They go along with the majority without analysing why there is a difference. This results in Public Compliance, without Private Attitude Change Asch conducted an experiment where participants had to judge the length of lines, he found there was a strong pressure to conform to the majority, and this included both normative and informational social influence. Because this results in both public and private change it is an example of internalisation. Informational sociala influence is more likely when the situation is
Benefits come from belonging in a group, individuals may conform on the surface but disagree with the group internally. This is called compliance, going along with the majority despite knowing they are incorrect. Informational social influence; is powered by what people need or their motives. When people are unaware how to behave, think or feel in a social situation the need for conformity is the need to be safe. An example of psychological research in conformity is Asch (1951) line study, where there were varying amount of both participants and confederates and they were asked to state which line was bigger out of three.
Autocrat- tries to take control by dominating the group Affection need- reflects or desire to be liked by others Personal member- a person who has no emotional problems dealing with group members Underpersonal members- believe no one likes them and may establish only superficial relationships with other members Overpersonal member- tries to get close to everyone and seeds intimate friendships despite the disinterest of other members Role- when a group member exhibits a unique set of skills or behavior patterns that serve a specific function within the group Task role- affects a groups ability to achieve its common goal by focusing on behaviors that help get the job done Maintenance role- affects how group members get along with one another while pursuing a shared goal Self-centered role- put individuals needs ahead of the groups goal and others members needs Initiator- proposes ideas and suggestion, provides direction for the group gets the group started Information seeker- asks for needed facts and figures requests explanations and clarification of ideas makes the group aware of information gaps Coordinator chairperson- clarifies goals delegates tasks facilitates
Conformity is said to have a broad meaning because it refers to individuals that display common behaviors with their peers; and these individuals are believed to help no social rights toward their behaviors. In group settings, people are also believe to conform to a group because their behaviors are often influenced by senior members of the group. (Martin and Bull, 2008). The likelihood for people to conform can be determined if: they are alone, emotional connection to the experiment, and in the absence of a partner or with the support of another person. (Bleske-Rechek, 2001).
This is called Compliance. Mark will look to see what the other soldiers decide to do and conform because he will feel that the others have more knowledge than him. This may be because of low self-esteem and lack of intelligence. Asch (1951) conducted an experiment that will support this theory. Asch’s aim of the experiment was to investigate if people conform to the judgments of others in situations where the judgements are clearly wrong.
Milgram believed they acted as a mechanism to help people cope with the strain of having to obey an immoral command. Agentic shift , people usually operate in an autonomous state behaving voluntarily and aware of the consequences following their actions. When Milgram’s participants were debriefed , many reported that they knew it was wrong to deliver dangerous electric shocks, but that they felt the experimenter was responsible and not them. Authoritarian personality is another explanation of obedience. It is that an individuals personality may make them more or less inclined to obey an authority figure.
Second, the participants were deceived. According to ethical code of researches, participants should be completely informed what would take place during the experiment in the inform consent form before the experiment, but the researchers did not properly address all the situations to the participants. The violence was completely not expectable by the participants. From the perspective of ethical issue, it was wrong to conduct this experiment, but from the perspective of research, it is right to conduct this experiment. Therefore, I would say that it is worthy to conduct this experiment because the outcomes of experiment are very useful for the discovery of human behaviors.
They are afraid that if they do not obey their leader they will be punished. This is identical to the autocratic approach we discussed in class where the leader tends to centralize the authority and gains their power from their position. In the short-term, these methods may be effective, but they can quickly lead to sabotage when no one is looking or when the threat is no longer present. The second type of power is utility power. In utility power, followers follow because of some benefit they receive.
“Formal power can come from the ability to coerce or reward or it can come from formal authority, “(Robbins & Judge, 2009, p. 452). Coercive, legitimate, and reward power are bases of power that fall under formal power. A good example of formal coercive power is a when a subordinate only does what is asked for fear of losing his or her job. This type of power is coercive because the “person reacts to this power out of fear of the negative results that might occur if she failed to comply,” (Robbins & Judge, 2009, p. 452). When a group is complying with leaders’ demands from a place of fear it can lead to animosity and a communication breakdown in the group that can follow through with results unwanted by the leader such as employee job strikes.
During such conflicts members are allowed to disagree passionately and sincerely, as they unreservedly express their criticism and displeasure of issues on decisions policies and colleagues attitude. This is done without necessarily being destructive. While the book acknowledges that some specific temperament types are not comfortable with conflict and would do everything possible to avoid it, Lencioni believes that the leader of the team has a critical