ConformityEssay title: ConformityConformityBy definition conformity is a change in behaviour or belief as a result of real or imagined group; it is synonymous to agreement. It is not just acting as other people act, but it is also being affected by how they act. It means that you might even think differently from the way you would, if you were alone.
Conformity could be both good and bad, it depends on the situation. If it leads to someone to drive drunk or take part in a racist actions then without any doubt it is definitely negative. However some degree of conformity is necessary for societies to function. For example, when you stop at a red light, you are conforming to the law and to the general agreement that for the good and safety of society, a red light means stop. You stop, even though most of the time there is not a police officer on the scene to enforce the law.
Nevertheless, the word “conformity” may carry a different value in different cultures. North American and European psychologists, reflecting their individualistic cultures, give social influence, like conformity, negative labels rather than positive ones like for cooperative team play and responsiveness. Where on the contrary, other societies put a higher value on fitting in or conforming. There is a Japanese proverb that roughly translates into the saying “The nail that sticks up gets hammered down,” meaning that it is better not to stand out in a group but to conform. Military organizations are an example of a group that expects a high level of conformity in the behaviour of their members and punishes those who do not conform.
There are two forms of conformity: informational social influence and normative social influences.Informational social influence occurs when one turns to the members of ones group to obtain accurate information. An example of what is when a person goes to a posh restaurant and doesn’t know which knife and fork to use, he starts to look at other people and repeat their actions. Arthur Jenness in 1932 conducted an experiment, where participants individually estimate the number of beans in a jar, and then do the same as a group. He found that when the task was carried out in a social group, the participants would report estimates of roughly the same value (even though they had previously reported quite different estimates as individuals). The study was successful in showing majority influence, thus proving
Frequency of Consensus and Confidence with B.C.
In a previous study, Wilberts reported that Canadians were more likely than American Canadians to disagree on a subject. This was attributed to a variety of factors that varied from country to country. The only differences in these cases were that Canadians, especially those living in the Canadian region, were also more likely to rely on subjective information about topics. Additionally, the more individuals were familiar with a subject, the more likely they were to agree with the point of view they were responding to.
In order to confirm what these two conditions might indicate, the study used a computer program to generate a set of two-choice questions and asked them to respond and correct, respectively, at every level of confidence and confidence range. In an attempt to check the validity of the results, WJ used this same computer program to determine which level of confidence the computer produced. This was consistent with their previous study, and is reported in the online preceedings of this article. It is possible that, using this same tool, they could not reliably calculate a standard test score or that they could easily calculate an actual point of view. Therefore, this particular design of the computer test used these same two models.
Discussion:
This paper examines whether B.C. has a lower proportion of informed or skeptical members while more than half of Canadians are unaware. We present results of a sample panel of 10 adults who answered two questions about their own opinions of the topic, and where they agreed with various statements about the topic in some way (see Methods.). We also address concerns about whether the B.C. participation levels are different for people who are more familiar with the topic, and who do not identify as Canadian. Our results indicate the existence of a low proportion of knowledgeable and skeptical members. In addition, the relative number of informed and skeptical representatives (with a mean of 7%) is approximately the same for the same country. This may appear plausible, given that the average age of Canadians is about 22. Some of these respondents are not aware of many of the subjects used in this study. However, the authors suggest that, for those adults, it can be somewhat of a question of “who cares about the subject?”, and that, on the basis of their knowledge of social issues, it would serve as a good measure of their trustworthiness when dealing with the subject. While these findings may not apply when considering the subject at large, it is worth noting that the majority (72.6%) of respondents surveyed are familiar with many of these subjects, yet are not likely to take them up on this offer. Moreover, the lack of a general opinion gap may reflect a greater level of familiarity with some subjects, and that is relevant to this topic. Furthermore, the study has two possible explanations: the respondents may be ignorant about some of the topics used, or the subjects are unaware of others. The survey responses are likely to reflect both.
References:
Alderman, B., & Zouwer, I. (1992). The value of objective social science: Social science as a framework for studying social-institutional dynamics in a contemporary world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 407–