Conformity and Group Mentality: Why We Comply

Every person conforms on a daily basis through a number of activities. Wearing clothes that are a trend, driving on the right side of the road, agreeing with a political movement, and following a particular religious group are all examples of ways in which people conform. There is no inherent value in conformity; it is the cultural context that provides the connotation that determines if an action of compliance or agreement will be experienced as positive or negative (Kim & Markus, 1999). Our individualistic society is quick to label conformity as deviant in order to emphasize and reinforce the cultural values and norms associated with personal freedom, independence, and being unique. Examples of the negative or detrimental results of conforming include cult mass suicides, peer pressure drinking among young people, and group silence within families with dysfunction. Whether or not conformity is viewed as negative or positive is dependent on the culture is which it takes place. What can not be argued is that conformity is effective and pervasive (Kim & Markus, 1999). Outside of cultural context conformity is an instrumental behavior that has been reinforced from early man up until the present time. The question to be addressed is not why people conform but why must they conform?

Simply stated, we must conform to survive. The earliest conformity took place when our ancestors formed tribes. The sole purpose of such alliances were to come together to hunt and gather food. One cannot live without sustenance so aligning with a group for the purpose of attaining food together would benefit the individual. It can be argued that an individual could surely find enough food on their own to survive but the point should be raised that human beings were not the only species in the world at that time. We had many predators in the form of animals but also eventually in other human beings. When fighting off inevitable attacks from wild animals the many are more effective than the one. If our early ancestors had not formed groups they would not have been as successful in fending off predators and therefore would not have survived. Conformity in this sense has survival value.

To this day people rely on the group for satisfying individual survival needs. In the United States people depend on being part of a group, a citizen of the United States, for protection. Having dominated, domesticated, or contained all wild predators' people now must protect themselves from other human groups. When an individual is threatened the group steps up to protect in the form of family, police, and military. As Lumbert pointed out in her paper, "Conformity and Group Mentality: Why We Comply," individuals may have different motivations for conforming and only conform to a certain degree. If viewing conformity as an instrumental behavior the degree to which people conform would have some base in the benefit they get from conforming in a particular situation. The more rewarding it is to conform the more likely a person is to go along with the group in that circumstance. Survival in the face of a threat is by far the greatest reward received from conforming. People prefer life over death so if living means they must conform then they will and they have. Early man formed groups to fight off predators and we continue this behavior today because we have been reinforced since the beginning of humankind.

Today's world is one made up of groups competing with and fighting other groups. Each group believes almost unanimously amongst its members that they are correct and the ‘other' is incorrect. People conform most to those around them based simply on the fact that they are in close proximity to them allowing for more exposure. People like aligning with those similar to them because they find comfort in this group identification. This is not to say that people of different cultures do not share ideas and beliefs. When there are the means (i.e., translators, cultural knowledge, proximity) varying cultures have conformed to each other. The best examples can be found in wars when countries have made alliances with each other to fight a shared enemy ensuring the survival of both groups. When both groups were threatened, they became more similar to each other, and therefore were more inclined to conform to each other. Most people only interact face to face with people of their own culture. From an evolutionary standpoint it makes more sense to form alliances with those people close because they will be the ones most readily available when your survival is threatened.

Lumbert provided adequate motivations for conforming but as they are all socially based there must be something other motivation as a starting point. Conformity is an innate life skill that has continued in human beings because it has been reinforced with the reward of continued survival of the human race. Each culture has different connotations for conformity. Whether one views conformity as bad or good is irrelevant next to survival advantage the behavior has. Humans live to conform because they must conform to live.

The idea that group conformity affects each and every one of us in some way is no surprise; it happens on some level to every socially integrated person multiple times a day, whether it be putting on appropriate attire in the morning, eating what is widely known to be a healthy diet, or stopping at a stop light, conformity is all around us. Civilization as we know it was built on the principle that we can all work together to establish a greater cooperative ability than any individual could manage on his or her own. Without the fundamental abilities to work together and conform to the ideas of those around us, humankind would never have reached the level of social modernization that it has today (Brewer & Caporael, 1990).

An interesting and pertinent point that should be addressed when considering the reasons for group conformity is: What do we gain from this conformity? In Lumbert's "Conformity and Group Mentality: Why We Comply," it was noted that the average person enjoys knowing that he or she is correct about judgments, and Lumbert mentioned that participants will change their perceived correct answer to conform with group norms; but a key point has been overlooked in this section that should be addressed: Science. Science is intended to be a collaborative approach to knowledge wherein every individual is no longer required to unravel the mysteries of the universe within his or her short lifespan. With the advent of science, we can now look to the minds and work of others to find the answers to our questions, as well as for guidance in ambiguous situations. Science provides us the ability to live longer, healthier, more knowledgeable lives, and we owe it all to conformity.

Accepting another's ideas and thoughts as reference for our own way of life seems to come naturally to us. Some believe that group conformity is the result of a genetic predisposition that humans have acquired throughout the course of history (Barresi, 1996), and they are probably right, at least on some level. If an evolutionary perspective is proposed, a reasonable question is: If this were the case, what would provide the transmission of these conforming genes? Fortunately, or, rather, unfortunately for those who did not conform to the masses, civilization has a history of being rather unkind to those who failed to meet their level of desired conformity. There are persistent messages throughout history that tell the same story from the Bible, to the Roman Empire, to the Salem witch trials, to the rules of our own government: Conform or be judged as we see fit. And who is going to stop the masses? They are in greater number, greater strength, and their way is law. The only choice is to conform or revolt against the judgment of others--the later often resulting in the destruction of the individual. This provides a good argument for the evolutionarily minded individual: Those who failed to conform were often eliminated, meaning that if there was any biological basis of nonconformity it was likely removed slowly over the course of human history.

Humankind's (now) current predisposition to conformity and group mentality was mentioned in Lumbert's "Social Acceptance" section, but there appears to be an integral aspect missing from the discussion: Why do we desire social acceptance? There appears to be a plethora of research stating that we conform in the face of opposition, but what activates this inherent desire for conformity? The fear of rejection is mentioned by Lumbert. An interesting perspective is conceived during a situation where your unspoken thoughts vary from those around you, and the social pressure is enough that conformity is elicited. Afterward, is there a sense of accomplishment in knowing that those around you have influenced you to speak their mind instead of your own? Likely not; but it is likely that your response has in some way lessened the burden of being an outcast, at least outwardly. Within your mind there is still the knowledge that you thought otherwise, and then bent the knee to those of unlike mind nonetheless; this often creates cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance, as many can agree, is unpleasant, and there is no way to rewrite history, so there remains only one plausible option: changing one's mind. In doing so, accepting the previously undesirable perspective is justified as being the more reasonable solution and is likely to remain a more salient perspective in the future because of the associative organizational structure of our brains.

Lumbert provided some interesting points in her discussion of group conformity, but she did little to investigate the reasons for this behavior. An analysis of the evolution of conformity would have provided a powerful argument for the reason conformity exits today. An evolutionary perspective on conformity can help explain the reason that conformity comes naturally, as well as give adequate reasons for our reluctance to be a nonconformist (on a whole), our interest in reducing cognitive dissonance, and the general level of conformity that is seen throughout humankind.

When humans congregate together, the dynamics of interacting influence the actions of each individual. Conformity describes the degree to which an individual will change his or her behavior in order to be accepted into a group. Lumbert broke down the causes of conformity into five main motivations: correctness, social acceptance, group goals, social identity, and alignment with similar people. In my opinion, Lumbert was too reductive in neatly dividing motivation to conform into those categories. A member of a particular group is influenced in large part by the actions and expectations of his or her fellow group members. The strength of this influence can depend on several factors, including the self-esteem or confidence of the individual and the individual's status in the group. Effects of group influence on individuals are conditional upon the individual's inclusion in the group; once the individual leaves the group, he or she will usually resume his or her previous behavior.

Being in a group has a powerful effect on the individual. A person's behavior, especially negative behavior, may vary greatly depending on whether or not that person is a member of a group. Kiesler and Kiesler (1969) attributed this behavioral change to a reduced fear of negative consequences for an individual if he or she is acting within a group. This theory explains the actions of individuals in riots or mobs who would not perform criminal acts on an individual basis. Whereas a group member has less concern for those outside of his group, the opinions and behaviors of other members have a direct impact on the individual's behavior. Groups function on consensus, so there is pressure on each member to agree with the majority's opinion. Failure to agree can lead to rejection or banishment from the group. Fear of rejection is so strong that most of the time the dissenters end up agreeing with the majority opinion to remain in the group. The influence of group mentality to force an individual to change his or her opinion can depend on several factors, including the self-esteem and status of the individual.

Self-esteem can be a factor in how much influence a group has over an individual. Individuals with low self-esteem tend to have a low opinion of their abilities. When a group is given a problem, an individual with low self-esteem will be more likely to accept the group's conclusion and believe it to be correct even if he or she arrives at a different answer. However, an individual with high self-esteem who believes that his or her answer is correct may also agree with the group consensus in order to retain membership in the group. Kiesler and Kiesler (1969) termed this the difference between private acceptance and public compliance. The desire for group consensus can cause some individuals to change their opinions completely and to believe that the group consensus or norm is correct (private acceptance) or cause the individual to agree publicly with the group but still dissent in private (public compliance). When questioned in presence of group members, the latter would repeat the group consensus, but if asked in private, he or she would disagree.

In addition to the self-esteem of an individual, the relationship of the individual to the other members of the group also plays a role in determining whether or not the group norm is privately accepted. He or she will have an easier time privately accepting the group's consensus if other members of the group share the same general attitudes or opinions as the individual. The status of group members also contributes to the acceptance of the group norm. If one of the other group members has a much higher status, and therefore higher credibility, this increases the likelihood of the consensus being privately accepted by the dissenting individual.

Only individuals with high status in the group are allowed to deviate from the group norm or consensus with impunity. Although status can be achieved based on relevant skills or charisma, it has also been suggested that status is attained as a result of previous group compliance (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969). In essence, because the person has agreed with the group many times in the past, he or she is now allowed to deviate more than other group members. Because the individual's status is dependent on the correctness of the group, he or she will deviate from the group's norms in order to shift the group to what that individual perceives as the correct path. Of course if this fails, then the person's status could be lost nevertheless. Otherwise the high status individual conforms very closely to the group norm in order to influence group members to comply and keep the group viable, retaining status in the process. Status also influences the actions that individuals perform in groups. A new member would be relegated to menial tasks owing to his or her status as the lowest-ranking member of the group.

Group dynamics are very complicated; thus motivations may be harder to separate and classify than Lumbert suggested. Although people try to maintain a social identity by belonging to certain groups, within each group members fit into individual roles on the basis of their status within the group. This status is also dependent on how the individual conforms to the ideals of the group. The accomplishment of group goals also affects individual status, as does failing to meet those goals. Motivation to conform is also affected by an individual's self-esteem his or her relationships with other group members. Certainly the five motivations outlined by Lumbert affect how a person behaves in a group, but attention needs to be paid to how these motivations are inter-related.

Given that everyone looks for reasons to be correct, the desire to be socially accepted and to avoid rejection and conflict, the need to accomplish group goals, the necessity of establishing and maintaining a self-concept/social identity, and the alignment of oneself with similar individuals (Nail, MacDonald, &Levy, 2000). However, we always view our selves as being unique or different from everyone else. We know we have the ability to possess characteristics that separate us from the crowd or bring us more closely to one group. According to the Nail, MacDonald, and Levy's theory on conformity, people comply with societal rules under most circumstances. Lumbert explained the reasons for conformity among society for without it there would be no rules and would result in the break down of society. Lumbert explained why we conform by referring back to the five main motivations for conforming.

It has been determined that often individuals rely on social cues around them to help them interpret any situation that they are in. Going back in my own life I can find many times where I have conformed just because I did not want to be the minority or be in the "out-group." Even though the individuals that I was conforming to might have been wrong I still wanted to seem like I was in the "In-crowd." This situation was discussed in Lumbert's paper, which stated that so long as there is agreement among the members of a group, the minority will always try to become one with the majority and they will outweigh any doubt created by low confidence just to be in the majority. From the experiment it is shown that people are very concerned with being correct, which leads to conformity among individuals and groups (Pasupathi, 1999).

We all want to be accepted and want to feel like we are part of the social group. As growing up I moved around from one place to another going through different schools and different neighborhoods every year and to have friends I had to conform to the surroundings. After coming to college I did things to conform like party, drink, smoke, just to fit in and be accepted even though I knew it was bad for my health. Lumbert discussed how pressure to socialize, fit in, and conform proved to be a major motivator in the decision to engage in risky behavior and temporarily disregard the well being of ones self (Johnson & Sheets, 2004).

When working in summer of 2005 I was assigned a project to do with a group of people, which in return required the team to work as a group and comply with each other so we could finish the project. Lumbert also stated in her paper that when conforming one has to sacrifice one's own perceptions on things so it can benefit the team and to have togetherness among the group. When conforming to a group there is also a risk of not showing individualism, which in return can lead to a group not having a leader, and cause not togetherness. But if a leader is elected and the members of the group agree with the leader that in return also shows conformity. Every group does need a leader or a person who takes charge as to what actions need to be taken or not be taken.

Raised half my life in India and half my life in America, I have seen a lot of different ways that people conform in different societies. I agree with Lumbert when she mentioned culture has a lot to do with conformity. I know when I was India I was thought to not open my mouth until its need in class however after coming to America teachers wanted students to give them ideas and feedback and tell the teacher if they are wrong in what they might have said or done. This would have never happened in India because of the cultural difference and because of the power the teacher shows in class.

I agree that men are more aggressive, show more power, and dominance, whereas women are more intimate, emotional, and nurturing. For me, I think this is because when I was growing up I had seen that my father was the one who took charge in the home and provided for the family and showed aggression when things in the house weren't in the right way. Myself, my mother, and my brother conformed to his liking for he showed us his dominance and his power he had in the house. However my parents and I are from India and our culture is totally different from American culture. I have seen in American culture that women have the same say as does the man in marriage.

The last thing Lumbert stated was how one incorporates oneself into similar groups to feel like one is in the in-group. My first year of college, I had a very tough time feeling like I was in the in-group, just because I felt I was not aligning myself properly with the people around me, for they were not very similar to me. Things I felt like that helped me in this situation included making myself more outgoing and meeting new people. Coming from a different country made me also seem like I was often discriminated against just on the basis of my race, and therefore I had to find a group which was closely similar to me. Finding oneself in an in-group helps influence members of the same group to be more willing and understanding to one's needs, and in return the whole group confirms one's self-image therefore causing social advantage.

Everyone needs to feel belonging in the in-group. If cultural norms were closely examined, I would expected that different people in different countries would behave differently under different situations because of their cultures. Lumbert's paper supports that idea that a breakdown in a society would occur if individuals did not comply with society and its rules.

Anzalone brought up an interesting point in her commentary; she looked at conformity as a basis for survival of the human race. She mentioned how the hunter/gatherer humans from thousands of years ago conformed in a group so they had a better chance of surviving against predators. This point would be more convincing to me if it was backed up with some references, because I doubt that twenty prehistoric humans would be any more successful than a single human when faced with a hungry leopard, unless of course gunpowder had been invented. I believe Anzalone confuses the meaning of conformity with inter-group dependence. The prehistoric humans most likely depended on their groups to gather enough food and build shelter for survival. A pack of lionesses will hunt together so they have a better chance of catching a zebra; however, we would not typically say that these lionesses are "conforming." That would sound awkward because conformity is a uniquely human term that refers mainly to social aspects of human culture. I agree with Anzalone that humans depend on each other for survival, but I would not label it conformity.

Cutter's commentary made a point of discussing evolutionary societal reasons for conforming; this is an interesting point to discuss. His point about conforming to the theories and ideas that the world of science has revealed to us is especially relevant. I agree: if we could not accept the discoveries and experiences of those before us, we could never become intelligent and experienced enough to have our own. We could not discover new medicines and healthcare techniques if we did not comply; many would die of curable diseases and treatable ailments without modern medicine. In this sense, we need conformity to survive. However, I must disagree with Cutter's final statement saying that my paper did little to find the reasons for the behavior known as conformity, because that is precisely what my entire paper is about. Perhaps Cutter meant that he would have like to see an evolutionary perspective on conformity included in my paper.

Mott added a relevant perspective to my paper; he mentioned how conformity is related also to group mentality and an individual's self-esteem, and is more complicated that the categories I broke it down into. I agree with Mott; in no way, shape, or form do I consider my dozen page paper a comprehensive authority on conformity. Group mentality and self-esteem are two issues that should be included if I were to expand on the paper.

Shah gave a cross-cultural interpretation of my paper in her commentary; she added support to the arguments made in my paper from her experience as someone raised partly in India and partly in the United States. As someone born and raised entirely in the United States, it is interesting to note how Shah's experiences lend support the arguments in my paper regarding the various reasons for conformity.