Public Compliance: A Neutralizing Attempt
To establish relevance between the scope of modern prejudice and its connection to public compliance, one needs to understand the impact of conformity. As both a direct and indirect implication of social identity, conformity facilitates the sense of belonging elaborated earlier. Respectively, the basic definition of conformity specifies changes in an individual’s behaviour resulting from the real or imagined influence of others (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 194). Consistent with belonging and the process by which an individual establishes such connection – social norms appoint the regulations about how one obtains and maintains that connection, thus, preserving belonging (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 202). Consequently, if falling short, one is subject to repercussions involving: ridicule, punishment, and rejection (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 202).
As can be expected, the abovementioned can become a liability between the individual and group members, and subsequently, between groups. Bearing all, public compliance describes the act of publicly conforming to a group without privately believing in the conformity’s constituents (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 197). Public compliance, then, advances the salience of normative social influence which stipulates publicly complying with social norms without privately accepting them (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 202). Why then, comply and conform? Aronson and colleagues (2013) adopt an evolutionary stance proclaiming the “fundamental human need for social companionship” (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 202) which hinged on the dependency of “emotional support, affection, and love” (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 202) maximizes survival, thereby appropriating conformity. Moreover, the ‘fear of consequence’ attached to conformity becomes both a motivational and inhibitory force in achieving these sustainable relations. Affixed to the experienced discrepancies between individual and group, operating in conjunction with the processes of conformity and compliance – social-psychologist Bibb Latane (1981) theorized a standard of measurement to determine the impact of social interaction known as the social impact theory (Aronson et al., 2013, pp. …show more content…
205-210). According to Latane (1981) there are three parameters which predict this impact: strength, immediacy, and number (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 205). Strength measures the group’s importance dependent on social identification – we are more drawn to those we can identify with,thus, establishing their level of influence on us (Aronson et al., 2013, pp. 207-208). The parameters of immediacy involve influence based on proximity and time (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 205). Group size determines influential impact peaking at five members; and, whether informational or normative influence is operating (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 207). Two classic studies sustaining this theory whilst incorporating extensions of conformity are: the Asch Line Judgment Studies (1951, 1956; Aronson et al., 2013, pp. 202-204) and Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Studies (1963, 1974, 1976; Aronson et al., 2013, pp. 224-230). Briefly, the Asch studies (1951, 1956) involved trials whereby participants were asked to distinguish between different lengths of lines, alternating judgments individually or as part of a group (who were confederates). The overall results under the group-condition demonstrated heightened normative influence overriding the need for individual accuracy in judgments; a result of feared repercussions (e.g. ridicule) for dissenting from the group (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 202). This finding sustains Latane’s (1981) numbers and immediacy parameters in influencing conformity. Similar in framework, yet, different in application: the Obedience-Authority studies (1963, 1974, 1976) proved both conformity and compliance based on a combination of normative social influence and informational social influence – conforming in light of others’ interpretation of ambiguous situation (Aronson et al., 2013, pp. 195-196). In this study, in relation to informational social influence and Latane’s (1981) criterium – the measurement of numbers gets replaced with the type of authority in question, namely directly expressive with high demand for compliance (Aronson et al., 2013 pp. 227-228). Racial & Sexual Discrimination: Cameron’s Conformity and Christine’s Compliance The crossroads of race and conformity give rise during Cameron’s and Christine’s traffic stop incited by Sgt. Ryan and Officer Hansen. While the officers are on the lookout for a stolen Lincoln Navigator, coincidentally and in passing in a similar Navigator; the couple, engaging in risky fun on their way home from a function, catches the eye of Sgt. Ryan, who follows in pursuit (in Crash, Haggis & Haggis, 2004). In spite
To establish relevance between the scope of modern prejudice and its connection to public compliance, one needs to understand the impact of conformity. As both a direct and indirect implication of social identity, conformity facilitates the sense of belonging elaborated earlier. Respectively, the basic definition of conformity specifies changes in an individual’s behaviour resulting from the real or imagined influence of others (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 194). Consistent with belonging and the process by which an individual establishes such connection – social norms appoint the regulations about how one obtains and maintains that connection, thus, preserving belonging (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 202). Consequently, if falling short, one is subject to repercussions involving: ridicule, punishment, and rejection (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 202).
As can be expected, the abovementioned can become a liability between the individual and group members, and subsequently, between groups. Bearing all, public compliance describes the act of publicly conforming to a group without privately believing in the conformity’s constituents (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 197). Public compliance, then, advances the salience of normative social influence which stipulates publicly complying with social norms without privately accepting them (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 202). Why then, comply and conform? Aronson and colleagues (2013) adopt an evolutionary stance proclaiming the “fundamental human need for social companionship” (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 202) which hinged on the dependency of “emotional support, affection, and love” (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 202) maximizes survival, thereby appropriating conformity. Moreover, the ‘fear of consequence’ attached to conformity becomes both a motivational and inhibitory force in achieving these sustainable relations. Affixed to the experienced discrepancies between individual and group, operating in conjunction with the processes of conformity and compliance – social-psychologist Bibb Latane (1981) theorized a standard of measurement to determine the impact of social interaction known as the social impact theory (Aronson et al., 2013, pp. …show more content…
205-210). According to Latane (1981) there are three parameters which predict this impact: strength, immediacy, and number (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 205). Strength measures the group’s importance dependent on social identification – we are more drawn to those we can identify with,thus, establishing their level of influence on us (Aronson et al., 2013, pp. 207-208). The parameters of immediacy involve influence based on proximity and time (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 205). Group size determines influential impact peaking at five members; and, whether informational or normative influence is operating (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 207). Two classic studies sustaining this theory whilst incorporating extensions of conformity are: the Asch Line Judgment Studies (1951, 1956; Aronson et al., 2013, pp. 202-204) and Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Studies (1963, 1974, 1976; Aronson et al., 2013, pp. 224-230). Briefly, the Asch studies (1951, 1956) involved trials whereby participants were asked to distinguish between different lengths of lines, alternating judgments individually or as part of a group (who were confederates). The overall results under the group-condition demonstrated heightened normative influence overriding the need for individual accuracy in judgments; a result of feared repercussions (e.g. ridicule) for dissenting from the group (Aronson et al., 2013, p. 202). This finding sustains Latane’s (1981) numbers and immediacy parameters in influencing conformity. Similar in framework, yet, different in application: the Obedience-Authority studies (1963, 1974, 1976) proved both conformity and compliance based on a combination of normative social influence and informational social influence – conforming in light of others’ interpretation of ambiguous situation (Aronson et al., 2013, pp. 195-196). In this study, in relation to informational social influence and Latane’s (1981) criterium – the measurement of numbers gets replaced with the type of authority in question, namely directly expressive with high demand for compliance (Aronson et al., 2013 pp. 227-228). Racial & Sexual Discrimination: Cameron’s Conformity and Christine’s Compliance The crossroads of race and conformity give rise during Cameron’s and Christine’s traffic stop incited by Sgt. Ryan and Officer Hansen. While the officers are on the lookout for a stolen Lincoln Navigator, coincidentally and in passing in a similar Navigator; the couple, engaging in risky fun on their way home from a function, catches the eye of Sgt. Ryan, who follows in pursuit (in Crash, Haggis & Haggis, 2004). In spite