Goup Influence on Self

Group decide on egotism from a Classical and Contemporary View Elizabeth H. Dixon PSYCH/555 September 3, 2011 Kelly Topp, Ph. D. Group make on Self from a Classical and Contemporary View homo behaviour is often strongly affected by otherwise throng and collectionings of muckle as well as the conventions to which a person may belong. Groups usually throw established norms that tell its members how they argon expected brook as members of the separate.According to Baron, Branscombe, and Byrne(2009), Perhaps much to a greater extent(prenominal) surprising is the f knead that often, we atomic number 18 strongly affected by the mere presence of others, even if we be non part of a ruleal group (Chapter 11, Effects of the nominal head of Others, para. 1). Individuals can as well as withdraw from groups if they believe that the group is no lasting providing their needs or has miscellanyd to a time period where the group no long reflects their desires, beliefs, need s, or determine. Both of the above-menti hotshotd styles of fundamental interactions can greatly affect an psyche and how he or she may come to confiness indoors their societal function of self.These norms and expectations atomic number 18 a part of group charm and what is known as shape and faithfulness. The subject of this paper allow for compare and contrast the c one timepts of abidance and obedience, analyze a unmixed and contemporary study concerning the effect of group make for on the self, and analyze private and societal decides that lead to deflexion from dominant group norms. A Comparison and Contrast of the Concept of concurrence and Obedience Group submit is a result of changes that result from indirect or direct interaction with groups of people.According to Fiske (2010), Social influence broadly encompasses both changes in beliefs, attitudes, or behavior that result from interpersonal interaction (Social set Doing What Others Do and Say, Conceptua l Definitions, para. 1). As such, the main influence of social influence is that of norms and aims in interactive settings. Key concepts aid in describing and analyzing the concept of social influence. For the purpose of the subject of this paper, uniformity and obedience are twain of the concepts that will be discussed. Conformity and obedience are equivalent in setting and meaning however, to each one affects an ndividual contrastively and has distinct differences when one is to define each concept. Conformity When one defines conformity, he or she must not impede to note that conformity equals in diverse types concerning individuals who are driveing to make full their needs, wants, and desires. Conformity is a form of social influence in which individuals change their attitudes and/or behavior to adhere to a group or social norm (Shiraev & Levy, 2010, Social Interaction, Conformity, para. 1). Conformity is taught at very early ages. Parents prat expectations of behav ior on children as early as pre-kindergarten years.As children begin to interact with other groups of people, they continue to learn that conformity is the baseline of norms and is the unwritten rules of behavior. sometimes conformity hap create verballys as a motive to gain rewards or debar forms of punishment. This form of behavior is known as residency, and tends to bring hope to individuals in need. For example, if people are despe set up because of a lack of a need, or poverty, they may comply because of what may seem to be a persuade solution to their problems. Another reason that conformity exist is to escape sanctions administered by a group of people.For example, a person who does not conform to the expectations and rules of a group may receive sanctions, such as fines, against him or her and becomes at insecurity of ostracism from the group. Along the line of sanctioning, another reason that a person might conform is to remain in the good graces of others by living up to the expectations of others. In this case it is usually accredited that the others give a majority of people. For example, people visit other countries that save antithetic ethnical norms, such as a woman wearing a scarf to cover her face.As a way to show respect for the culture, a woman may conform to the norms while a visitor at heart that particular country. Finally, a person may practice conformity because he or she is forced to comply. For an example, if a store is in the process of a burglary, the cashier and store clerk may do whatever the robber tell them to do. Both workers could also be compliant because they may be in a situation in which they are held at dot and does not want to put themselves at a higher risk of creation hurt or killed. Obedience People tend to try to interchange to use of the term conformity and obedience.Although obedience is very quasi(prenominal) to conformity, the main difference between the two concepts is the source of the influence , or part upon each term. Conformity has to a greater extent to do with social expectations inwardly a group or society, whereas obedience has more to do with influence from consent given by others or contours of pronouncement. Obedience is a form of conformity when a person simply follows orders given by others. Obedience to warrant is defined as following orders given by an pronouncement estimate (Shiraev & Levy, 2010, Social Interaction, Following Orders, para. 1).When obedience is shown toward another person or group of people, there is a belief that the authority figure has the right to beg actions, give orders, or issue requests. When a daycare worker wants compliance from the children in the daycare, obedience is the term used to describe what the worker wants from the children. When a police officer says to an individual stop and put your hands up obedience is about a demand of action from a figure of authority. One way to define the difference of obedience and con formity is by noting that obedience is the result of a deliberate or active form of social influence (Shiraev & Levy, 2010).In other words, conformity involves more personal choices than obedience, which involves an authority figure telling an individual or others how to behave in a particular way. Studies and research confirm that the concepts of conformity and obedience are similar in that each concept is driven by social interaction and social influences that greatly affect the concept of self. A Classical vignette Concerning the Effect of Group Influence on the Self A historically well-known study of the self and the effect of group influence was that of an tribulation conducted by a 1950s psychologist named Solomon Asch.Asch hypothesized that individual judgment is influenced by norms. Asch was interested in the extent that a person may follow or rebel against group expectations and norms. In Aschs auditions, a group of students were informed that they were to infix in a vision test. One subject was not told that the other participants were assistants of the experimenter ( participators). In the beginning of the experiment, the confederates were answering questions correctly, but eventually began to answer the questions monstrously.The test subject knowingly had the correct answers but eventually began to answer the questions ill-timedly. It became diaphanous that the individual was trying to conform to the participants who answered the question incorrectly. Findings of the Classical Study near 75 % of the participants in these experiments went along with the other participants of the group at least(prenominal) once. The results indicated, along with the trial experiments, conformity approximately one-third of the time. Asch also effect that the size of the opposing participants affected conformity as well.If the opposing is the majority, careless(predicate) of the number in the group, subjects conform just as easily as they would if the grou p is much larger in number. The experiments also showed the effect of group number and conformity. In the experiment when there was a presence of tether or more confederates, the train of conformity was more significant and provable than the presence of one or two confederates. When more confederates was given the incorrect answer, while one confederate gave the correct answer, the level of conformity was dramatically lowered to between 5 to 10 %.Later studies have also back up this finding suggesting that social support is a valuable tool in decreasing or combating conformity (Morris & Miller, 1975). Limitations or Shortcomings with the Study The Asch experiments was criticized and believed to have limitations because critics of the experiment believed that participants had specific reasons in choosing to conform. According to some critics, the individuals may not have had a desire to conform to the group and that conformity could have occurred because of motivation to avoid an y conflict.Critics also believed that the lab experiments may not have been an accurate reflection of the situations of the real-world. A Contemporary Study Concerning the Effect of the Influence of Obedience on the Self The January 2009 issue of American Psychologist discusses a more contemporary, overbold study that replicated Milgrams classic obedience experiment (Schaefer, 2011). In Milgrams 1960 experiment, participants were asked to confer electrical shocks to a person who was known as the learner whenever an incorrect answer was given. Realistically, the learner was pretending to be shocked, as was a confederate in the experiment.The experiment was to prove and determine the willingness of people to obey the commands of a figure of authority. Despite that the learner seemed to be in serious distress, 65% of participants displayed a willingness to deliver the maximum level of shocks to the learner. Recently, a psychology professor at Santa Clara University, by the name of Jerry Burger, performed an experiment that replicated Milgrams famous study (Schafer, 2011). below the very(prenominal) hypothesis of Milgrams experiment, using modifications and safeguards to protect participants welfare, Burger repeated areas of the Milgrams experiment with college undergraduates.Burgers maximum shock level was 150-volts instead of the maestro 450-volts, and also participants were carefully screened to find whether or not the participants might pose negative reactions to the experiment. Burger also ensured done a screening process that students did not have knowledge of Milgrams study. Findings of the Contemporary Study The results of the replication of the experiments showed astonishingly and startlingly similarities to Milgrams master copy 1960 experiment. The participants, just as in the superior experience, showed a high level of willingness to shock the learner.The most comparable point in the two studies heared a full obedience measured rate of 70 % , not significantly high, compared to the rate of 82. 5 % measured more than 40 years ago. The results of Burgers experiment were high enough to reveal that participants obeyed at the same rate as in Milgrams original study. Limitations or Shortcomings with the Study Critics of Burgers experiment believe there are too many differences and lack of connections between his study and the earlier studies of obedience research to allow precise and useful comparisons in spite of appearance the study.The extreme differences in the maximum voltage are an example of what the critics view as conceptually unacceptable. However, supporters indicate that it is true that direct comparisons cannot be make when there is a significant difference between the 150-volt maximum of Burgers research and Milgrams 450-volt maximum however, Burgers procedures can be used to further the geographic expedition of some of the situational variables studied by Milgram, along with other possible redundant variabl es. This further exploration of variables would assist in explanations when analyzing contemporary examples of group influence on the self.A Contemporary Example of the Effect That Group Influence Has on the Self A contemporary example of the effect that group influence has on the self is an approach that reminds this author of a friend that she once had in college. This friend was a freshman that had never been away from menage or her parents, and for the first time ever, was making decision about her manner on her own. This friend, who will be referred to as Angela was bright and ambitious. Angela was so vehement to fit in that she was willing to be a friend to anyone.Although Angela came from a cryptic family, she was not the type of person who would look down on others or prejudge others. Angela became friends with a girl that she met in one of her classes. Initially, the newfound friend seemed to bid Angela, and both of them uniformd some of the same things. The new frie nd who will be referred to as Jeannie was a sophomore, and also from a rich background and quite preppy. Jeannie dressed a certain way, and carried herself a certain way, which was one of the true opposites between her and Angela.As time went by, including the school summer break, Jeannie and Angela became the best of friends. Upon their return to school, Jeannie introduced Angela to the girls in her sorority. Angela thought that it was a privilege that this fully grown sorority seemed to have an interest in her. Angela immediately took to the group of young ladies. eventually she pledged the sorority and became a member. During this time, this writer was still a friend of Angela however, this writer noticed that Angela really did change.Angela altered her behavior and attitude to that of the group members. Angela bought dear(predicate) clothing and gadgets just so that she could be just like everyone in her group. Angela started to look down on other students by openly referrin g to them as wanna-bes and other terms. Angela would be disrespectful toward members of the other sororities and always seemed to act as if she were better than everyone else. Angela acted as if she had very much power and authority, and within a years time, had conformed totally to the behaviors of her sorors.Angela had other friends, just like this writer, but eventually lost their friendship because of her snooty ways. Angelas transubstantiation and the Conformity Theory This writers story is an example of the conformity theory in psychology. When Angela altered her behaviors and attitudes to that of the sorority members, she displayed one of the key aspects of the conformity theory known as the normative social influence. Angela openly referred to other people as wanna-bes and began to look down on others, as she go along to follow the aspects of normative social influence.When normative social influence is exhibited, the influence of others leads one to conform to be accepte d and liked by members within the group. The social impact theory is also displayed in this story because Angela became physiologically closer to the members within the sorority. According to the social impact theory the more important the group is, the closer a persons physical distance becomes to that group. Angela found acceptance of the groups mentality as her behaviors appeared to come naturally. Referent power was another factor in Angelas transformation.Even though this sorority was not the most likeable, the group was perceived as rich girls from powerful and prominent backgrounds. Eventually Angela became just like the other members of her sorority and therefore, made other friends an outcast in her manner. A long time after becoming a member of the sorority, Angela realized how her actions were and how unbecoming it caused her to be. After realizing the true friends she had were out of her life, and cared to have nothing to do with her, she chose to alter from her soror ity and became an inactive side within her sorority.The Individual and Societal Influences that Lead To difference Sociologists, define the term degenerate as exhibiting behavior that violates the standards of conduct or expectations of a group or society (Schaefer, 2011, Chapter 7, Deviance and Social Control, What Is Deviance, para. 1). In the United States, the behaviors of drug users, alcoholics, and mentally ill people are examples of what society views as deviant behaviors. However, there are positive deviations that exist as well.Some people turn from the norm to become more of an individual, and different because they may feel like standing up for what they believe versus that of belonging to a group that may seem opposite of the persons beliefs. If one were to ask one of these people, how they became who they are, there is a strong likelihood that both individual and societal influences lead that person to these deviant behaviors. Individual Influences and Deviance Ind ividual influences that agitate deviance may stem from other factors that play a role in how individuals become defiant and deviant.When it is concerning society being the group in question, researchers agree that the offsprings actions stem from the individual influences that start from within the home. Within the family, if there is divorce, abuse, and deviant parental behaviors, there becomes a splice to delinquency as juveniles and deviance as adults. Genetics and individual abnormalities also have been proven as reasons for deviance toward societal and group norms. It is largely acceptable practice to believe that genetic influences are significant in producing deviant behavior(s) in society (Carson, Butcher, & Mineka, 1996).Some people who deviate are not mentally ill or unhealthy, but have higher levels of self-actualization. Self-Actualization is the highest level of the hierarchy, the level represents the need to be what one potentially is (Goodman, 1968, p. 2). It is al so more often than not accepted practice to believe that societal influences cause people to deviate from group norms and expectations. Societal Influences and Deviance Expectations such as cultural norms and value could cause a person to deviate from within a group.A deviant behavior clarifies moral boundaries, facilitates changes in society, encourages social unity, and affirms, as mentioned earlier, cultural norms and values (Carson, Butcher, & Mineka, 1996). Deviance is viewed by sociologists as a behavior engaged in a person by having common sociocultural backgrounds or the same experiences within a culture. In other words, deviant and nondeviant behavior is learn in the same way in that they both are behaviors that are a learned from others who engage in and encourage violation of cultural norms and values.Another form of a more common societal influence is that of chum pressure. Research has proven that deviant behavior is influenced by the presence or absence of a peer gr oup. Example of Individual and Societal Influences and Deviance An example individual influence of deviant behavior is about the life of a son who became deviant because of behaviors that stemmed from within the home. This boys deviant mother practiced ineffective parenting and began teaching her son at the early age of five, to be criminally deviant. Kimes taught Kenny, the younger of two sons, to steal, reach, and practice scams.Fortunately, Kennys oldest brother did not follow in his mothers footsteps. Kenny was graduated from high school and enrolled into college. It was in 1998 that Kenny dropped out of college to begin with his mother, a nationwide journey that initially seemed to have no particular purpose. The two made huge purchases using bad checks and fake identifications and were scamming even more to have money. The two of them murdered the victims of their biggest scams, and in July 1998, landed in rising York City, where they murdered Irene Silverman.Mrs. Silverman would be their last victim, after the two of them were infiltrated by the FBI, through a friend who sold Mrs. Kimes the illegal gun that was used to murder Irene Silverman. Sante and Kenny were tried in the spring of 2000 and found guilty of 58 different crimes (Sante) and 60 for Kenny. Sante received a sentence of 120 years and Kenny was sentenced to cxxv years. A few months later, during an interview by Court TV reporter, maria Zone, Kenny attempted to escape by pressing a ballpoint pen into Ms.Zones throat and holding her hostage for three hours before being subdued by authorities. Conclusion Many styles of group interaction exist among people. The subject of this paper had discussed the styles of conformity and obedience. There are both classical and contemporary studies that explain the importance of these styles when it concerns the concept of self and group influence. Finally, the word of this paper was to analyze individual and societal influences that lead to deviant beha vior and deviance from the dominant group norms.In conclusion, it is safe to state that groups or authority figures have powerful influence on an individual however, although this may be a fact, there are still individuals who become nonconforming because individual influences and social influences will deviate from society and group expectations and norms. References Baron, R. A. , Branscombe, N. R. , & Byrne, D. (2009). Social psychological science (12th ed. ). Retrieved from https //ecampus. phoenix. edu/ marrow/eBookLibrary2/ satiate/eReader. aspx? assetid= dcc36fe5-a546-43aa-a98f-7f22b00d6213&assetmetaid=0e66697f-8e59-426a-9e81- 0f11d551f5adch11. Carson, R.C. , Butcher, J. N. , & Mineka, S. (1996). Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life (10th ed. ). sore York, NY HarperCollins College Publishers. Fiske, S. T. (2010). Social beings Core Motives in Social Psychology (2nd ed. ). Hoboken, NJ Wiley. Goodman, R. (1968). ON THE OPERATIONALITY OF THE MASLOW NEED HIERARCHY. British Journa l of Industrial Relations, 6(1), 51-57. Morris, W. & Miller, R. (1975). The effects of census-breaking and census-pre-empting partners of reduction in conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 215-223. Schaefer, R. T. (2011). Sociology A brief introduction (9th ed. . Retrieved from https//ecampus. phoenix. edu/content/eBookLibrary2/content/eReader. aspx? assetMetaId=3e30bf5c-a204-4d0d-ad08-a0fc3ac36be5&assetDataId=1db06d3b-3487-4815-8bb6-13bc3688b4f6&assetpdfdataid=5efbce9a-4e5c-4bc3-8c17-fe40098b56f1. Shiraev, E. B. , & Levy, D. A. (2010). Cross-cultural psychology. Critical thinking and contemporary applications (4th ed. ). Retrieved from https//ecampus. phoenix. edu/content/eBookLibrary2/content/eReader. aspx? assetMetaId=ac0b2e56-5cb2-4024-abff-6da6accc415c&assetDataId=3affa4fb-bbbd-4c11-8b2d-ab669c0ea62b&assetpdfdataid=0d2966aa-e83d-4eb2-aed0-bf9949269b85.