role in selecting the participants. They chose emotionally stable participants and assigned them the duties of the prisoners and guards. The researchers influenced the behavior of the individuals and attempted to explain the findings. The strength of the controlling of the participants provides the validity of the study as the participation of the variables suits the desire of experiment.
Though the research produced the desired results, Zimbardo appears to be unethical as he exaggerates the role power and ignores the role of personality factors in influencing the individuals’ behavior. The guards and the prisoners were recruited to act by the prison roles without considering their behavior (San Martin et al. 2015, p 48). For instance, when the prisoners complained of the poor condition in the prisons, the guards reacted in a manner suggesting that they had little concern for the people which they would otherwise depict in normal circumstances. However, a minority of the guards behaved brutally when handling the prisoners. Majority of the guards sympathized with the prisoners while others strictly applied the prison rules.
Asch agreed, and Moscovici provides a specific study in which they examine the ability of the minority to influence the behavior of the majority. From the psychological point of view, the influence of the minority over the majority is experienced since the period of the suffragette movement. However, the study findings indicate that the society has the notion that the majority in the community tends to change the behavior of the minority (Nezlek, and Smith 2017, p53). However, they indicate that it possible for the minority to change the way in which the majority in the society think and behave. Asch and Moscovici acknowledged that it was not typical for the few in the group to influence the behavior of the majority but they engaged in research with the attempt of establishing the reality of this situation. Their findings indicate that the conformity can be understood in two different perspectives. The aspects include the compliance and conversion which is common the study of social influence and conformity. In compliance point of view, the participants tend conforming to the decision by the public but privately reject them. However, conversion regards the situation where the minority changes the behavior of the majority in the community.
From the research, Moscovici argues that majority influence occurs in the perspective that it is based on the public view. The minority influence the public behavior through four different elements. For example, the change the behavioral style, the thinking style, identification, and flexibility and compliance (Gaffney and Hogg 2017, p 259). When it comes to the behavioral influence, the minority have to apply both the consistency, confidence, unbiased and the ability to resist social pressure. Amongst the four aspects, it is evident that texture is the essential aspect which enables the minority to influence the behavior of the majority of the people in the community. In establishing the importance of this element in changing the conduct of public, Moscovici created a research comparing the outcomes of the consistent minority to the inconsistent ones (Spears and Postmes 2015, P 24). From the study, the results indicate that the consistent minority produced positive results compared to the inconsistent ones in influencing the behavior of the majority. Consistency plays a vital role in compelling the majority to rethink of the issue thus getting a deep understanding of the discussed problem.
The style of thinking is also an important aspect when it comes to the consideration of the circumstances under which the minority influence of the group thinking. The influence that the public gain from the minority depend on the manner in which the people in the community think about other people’s suggestions (Martin and Hewstone 2017, 93). If the people tend to think about the minority’s thinking, there is the likelihood that the minority will have the advantage of changing the community’s way of thinking. Additionally, the majority need to be flexible in adopting or rejecting new ideas. This aspect creates an avenue through which the minority is in a position to influence the majority thinking. The issue of identification is also an important aspect in helping the minority to control the behavior of the public. This argument appears to be relevant whenever the individual seeking to change the behavior of the community has some identifiable common characteristics with the target group. Under this circumstance, it will be a possible minority to spend minimal effort in influencing the behavior of the public.
From the Milgram’s obedience experiment, Zimbardo, and Moscovici and Minority Influence it is evident that obedience, power, and leadership play an essential role in understanding the social influence and conformity by the minority. However, other factors such as the flexibility and compliance of the majority are determinants of the extent to which the minority change the behavior of the group. Irrespective of the situation in which the research is conducted, it is undeniable that consistency is vital in the process of changing the people’s thinking. Therefore, every individual willing to bring change to the community should consider the level of authority needed, the group’s characteristics considering the flexibility and ability to adopt new changes.
References
References
Butera, F., Falomir-Pichastor, J., Mugny, G. and Quiamzade, A., 2017. Minority influence. The Oxford handbook of social influence, p.317.
Cialdini, R. and Goldstein, N. 2004. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychology., 55, 591-621.
Gaffney, A. and Hogg, M., 2017. Social identity and social influence. The Oxford Handbook of Social Influence, p.259.
Hogg, M., 2016. Social identity theory. In Understanding Peace and Conflict through Social Identity Theory (pp. 3-17). Springer International Publishing.
Martin, R. and Hewstone, M., 2017. Minority Influence. Social Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies, p.93.
Nezlek, J. and Smith, C., 2017. Social Influence and Personality. The Oxford Handbook of Social Influence, p.53.
San Martin, A., Swaab, R., Sinaceur, M. and Vasiljevic, D., 2015. The double-edged impact of future expectations in groups: Minority influence depends on minorities’ and majorities’ expectations to interact again. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 128, pp.49-60.
Spears, R. and Postmes, T., 2015. Group Identity, Social Influence, and Collective Action Online. The handbook of the psychology of communication technology,
pp.23-46.
Takala, T. and Auvinen, T., 2016. The Power of Leadership Storytelling: Case of Adolf Hitler. Tamara Journal of Critical Organization Inquiry, 14(1), p.21.
Zhu, H. and Huberman, B., 2014. To switch or not to switch: understanding social influence in online choices. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(10), pp.1329-1344.
