Why do people conform? Explanations(theories of conformity) There are two type of social influence. One of it is normative social influence, it is based on our desire to be liked. We conform because we want to be appear ‘normal’ and we think that others will approve of and accept us. Going against the majority might lead to exclusion or rejection from the group.
Stereotypes lead people to expect certain actions from members of social groups. These stereotype-based expectations may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies, in which one's inaccurate expectations about a person's behavior, through social interaction, prompts that person to act in stereotype-consistent ways, thus confirming one's erroneous expectations and validating the stereotype. (Page 94–97) Often time’s people are fairly ignorant of the customs and
Conformity within a group entails members changing their attitudes and beliefs in order to match those of others within the group. Those that conform tend to be obedient and compliant. In order to conform, the group member must attribute someone as having the legitimacy and credibility to lead or influence the group's behaviour. Without this "leader", conformity toward the group's goals will be less prevalent. If a member of the group fails to conform to the groups needs, he/she would lose credibility with the rest of the group.
Selfperception affects an individual’s self-efficacy skills, therefore affecting how an individual will communicate their experiences. While self-perception is an important trait to take into consideration when dealing with self-reporting, it does however, as mentioned, affect the validity of the results due to individuals underreporting and over reporting their actions. Comparisons of Limitations All three articles discussed the limitation of self-reporting, more so in Article 1. While self-reporting is indeed a valuable asset, self-reporting at times is affected due to individuals underreporting their behavior, as well as over reporting it (Hauge et al., 2009). Underreporting occurs due to individuals being dishonest regarding their behavior, therefore causing an error in the research done.
We sometimes seem wired to adopt the goals of the people around us, particularly when we develop a close relationship with them. Of course, that can be a positive or negative thing depending on what the people around us are doing. For that reason, we have to be careful to surround ourselves with other people who are engaging in behaviours that we would like to see in ourselves. If one is unable to feel adequate enough within a group or is not fully comfortable with themselves, there is a chance one may conform in order to fit in. ‘The more insecure people feel, the more conformist they become.’- John Elder.
An Interpretation Of Morals Morality, in a simplified definition, is conformity to the rules of right conduct. Why then, do humans differ and struggle on acting upon and defining different morals? And why does it seem nearly impossible to find where morals came from? Well in Steven Pinker’s writing of “The Morality Instinct,” he shares with the audience that morality has developed into a sixth sense and that this sense of morality greatly affects the way us as humans make decisions. More importantly however, are auxiliary sources that further extended the arguments that Pinker makes throughout the rhetoric.
Understanding the individual may challenge your own attitudes and values. Find out about their attitudes and beliefs –ignorance can often be a barrier. Understanding may promote tolerance. Be professional at work. Even if you fundamentally disagree with another Individual’s attitudes and beliefs, they have the right to hold them, the same right as you have.
Lastly, Cultural Relativists often argue that it is mere arrogance for us to judge the conduct of other societies, and that we should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures. Although it may be a display of arrogance to judge the conduct of other societies, it is sometimes necessary to do so and convey disagreement when the situation arises. Given these revised interpretations of the 5 claims commonly made by Cultural Relativists, individuals and cultures ought to be guided by a revised philosophy known as Centralized Cultural Relativism, where societies may have different moral codes, but they all inherit certain properties from a parent code, which is influenced by factors including human biology, physiology, and what is necessary for a society to
This element refers to attitudes or level of approval individuals hold regarding morals and laws in general as well as specific deviant behaviours. In Akers’ model, deviant behaviour does not require positive acceptance of the behaviour; instead, morals or conventional values that are weakly held or temporarily neutralised may be sufficient to generate deviance. Clearly, such a proposition has important implications for the intimate violence: the less likely they are to resort
As James Rachels said, “Cultural Relativism might be true, but it might lead to some consequences, such as no longer being able to say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to ours, or we could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society and even the idea of moral progress would be called into doubt.” Cultural Relativism has some good advantages; it helps us to keep an open mind about other people´s beliefs. On the other hand, Cultural Relativism is not a good system that should be followed by each culture separately because there are some universal rules that should be followed, for instance no murder. Laws should be created under morality, and they might not be perfect, but they are the best rules that we as humans have. Even though societies still have arguments about their beliefs because it is impossible to have complete peace because of our differences. For example, For the Greeks it was believed that it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead, or the Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believed infanticide is immoral.