{"id":133,"date":"2016-08-09T17:04:11","date_gmt":"2016-08-09T17:04:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-social-psychology\/?post_type=chapter&p=133"},"modified":"2021-10-21T13:25:17","modified_gmt":"2021-10-21T13:25:17","slug":"person-gender-and-cultural-differences-in-conformity","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-jefferson-socialpsychology\/chapter\/person-gender-and-cultural-differences-in-conformity\/","title":{"raw":"Person, Gender, and Cultural Differences in Conformity","rendered":"Person, Gender, and Cultural Differences in Conformity"},"content":{"raw":"
\n

Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n
  1. Summarize the social psychological literature concerning differences in conformity between men and women.<\/li>\n\t
  2. Review research concerning the relationship between culture and conformity.<\/li>\n\t
  3. Explain the concept of psychological reactance and describe how and when it might occur.<\/li>\n<\/ol><\/div>\n\u00a0\n\nAlthough we have focused to this point on the situational determinants of conformity, such as the number of people in the majority and their unanimity, we have not yet considered the question of which people are likely to conform and which people are not. In this section, we will consider how personality variables, gender, and culture influence conformity.\n

    Person Differences<\/h2>\nEven in cases in which the pressure to conform is strong and a large percentage of individuals do conform (such as in Solomon Asch\u2019s line-judging research), not everyone does so. There are usually some people willing and able to go against the prevailing norm. In Asch\u2019s study, for instance, despite the strong situational pressures, 24% of the participants never conformed on any of the trials.\n\nPeople prefer to have an \u201coptimal\u201d balance between being similar to, and different from, others (Brewer, 2003).\u00a0When people are made to feel too similar to others, they tend to express their individuality, but when they are made to feel too different from others, they attempt to increase their acceptance by others. Supporting this idea, research has found that people who have lower self-esteem are more likely to conform in comparison with those who have higher self-esteem. This makes sense because self-esteem rises when we know we are being accepted by others, and people with lower self-esteem have a greater need to belong. And people who are dependent on and who have a strong need for approval from others are also more conforming (Bornstein, 1992).\n\nAge also matters, with\u00a0individuals who are either younger or older being\u00a0more easily influenced than individuals who are in their 40s and 50s (Visser & Krosnick, 1998).\u00a0People who highly identify with the group that is creating the conformity are also more likely to conform to group norms, in comparison to people who don\u2019t really care very much (Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1997; Terry & Hogg, 1996).\n\nHowever, although there are some differences among people in terms of their tendency to conform (it has even been suggested that some people have a \u201cneed for uniqueness\u201d that leads them to be particularly likely to resist conformity; Snyder & Fromkin, 1977),\u00a0research has generally found that the impact of person variables on conformity is smaller than the influence of situational variables, such as the number and unanimity of the majority.\n

    Gender Differences<\/h2>\nSeveral reviews and meta-analyses of the existing research on conformity and leadership in men and women have now been conducted, and so it is possible to draw some strong conclusions in this regard. In terms of conformity, the overall conclusion from these studies is that that there are only small differences between men and women in the amount of conformity they exhibit, and these differences are influenced as much by the social situation in which the conformity occurs as by gender differences themselves.\n\nOn average, men and women have different levels of self-concern and other-concern. Men are, on average, more concerned about appearing to have high status and may be able to demonstrate this status by acting independently from the opinions of others. On the other hand, and again although there are substantial individual differences among them, women are, on average, more concerned with connecting to others and maintaining group harmony. Taken together, this means that, at least when they are being observed by others, men are likely to hold their ground, act independently, and refuse to conform, whereas women are more likely to conform to the opinions of others in order to prevent social disagreement. These differences are less apparent when the conformity occurs in private (Eagly, 1978, 1983).\n\nThe observed gender differences in conformity have social explanations\u2014namely that women are socialized to be more caring about the desires of others\u2014but there are also evolutionary explanations. Men may be more likely to resist conformity to demonstrate to women that they are good mates. Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini, and Kenrick (2006)\u00a0found that men, but not women, who had been primed with thoughts about romantic and sexual attraction were less likely to conform to the opinions of others on a subsequent task than were men who had not been primed to think about romantic attraction.\n\nIn addition to the public versus private nature of the situation, the topic being discussed also is important, with\u00a0both men and women being less likely to conform on topics that they know a lot about, in comparison with topics on which they feel less knowledgeable (Eagly & Chravala, 1986).\u00a0When the topic is sports, women tend to conform to men, whereas the opposite is true when the topic is fashion. Thus it appears that the small observed differences between men and women in conformity are due, at least in part, to informational influence.\n\nBecause men have higher status in most societies, they are more likely to be perceived as effective leaders (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992; Rojahn & Willemsen, 1994; Shackelford, Wood, & Worchel, 1996).\u00a0And men are more likely to be leaders in most cultures. For instance, women hold only about 20% of the key elected and appointed political positions in the world (World Economic Forum<\/span>, 2013). There are also more men than women in leadership roles, particularly in high-level administrative positions, in many different types of businesses and other organizations. Women are not promoted to positions of leadership as fast as men are in real working groups, even when actual performance is taken into consideration (Geis, Boston, & Hoffman, 1985; Heilman, Block, & Martell, 1995).\n\nMen are also more likely than women to emerge and act as leaders in small groups, even when other personality characteristics are accounted for (Bartol & Martin, 1986; Megargee, 1969; Porter, Geis, Cooper, & Newman, 1985).\u00a0In one experiment, Nyquist and Spence (1986)\u00a0had pairs of same- and mixed-sex students interact. In each pair there was one highly dominant and one low dominant individual, as assessed by previous personality measures. They found that in pairs in which there was one man and one woman, the dominant man became the leader 90% of the time, but the dominant woman became the leader only 35% of the time.\n\nKeep in mind, however, that the fact that men are perceived as effective leaders, and are more likely to become leaders, does not necessarily mean that they are actually better, more effective leaders than women. Indeed, a meta-analysis studying the effectiveness<\/em> of male and female leaders did not find that there were any gender differences overall (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995)\u00a0and even found that women excelled over men in some domains. Furthermore, the differences that were found tended to occur primarily when a group was first forming but dissipated over time as the group members got to know one another individually.\n\nOne difficulty for women as they attempt to lead is that traditional leadership behaviors, such as showing independence and exerting power over others, conflict with the expected social roles for women. The norms for what constitutes success in corporate life are usually defined in masculine terms, including assertiveness or aggressiveness, self-promotion, and perhaps even macho behavior. It is difficult for women to gain power because to do so they must conform to these masculine norms, and often this goes against their personal beliefs about appropriate behavior (Rudman & Glick, 1999).\u00a0And when women do take on male models of expressing power, it may backfire on them because they end up being disliked because they are acting nonstereotypically for their gender. A recent experimental study with MBA students simulated the\u00a0initial public offering (IPO) of a company whose chief executive was either male or female (personal qualifications and company financial statements were held constant across both conditions). The results indicated a clear gender bias as female chief executive officers\u00a0were perceived\u00a0as being less capable and having a poorer strategic position than their male counterparts. Furthermore, IPOs led by female executives\u00a0were perceived as\u00a0less attractive investments (Bigelow, Lundmark, McLean Parks, & Wuebker, 2012). Little wonder then that women hold\u00a0fewer\u00a0than 5% of Fortune 500 chief executive positions.\n\nOne way that women can react to this \u201cdouble-bind\u201d in which they must take on masculine characteristics to succeed, but if they do they are not liked, is to adopt more feminine leadership styles, in which they use more interpersonally oriented behaviors such as agreeing with others, acting in a friendly manner, and encouraging subordinates to participate in the decision-making process (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly et al., 1992; Wood, 1987).\u00a0In short, women are more likely to take on a transformational leadership style than are men\u2014doing so allows them to be effective leaders while not acting in an excessively masculine way (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Egen, 2003).\n\nIn sum, women may conform somewhat more than men, although these differences are small and limited to situations in which the responses are made publicly. In terms of leadership effectiveness, there is no evidence that men, overall, make better leaders than do women. However, men do better as leaders on tasks that are \u201cmasculine\u201d in the sense that they require the ability to direct and control people. On the other hand, women do better on tasks that are more \u201cfeminine\u201d in the sense that they involve creating harmonious relationships among the group members.\n

    Cultural Differences<\/h2>\nIn addition to gender differences, there is also evidence that conformity is greater in some cultures than others. Your knowledge about the cultural differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultures might lead you to think that collectivists will be more conforming than individualists, and there is some support for this. Bond and Smith (1996)\u00a0analyzed results of 133 studies that had used Asch\u2019s line-judging task in 17 different countries. They then categorized each of the countries in terms of the degree to which it could be considered collectivist versus individualist in orientation. They found a significant relationship:\u00a0conformity was greater in more collectivistic than in individualistic countries.\n\nKim and Markus (1999)\u00a0analyzed advertisements from popular magazines in the United States and in Korea to see if they differentially emphasized conformity and uniqueness. As you can see in Figure 6.14, \"Culture and Conformity,\"<\/a> they found that while U.S. magazine ads tended to focus on uniqueness (e.g., \u201cChoose your own view!\u201d; \u201cIndividualize\u201d) Korean ads tended to focus more on themes of conformity (e.g., \u201cSeven out of 10 people use this product\u201d;\u00a0\u201cOur company is working toward building a harmonious society\u201d).\n\n\u00a0\n\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"600\"]\"image\" Figure 6.14 Culture and Conformity[\/caption]\n\nKim and Markus (1999) found that U.S. magazine ads tended to focus on uniqueness whereas Korean ads tended to focus more on conformity.\n\nIn summary, although the effects of individual differences on conformity tend to be smaller than those of the social context, they do matter. And gender and cultural differences can also be important. Conformity, like most other social psychological processes, represents an interaction between the situation and the person.\n

    Psychological Reactance<\/h2>\nConformity is usually quite adaptive overall, both for the individuals who conform and for the group as a whole. Conforming to the opinions of others can help us enhance and protect ourselves by providing us with important and accurate information and can help us better relate to others. Following the directives of effective leaders can help a group attain goals that would not be possible without them. And if only half of the people in your neighborhood thought it was appropriate to stop on red and go on green but the other half thought the opposite\u2014and behaved accordingly\u2014there would be problems indeed.\n\nBut social influence does not always produce the intended\u00a0result. If we feel that we have the choice to conform or not conform, we may well choose to do so in order to be accepted or to obtain valid knowledge. On the other hand, if we perceive that others are trying to force or manipulate our behavior, the influence pressure may backfire, resulting in the opposite of what the influencer intends.\n\nConsider an experiment conducted by Pennebaker and Sanders (1976),\u00a0who attempted to get people to stop writing graffiti on the walls of campus restrooms. In some restrooms they posted a sign that read \u201cDo not write on these walls under any circumstances!\u201d whereas in other restrooms they placed a sign that simply said \u201cPlease don\u2019t write on these walls.\u201d Two weeks later, the researchers returned to the restrooms to see if the signs had made a difference. They found that there was much less graffiti in the second restroom than in the first one. It seems as if people who were given strong pressures to not engage in the behavior were more likely to react against those directives than were people who were given a weaker message.\n\nWhen individuals feel that their freedom is being threatened by influence attempts and yet they also have the ability to resist that persuasion, they may experience psychological reactance<\/strong>, a strong motivational state that resists social influence\u00a0<\/em>(Brehm, 1966; Miron & Brehm, 2006).\u00a0Reactance is aroused when our ability to choose which behaviors to engage in is eliminated or threatened with elimination. The outcome of the experience of reactance is that people may not conform or obey at all and may even move their opinions or behaviors away from the desires of the influencer.\n\nReactance represents a desire to restore freedom that is being threatened. A child who feels that his or her parents are forcing him to eat his asparagus may react quite vehemently with a strong refusal to touch the plate. And an adult who feels that she is being pressured by a car sales representative\u00a0might feel the same way and leave the showroom entirely, resulting in the opposite of the sales rep\u2019s intended outcome.\n\nOf course, parents are sometimes aware of this potential, and even use \u201creverse psychology\u201d\u2014for example, telling a child that he or she cannot go outside when they really want the child to do so, hoping that reactance will occur. In the musical The Fantasticks<\/em>, neighboring fathers set up to make the daughter of one of them and the son of the other\u00a0fall in love with each other by building a fence between their properties. The fence is seen by the children as an infringement on their freedom to see each other, and as predicted by the idea of reactance, they ultimately fall in love.\n\nIn addition to helping us understand the affective determinants of conformity and of failure to conform, reactance has been observed to have its ironic effects in a number of real-world contexts. For instance, Wolf and Montgomery (1977)\u00a0found that when judges give jury members instructions indicating that they absolutely must not pay any attention to particular information that had been presented in a courtroom trial (because it had been ruled as inadmissible), the jurors were more<\/em> likely to use that information in their judgments. And Bushman and Stack (1996)\u00a0found that warning labels on violent films (for instance, \u201cThis film contains extreme violence\u2014viewer discretion advised\u201d) created more reactance (and thus led participants to be more<\/em> interested in viewing the film) than did similar labels that simply provided information (\u201cThis film contains extreme violence\u201d). In another relevant study, Kray, Reb, Galinsky, and Thompson (2004)\u00a0found that when women were told that they were poor negotiators and would be unable to succeed on a negotiation task, this information led them to work even harder and to be more successful at the task.\n\nFinally, within clinical therapy, it has been argued that people sometimes are less likely to try to reduce the harmful behaviors that they engage in, such as smoking or drug abuse, when the people they care about try too hard to press them to do so (Shoham, Trost, & Rohrbaugh, 2004).\u00a0One patient was recorded as having reported that his wife kept telling him that he should quit drinking, saying, \u201cIf you loved me enough, you\u2019d give up the booze.\u201d However, he also reported that when she gave up on him and said instead, \u201cI don\u2019t care what you do anymore,\u201d he then enrolled in a treatment program (Shoham et al., 2004, p. 177).\n
    \n

    Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n