Conformity and Social InfluenceEssay Preview: Conformity and Social InfluenceReport this essayConformity and Social InfluenceConformity and Social InfluenceAsadi SoyinkaWalden UniversityJanuary 09, 2011AbstractConformity is a form of social influence in which individuals change their attitudes and/or behavior to adhere to a group or social norm. Social Influence is the efforts on the part of one person to alter the behavior or attitudes of one or more people.
Conformity and Social InfluenceThe Heavens Gate members demonstrated conformity by having the need to escape sanctions and to live up to the expectations of others and therefore remain in their good graces. The members wanted to gain some form of a reward and wanted to avoid punishment (worldly things). I believe that the cult brought them a sense of hope and a place to belong to. They needed something to define their existence on Earth and their normal everyday lives were not rendering that definition. Many of them had families, businesses, careers, and were surrounded by people that loved them. However, when someone is miserable on the inside and fights daily for self-identity, it is easy for them to fall prey to the first person that claim they understand. Many times in life, we find ourselves psychologically absent, we have no knowledge of who we are, what our purpose in life is, and we do not know how to take our place in the great circle of life. Conformity is the result non-self awareness, our lack of self acknowledgment manifests into the desire to be acknowledged and we latch on to the first person or group of people that offer us a definition of who we are and what we are to be doing with our lives.
The Armenian and Yugoslavian would be two cultures that would be likely to conform because of the way that their native countries were taken over by the Russian culture. In countries low on individualism, conformity is popular and autonomy is rated as less important. So economically wealthy countries, when compared with poorer countries, will conceivably show fewer examples of conformity. Socioeconomic status, social and environmental conditions all play an important role in whether a culture is apt to conformity. Those who are in lower class groups and dwell in harsh environmental conditions are more prone to conformity because of their situation. They often feel that those who are in an upper socioeconomic class and who live in wealthier neighborhoods have more knowledge and so they conform to their train of thought.
–Michael S. Rogers, M.A.E.–[A] number of studies suggest that conformity is important for the economic well-being of those who live in high-income (and thus economically poor) societies, particularly under the pressure of complex social problems.
Accordingly, in low-income societies, the risk of being subject to economic collapse and therefore not subject to high level risk reduction is increased by the need to adapt to the changing society and the social context in which a highly specialized group would be established. In higher income (and hence economically poor), a highly specialized group would increase the level of individualism and thus reduce risk of high level risk reduction by increasing social capital. In poor countries, the possibility of increasing an individual’s risk-taking and thus increased chance of financial loss is the main concern.[1] In the lower and middle-income countries, individuals will be less susceptible to risk reduction and a “possible increase in risk reduction rate” would be necessary to allow for effective adaptation, even if the economic circumstances in which such a group is established would not always be favorable for individual survival.
Of course, social factors or environmental conditions that are strongly influenced by social problems, such as environmental degradation or social unrest, can also affect susceptibility for conformity. Yet that’s different for poor and highly economically poor societies. As Sorensen shows by giving a case study of a high-risk (economic) family of three that found an initial rejection of a particular trait is strongly related to a subsequent rejection of a new trait (as opposed to a more recent rejection of a trait) in low-income countries, the two groups will show different behavior trajectories with lower acceptance of a new genetic trait and higher acceptance of new traits.
What is important to recognize is that social factors (such as environmental conditions, food availability, cultural traditions, cultural traditions of people from the middle or upper levels of wealth and so on) are positively correlated with an individual’s ability to adapt to changing social conditions, even if they differ from one group to another. This suggests that in highly well-developed high income societies where conformity is strongly correlated with social security, the degree of social security is often related to an individual’s ability to adapt to a changing environment, whether that means they are less likely to be under pressure to conform or that they would not be able to adapt appropriately to the changing conditions. The less well-developed high income countries also have a greater likelihood of being in an “environmentally safe” condition that would prevent a low-risk individual from becoming a conformist. If a community is not environmentally-safe (i.e., it is less likely than other communities to be safe or environmentally-safe or highly secure in which case the risk increases; e.g., an area less secure could be environmentally-safe), then that individual’s ability to adapt to changing conditions is likely to be negatively correlated with those of other residents. Such a connection can be extended to many low-income countries as well, and it would be consistent with several recent studies showing that in a low-risk community (such as a public or private university campus) some residents perceive safety and security, but others view the environment that is most difficult to protect.
Furthermore, it might be useful to explain the effect of environmental factors on conformity in highly well-developed, geographically low
–Michael S. Rogers, M.A.E.–[A] number of studies suggest that conformity is important for the economic well-being of those who live in high-income (and thus economically poor) societies, particularly under the pressure of complex social problems.
Accordingly, in low-income societies, the risk of being subject to economic collapse and therefore not subject to high level risk reduction is increased by the need to adapt to the changing society and the social context in which a highly specialized group would be established. In higher income (and hence economically poor), a highly specialized group would increase the level of individualism and thus reduce risk of high level risk reduction by increasing social capital. In poor countries, the possibility of increasing an individual’s risk-taking and thus increased chance of financial loss is the main concern.[1] In the lower and middle-income countries, individuals will be less susceptible to risk reduction and a “possible increase in risk reduction rate” would be necessary to allow for effective adaptation, even if the economic circumstances in which such a group is established would not always be favorable for individual survival.
Of course, social factors or environmental conditions that are strongly influenced by social problems, such as environmental degradation or social unrest, can also affect susceptibility for conformity. Yet that’s different for poor and highly economically poor societies. As Sorensen shows by giving a case study of a high-risk (economic) family of three that found an initial rejection of a particular trait is strongly related to a subsequent rejection of a new trait (as opposed to a more recent rejection of a trait) in low-income countries, the two groups will show different behavior trajectories with lower acceptance of a new genetic trait and higher acceptance of new traits.
What is important to recognize is that social factors (such as environmental conditions, food availability, cultural traditions, cultural traditions of people from the middle or upper levels of wealth and so on) are positively correlated with an individual’s ability to adapt to changing social conditions, even if they differ from one group to another. This suggests that in highly well-developed high income societies where conformity is strongly correlated with social security, the degree of social security is often related to an individual’s ability to adapt to a changing environment, whether that means they are less likely to be under pressure to conform or that they would not be able to adapt appropriately to the changing conditions. The less well-developed high income countries also have a greater likelihood of being in an “environmentally safe” condition that would prevent a low-risk individual from becoming a conformist. If a community is not environmentally-safe (i.e., it is less likely than other communities to be safe or environmentally-safe or highly secure in which case the risk increases; e.g., an area less secure could be environmentally-safe), then that individual’s ability to adapt to changing conditions is likely to be negatively correlated with those of other residents. Such a connection can be extended to many low-income countries as well, and it would be consistent with several recent studies showing that in a low-risk community (such as a public or private university campus) some residents perceive safety and security, but others view the environment that is most difficult to protect.
Furthermore, it might be useful to explain the effect of environmental factors on conformity in highly well-developed, geographically low
The members of Heavens