Why do people tend to conform to different religions?

Answer 1

One of my essays for my psychology degree was on this title, here it is. Remember, if you are doing research for a similar essay title do not quote this one. First of all it is already listed in the 'anti plagiarism' system and secondly I am not a professor, but it got an excellent grade. So if anything use it as a means to understanding what you have to write about in your essay and make use of the reference list at the bottom and the link provided. Have fun reading.

Conformity, as described in Martin G. N. et al (2007, p. 722), is "a deep-seated cognitive change" and usually derives from a previously existing group with self-defining norms. Although, the word conformity itself, is a somewhat broad term and therefore as Aronson, E., et al (1999) describes it quite nicely we can divide it into two different types: private acceptance and public compliance. Private being the former explanation of conformity and public, also often referred to as compliance is, on the other hand, a mere "surface change in behaviour" (Marting G. N. et al 2007, p. 722) and does not result in any long-lasting changes in a person's behavioral pattern. Many a researcher wished to find out as to why people conformed and in which ways this was done. Is it a majority/minority influence? Or did it occur due to processes coined 'informational influence' and 'normative influence' by Deutsch and Gerard (1955, cited in Martin G. N. et al 2007)? In order to answer such questions some classic experiments had been conducted in the past by researchers such as Asch, Milgram, Moscovici and Sherif to assess the influence of group or individual behaviour on a person's willingness to conform. But one could argue that they be out of date so what do more recent studies suggest? Do they support the conclusions to which Asch and the others came to? Or have individuals in society become more/less aware of the aspect of conformity and thus reduced or increased their willingness to conform?

When answering the question as to why people conform, Martin G. N. et al (2007) says that there are different ways for making people publicly comply and different ways in which people privately conform. One example is obedience; a nurse miss-reads a doctor's instructions for ear drops. The instruction leaflet read: Insert in R ear. This meant the right ear but the nurse read it as 'rear' and thus she administered the drops anally, with both the nurse and patient not questioning the doctor's authority. Also, from personal experience (I served in the Swiss army) I believe that most of the time it was just a case of public compliance rather than a real change in behavior whilst in training. Another two forms of compliance are ingratiation and reciprocity; the first being the concept of getting people to like you before asking them a request and the latter being the concept of 'indebting' or performing a favour before making the request. But now we get to ways of conforming (privately); when asked the question: Do you conform? One may now like to answer that they are resistant to conformity, that they are not a 'weak-willed' individual. This, of course, is not true, we all follow norms set down by our society; be it paying the bus fee or simply following the rules in our own home. We are governed by these rules whether we like it or not and these rules will be enforced by punishment if necessary (Martin G. N. et al 2007). Of course, there are always those who do not wish to conform. A non-conformists' way of 'resisting' the norm can range from just a simple display of clothing style to huge movements against well established norms. One example being the various feminist movements which took their course as early as the 18th through until the 20th century in which women gained the right to vote amongst other achievements, which in the then very male dominant time, it was the norm that they could not. So, in the case of feminism one could say that there was a minority influence on the majorities belief in the current norm. But there is also the case of a majority influence on the minority.

This phenomenon was studied by Asch (1951, cited in Brehm, S. S. et al 1993); he devised a task which involved the participant to match the length of a line visually with another of the same length, but the latter was mixed with lines of different lengths. A simple task one might think at first, but the catch was that there were 6 confederates in the room who would all agree on a wrong answer until it was the participants turn. Asch found that in 37% (a relatively high number as when the participants were tested alone they almost always answered correctly) of cases the participants agreed with the incorrect majority, 50% of the participants agreed over half the time and about 25% refused to be influenced by the majority. The study showed that the process by which the participants acted in was normative influence, a term coined by Deutsch and Gerard (1955, cited in Martin G. N. et al 2007) explaining the reason for their answer being that they did not wish to stand out as different in the group: public compliance. Sherif (1936, cited in Brehm S. S. 1993) conducted a similar study in order to test how group norms came to be. Compared to Asch's study, Sherif's showed a stronger tendency of private acceptance in participants. In Sherif's study participants were tested using the auto kinetic effect. An illusion involving a point of light which is fixed in a dark room; when viewed it seems to move. First the participants were tested individually and asked to estimate how far the light moved (usually between 1 and 10 inches). Later on they were placed in groups of three and again asked for their estimates. It turned out that participants estimates started to converge after many trials and a group norm was established; the process was called informational influence by Deutsch and Gerard (1955, cited in Martin G. N. et al 2007). A third experiment that was conducted by Moscovici (1969,cited in Brehm S. S. 1993) took Asch's study and turned it around. In this case the majority of the participants where to be tested using a minority (confederates) and see if they could be influenced. It involved looking at pictures of blue squares in varying intensity to which the confederates made inaccurate observations. 8% of all responses were incorrect although later studies determined that a minority group needs to be consistent as well as not to be perceived as "biased, narrow-minded, or psychologically imbalanced" (Nemeth et al 1974 cited in Brehm S. S. 1993, p. 410). And finally we have Milgram's study of obedience from 1963 cited in Martin G. N. et al (2007). Here a participant was asked to apply shocks to a confederate if they gave the wrong answer to a question. The confederate was an actor and would mimic the pain involved as if he was actually receiving the shocks. A surprisingly high percentage of participants fully complied; they administered 'shocks' of 450 volts.

Now that we have had a look at these classic studies, what do some more recent studies find when exploring the topic of conformity? A very recent remake of the classic Milgram study, a French TV show was launched in which contestants took part in a 'shocking' game. Just that in this case, participants were even more ready to conform and thus apply the shock. The percentage increased: originally 65% to a shocking 80%, suggesting that blind obedience can be elicited through the media extremely easily (Chazan, D., 2010). A second study by Hornsey M. J. et al (2003) suggested that people who are more strongly morally based will be more likely to counter-conform; morality being an element which had not been introduced by any of the classic studies. By testing participants who were for topics such as gay-law reforms and a government apology to Aborigines, being told that they were either in the minority/majority affected their behavior. The study found that the stronger the moral base of a person was, the less likely their public, as well as private intentions were when supported by a group as compared to not being supported. On the other hand, less strong morally based people tended to conform with growing group support, they were influenced by the norm thus supporting Asch's findings although it suggests that it could actually be a mere de-categorisation from the group and finding a new one that fits more with the persons morals. A third study by Smith J. R. et al (2007) looked at normative as well as informative influence processes like in Sherif's study. They found that informative influence resulted in people changing attitudes quite readily when faced with uncertainty and depending on the groups norm, even changed their willingness to conform.

In conclusion, the more recent studies as well as the French TV show are in unison with the classic studies if not even reinforce them heavily. In all cases it was observed that people would conform due to a number of factors be it either by majority/minority influence, obedience or informative/normative influence. Although one thing that I noticed was the absence of studies that would include people from totally different cultures such as Asia or Russia. Do people conform to the same amount globally and thus make it a natural occurrence or is it taught by society? In the end I think that we conform because we are a group orientated species. We wish to be liked and not be cast out like Asch's study shows quite clearly. But we also are very eager to conform if we are uncertain in order to gain peace of mind (Sherif's study). Even if we do not conform to the norms we will conform to another non-conforming group with similar beliefs. Essentially we are just hopping from one minority group to the other within the majority of a society until we find the right one with which we share our beliefs whilst still complying with the majority and its norms until we feel safe enough to speak out within our group and make a change.

Reference List

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M. (1999) Social Psychology (3rd ed.). Harlow : Longman.

Asch, S. E., (1951) Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Cited in

Brehm, S. S. & Kassin, S. M. (1993) Social Psychology, p.399 (2nd ed.). Boston: Hughton Mifflin.

Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B., (1955) A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636. Cited in Martin, G., Carlson, N., & Buskist, W. (2007). Psychology, p. 728(3rd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Hornsey, M. J., Majkut, L., Terry, D. J. & McKimmie, B. M. (2003). On being loud and proud: Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 319-335.

Martin, G., Carlson, N., & Buskist, W. (2007). Psychology (3rd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Milgram, S. (1963) Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378. Cited in Martin, G., Carlson, N., & Buskist, W. (2007). Psychology, p. 725(3rd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969) Influence of consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365-380. Cited in Brehm, S. S. & Kassin, S. M. (1993) Social Psychology, p. 409 (2nd ed.). Boston: Hughton Mifflin.

Nemeth, C., Swedlund, M., & Kanki, G. (1974). Patterning of the minority's responses and their influence on the majority. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 53-64. Cited in Brehm, S. S. & Kassin, S. M. (1993) Social Psychology, p. 410 (2nd ed.). Boston: Hughton Mifflin.

Sherif, M., (1936) The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper. Cited in Brehm, S. S. & Kassin, S. M. (1993) Social Psychology, p. 399 (2nd ed.). Boston: Hughton Mifflin.

Smith, J. R., Hogg, M. A., Martin, R. & Terry, D. J. (2007). Uncertainty and the influence of group norms in the attitude-behaviour relationship. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 769-792.

Answer 2

Humans are curious creatures and want to know the reasons for why things are the way they are. There are many philosophies that try to satisfy these questions that science cannot yet answer.

Answer 3

DO WHAT YER TOLD OR YA WILL GET A NICE HARD WHIPPIN BOI!