The Spectrum of Conformity & Obedience

Conformity and obedience were the focus of much early research in the burgeoning field of social psychology. Discussion of these topics appears in every college Social Psych 101 course. Beyond the academic, most of us are intuitively aware of these tendencies of human interaction. Memories of obedience to parents or guardians to the demands of domestic housework readily come to mind. And don’t forget your public high school years, fraught with the common teenage struggles of group conformity and social acceptance.

But social conformity and obedience have a darker side.

The dangers of obedience and social conformity appear frequently in any psychologically informed historical narrative. In every religious, political, military, and ideological movement of recorded history, the human tendency to conform to social groups and obey charismatic leaders has amplified the impact of such movements. While conformity to social groups and obedience to pragmatic leadership appear at times to be harmless schemas of human interaction, history is marred with evidence of their potential to cause significant harm to humanitarian interests. Despite these historical warnings, social psychology courses continue to present social conformity and obedience as natural human occurrences, inevitabilities of the human psyche that, along with their disadvantages, will continue indefinitely.

Stanley Milgram’s infamous obedience studies provide evidence of the thoughtless obsequiousness that strong leadership can elicit even to the physical injury of subordinates (Milgram, 1963). Further, research into the social psychology of cults highlights extreme examples of conformity and obedience; extremes that at least constrict the intellectual freedoms of members and at worst lead to physical harm or death.

By publishing this article, I seek to supplement the interpretation of social conformity and obedience. I will present social conformity and obedience as varying in degree along a spectrum of intensity. I will differentiate between two poles of conformity and obedience: thought-reform and de-individualization at one extreme (acute conformity and obedience) and rational self-presentation for the sake of group goals (rational conformity and obedience) at the other. Finally, this paper will provide a brief discussion on the implications of this perspective on the global community.

Conformity and obedience exist upon a spectrum. At one pole is what I shall call “acute conformity and obedience”. NRMs and cults provide the most notorious and life-threatening example of the dangers of acute conformity and obedience. These closed communities go beyond symbolic religious or ceremonial rituals and demand behaviors that affect the day-to-day lives of members, their self-expression, and an individual’s biological domain over his own physical and mental health. The requirements of some secretive organizations and high-demand religious groups are mild; perhaps they require the ritualistic performance of symbolic rituals or enforce conventions of dress, grooming, and speech. On the other hand, the suicide cults Heaven’s Gate and The People’s Temple (Jim Jones) produced extreme social conformity and obedience to a charismatic leader that resulted in considerable loss of life.

The conformity that exists in cults goes beyond outward self-presentation to affect the psychological schemas of the individual member. This is a psychological phenomenon wherein conformity and obedience self-perpetuate. In this cycle, cognitive schemas of submission to leadership are promoted through propaganda and reinforced by means of social influence. Further, praise for obedience elicits affective responses that strengthen the prescribed cognitions. This coercive cycle of group dynamics and its effects on an individual member’s cognitive schemas is called thought reform. Thought reform can be defined as “the systematic alteration of a person’s mode of thinking” (Oxford).

The style of thought reform common to cult-like groups comprises common principles including milieu control, demands for purity, esoteric jargon, confession, and a renouncing of individual thought that conflicts with the group’s doctrine (Lifton, 1989). The propaganda and fear used by group leaders to silence dissenting arguments produces conditioned thinking that is adopted by members at the deepest levels of the self-concept. Thus, thought conformity leads to unchecked obedience to leadership. While extreme thought control and faith-based obedience are not categorically disadvantageous, they depend entirely on the decision-making ability of the leader and are subject to the common flaws of unchallenged authority.

Although not existing at the pole of intensity like closed cult groups, social groups centered around a rigid political ideology similarly face the danger of groupthink and social polarization (Saylor, 2004); a powerful form of social conformity that presents a considerable opportunity cost for an individual’s critical thinking and bi-partisan humanitarian progress. Members of extremist ideological groups isolate themselves from opposing viewpoints with the effect of polarizing their own. What starts as banal community building among like-minded individuals who maintain independent and critical thinking, ends in thought conformity as the group’s collective ideology polarizes.

To the extent that thought is altered by cyclical patterns of behavior and cognition (Watson, 1913), the social adaptation present in extreme religious, political, and ideological groups falls within the scope of acute conformity and obedience.

At the other pole of conformity and obedience are loosely-organized social groups. Benign adjustments in self-presentation leverage for acceptance into a group leaves room for an individual’s independence of thought and allows for people who subscribe to widely varying philosophies to collaborate on a common goal. These loose organizations require very little from members beyond conformity to mutually accepted frameworks of understanding and trust.

A common example of this is complying with the suggested attire on a party invitation. The mildest forms of conformity and obedience result in very small negative outcomes by way of the opportunity costs of decreased individuality and creative potential. In these instances, an individual can choose to self-present in a way that can persuade the group to give attention to his or her individualized contribution to the common goal. This social adaptation is practical and made with a clear mind; rational.

Similarly, in business organizations, conventions usually exist to outline obedience to executive or managerial leadership. Conformity of self-presentation may be required based on the rules of the organization for general decorum. Executive leadership and decision-makers provide codes of conduct that may be strict or allow for much individual preference and self-governance. The nature of the work involved dictates the level of obedience and conformity. Large process-based organizations require more structured obedience and conformity while small creative companies demand less; allowing their employees the psychological freedom required to generate innovative ideas.

However, it is not uncommon for individuals to experience mild thought conformity even in loosely organized social groups. For example, in an intimate romantic relationship between two individuals, the understanding and acceptance of differing viewpoints present an opportunity for the less psychologically independent individual to be conformed to the viewpoints and tastes of the other. This may result in small actions of compliance that persist toward the couple’s mutually accepted goals. While this vulnerability provides the advantages of support and emotional understanding, danger remains. The expression in the vernacular that one has “lost his/herself in the relationship” and the question of “where do I end and we begin” nod at this reality. Even in the loosest of social groups, power dynamics exist and influence a degree of conformity and obedience (just think back to how comported yourself last time you had a meal with a loud, fast-talking elder who paid for the bill and had a different political opinion than yours).

As seen above, while the tendency toward conformity and obedience are ubiquitous, it exists upon a scale of intensity based on the nature of the organization and its leadership. There is a marked difference between benign, rational conformity of self-presentation that allows for the absorption of an individualized perspective within a previously established domain and the acute conformity and blind obedience intertwined with thought conformity. Along with groupthink and social polarization, these tendencies exist as ever-present threats to individualized thought.

However, while examples of conformity and obedience are readily apparent, they do not have to be accepted as an unchangeable factor of our lives. Rather, as the self matures and develops, they are increasingly cast off. this psychological maturation benefits both the self and others as I will demonstrate in the next section.

Conformity, Obedience and the Developing Self

The psychological development of n individual happens in phases. Maslov delineated these phases in his hierarchy of needs. As an individual proceeds toward self-actualization, his understanding of the self-concept changes along with what is needed to find meaning in existence. Jung similarly refers to a development of the self-concept as one deconstructs the fantastical thinking of youth (Jung, 1954). Among the early needs of the individual are a feeling of belonging and acceptance and the comfort of assertive leadership through the uncertainties of life. A child initially receives such emotional placating from its parents. A child feels emotionally and physically safe and supported while it cares to the early experiences of education and play. Along with such safety comes parental restrictions on conduct by way of moral imperatives and household rules. Conformity and obedience at this stage in life are inseparable from the emotional impulses of youth (Cialdini, 2004).

Adolescence often brings an initial emergence of a child’s individuality. Along with this psychological birth comes a decrease in obedience and conformity to the norms of their parental upbringing. This a common complaint of parents as they adjust to the individuality and rebellion of their teenagers. However, the teen often seeks the same comfort provided by conformity and obedience in social groups of peers outside the family. While this important developmental step implies maturation of the self, replacing the family with peers is simply another iteration of conformity and obedience. However, this step towards independence includes some critical thinking and rational choice.

As the individual continues to mature, conformity and obedience to social, academic, economic, and religious frameworks continues to be replaced by greater individualization. Just as a child begins to doubt the unblemished wonderfulness of Mommy and Daddy and forms a more objective evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses, so the maturing adult will iteratively deconstruct their emotional reliance on the groups of which they are a part. An adult’s involvement in social groups exits at a degree upon the spectrum that they find comfortable; from the thought-reform-like philosophical acceptance of a social group’s principles on the one hand to the persuasive conformity of self-presentation on the other. Increasingly, a mature individual attains the cognitive and emotional freedom to choose the extent to which they self-present depending on their tolerance for subjugation and their personal ability to orchestrate independent infrastructures that fulfill their remaining needs.

What extends beyond this is the self-actualization and concern for the global community that appears in the highest domain of Maslov’s hierarchy. This state is also referred to by the American mythologist, Joseph Campbell as a self-propelling wheel of progress that is not subject to the “shoulds” of society. Far from childish rebellion or stubborn hermitism, this is a state wherein one can self-present to the extent necessary to operate creatively and productively within social frameworks without fear of conforming to or obeying others in a way that conflicts with uniquely defined cognitive constructs.

Implications for The Global Community

Extremes of conformity and obedience deliver dangerous consequences. In addition to the extreme case of cults mentioned above, conformity and obedience at the expense of the self-concept lead to considerable psychological stressors that can lead to depression, anxiety, and suicidality. At the very least, conformity of thought limits the creative potential of the individual to contribute to humanitarian progress.

The potential of individualized creative thought is overwhelming. As each human differs from the other genetically, so they differ in the myriad neural connections of thought created by their genetically unique brains (Salis et al, 2018). However, as conformity and obedience tend the mind to conformity of thought, creative potential decreases. Social pressures can be so pungent that they silence not only dissenting voices but dissenting thought. Seen from this perspective, conformity and obedience present an opportunity cost to scientific, technological, and social progress.

As outlined above, thought-based conformity and obedience are symptoms of an under-developed self. With education into the emotional underpinnings of conformity and obedience, one can learn to base behavioral responses not on social pressures but on the unique creative potential of the individualized mind. While many a sage attains this state, it often comes after considerable trial and error and at an age of decreased energy and physical strength.

But what if this transcendence of the social pressure to conform and obey could be taught? What if individuals could be taught to conform and obey only in their outward behaviors while cultivating the critical and creative potential of their minds?

Thought conformity to social norms is indoctrinated at a young age through traditions, religious beliefs, political ideologies, and principles such as respect for others based solely on their superior age or status. These teachings are connected to morality at a very young age. Social principles are often explained in such trite expressions as “You just can’t do that” or “People will think you are weird if you do such and such”. Social norms are trained as if it is virtuous to conform and obey. Given this foundation, it takes years for individuals to reject social norms for what they are: a current arrangement for connection and social organization that can and must be improved to the benefit of the global community.

Separating acute conformity and obedience from rational conformity and obedience parses the social utility of these behaviors from the ever-present danger of neglecting the nurturing of the self and neglecting dissenting thought. Establishing a means of educating emotional intelligence to the extent necessary to discern when one’s individuality is jeopardized could lead to transcendence of acute conformity and obedience at a younger age. This possibility would yield unfathomable intellectual progress and accelerate the evolution of human social advancement.

References:

Cialdini, R., Goldstein, N., (2004) Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual review of Psychology 20014 55:1, 591–621

Jung, C. G. (1954). The practice of psychotherapy: essays on the psychology of the transference and other subjects. (Bollingen Series 20.). Pantheon Books.

Lifton, R. J. (1989) Thought reform and the psychology of totalism: A study of “brainwashing” in China W.W. Norton & Company

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 67(4), 371.

Sallis, H., Davey, G., Munafo, M. (2018). Genetics and biologically based psychological differences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373(1744)

Saylor (2011) Principles of Social Psychology. Chapter 13, 28, retrieved from https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/textbooks/Principles%20of%20S ocial%20Psychology.pdf

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158.

The Spectrum of Conformity & Obedience — From Cults to Cocktail Parties