Conformity and Obedience: Group Dynamics and the Self

Comparing Conformity and Obedience

This paper evaluates the influence of group dynamics on the individual, bringing together classical and contemporary analysis in a cohesive, succinct presentation. Within this discussion, the concepts of conformity and obedience are addressed alongside altruism, prosocial behavior, and the psychological mechanisms that lead individuals to deviate from dominant group norms.

Research published in The Journal of Social Psychology defines conformity in its most widely accepted terms as "an effect of majority influence on an individual's thoughts, feelings, and behavior" (Cavazza et al., 2008). Cavazza et al. add that recent research into conformity embraces "situational factors" such as social and group pressure, "individual predispositions" — for example, authoritarian personalities — along with "motivational and cognitive processes" such as social comparison and cognitive restructuring. These approaches to studying conformity, which examine factors that "foster or reduce" the phenomenon, do not, however, provide a thorough subjective account of how the majority impacts the self and others (Cavazza et al.).

The authors suggest that one way to understand an individual's conformity — or non-conformity — with the majority is to examine the "third-person effect": the tendency for a person to believe that persuasive messages (such as those from mass media or advertising) "influence other people more than they influence one's self" (Cavazza et al.). In other words, conformity in this context is something that "other people" are seen as more willing to embrace. This connects to the "tendency to evaluate oneself more favorably than others," also known as the "illusory superiority phenomenon" (Hoorens, 1993).

Regarding obedience, renowned researcher Stanley Milgram explains that obedience is as "basic" a part of the fabric of society "as one can point to" (Milgram, 1974). Writing in Harper's Magazine, Milgram asserts that obedience is "a deeply ingrained behavior tendency" and "a potent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct" (Milgram, 1974). The "dilemma inherent in submission to authority is ancient," and the question of whether one should obey when commands conflict with conscience has been debated as far back as ancient Greece (Milgram, 1974). Milgram explains that some degree of obedience is "a requirement" in communal living situations — every community, large or small, must have some level of authority, otherwise chaos would ensue. The only individuals who need not respond to the commands of others, Milgram insists, are those living in "isolation."

In summary, conformity involves agreeing with or going along with a majority group for any of several reasons — among them group pressure and cultural habits — while obedience is an impulse to do what one believes is correct or necessary, based on respect for or fear of authority.

Works Cited

Blass, Thomas. (2009). From New Haven to Santa Clara: A Historical Perspective on the Milgram Obedience Experiments. American Psychologist, 64(1), 37–45.

Cavazza, Nicoletta, and Mucchi-Faina, Angelica. (2008). Me, us, or them: Who is more conformist? Perception of conformity and political orientation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(3), 335–346.

Elms, Alan C. (2009). Obedience Lite. American Psychologist, 64(1), 32–36.

Hellman, Chan M., and House, Donnita. (2006). Volunteers serving victims of sexual assault. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 117–124.

Milgram, Stanley. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. London: Taylor & Francis Publishers.

Milgram, Stanley. (1974). The perils of obedience. Harper's Magazine. Retrieved July 12, 2009, from