Is Conformity Universal across Cultures?
Social conformity varies across cultures. For example, there is a positive correlation between individualism and economic wealth. In countries low on individualism, conformity is popular, and autonomy is rated as less important (Berry et al., 1992). Therefore, economically wealthy countries, when compared with poorer countries, will conceivably show fewer examples of conformity. Conformity is typically lower in upper-middle class groups, and higher in lower socioeconomic class groups. It is higher in stratified and authoritarian societies as well, where parents are concerned about making their children conform to existing social norms (Kohn, 1969; Shiraev & Bastrykin, 1988). All in all, collectivist norms are likely to facilitate conformity and individualistic norms should not (Matsuda, 1985). In multicultural and diverse societies, such as the United States and Canada, the dominance of a single mainstream culture will be present to a lesser extent than the influence of a single uniform culture in less diverse societies, such as Norway or Korea. Even in ethnically diverse country such as the Soviet Union, the influence of mainstream Russian culture and single Marxist ideology was enforced by the totalitarian government, which facilitated conformity among its citizens (Gozman & Edkind, 1992).
Anticipation of negative sanctions may limit the expression of views that contradict the majority’s opinion and can result in the individual’s silent agreement with others. As formulated by Noelle-Neuman (1986), what individuals fear most of all with respect to their private opinions is social isolation. To avoid isolation, people try to determine what opinions other people hold. If an individual subscribes to the dominant opinion, this judgment is likely to be freely discussed and expressed. Moreover, the absence of resistance or criticism from others will strengthen the individual’s opinion. On the other hand, if an individual subscribes to a perceived minority opinion, that individual will fear social isolation and will not express that opinion as freely in public. This situation results in an opinion-voicing spiral into silence, as minority opinions, being less publicly shared, appear less and less widely held. The morals? Social norms of the rejection of and intolerance to different ideas may affect not only the frequency of expression of certain ideas but also their salience among people’s thoughts and attitudes. Moreover, lack of expression of such ideas leaves the existing social norms unchallenged.
Social and environmental conditions also influence individual conformity. For example, John Berry (1967) showed that conformity is higher in societies with high-food-accumulation practices (for example, the Temme of Sierra Leone) and lower in societies with low-food-accumulation practices (such as the Canadian Eskimo). In this case, low levels of conformity are perhaps conditioned by socialization practices: a young Eskimo learns very early in life how to be independent as a hunter. Studies conducted in many Asian countries indicate that people there engage in conforming behavior to a greater degree than Europeans. Specifically, Chinese were shown to be more conforming than Americans (Huang & Harris, 1973). Moreover, conformity is valued among Europeans (Matsumoto, 1994). For example, among participants of a Rokeach Value survey, Asian subjects emphasize independence and personal freedom (Punetha et al., 1987). Other studies show that there are differences in conforming behavior among representatives of countries that are “similar” to each other, such as Italy and Australia (both predominantly Christian and democratic societies). Italians were found to be more confirming than British Australians (Cashmore & Goodnow, 1986).
Remember that conformity should be considered a continuous variable. One can describe both high and low levels of conformity only when contrasting two or more samples. Moreover, within a single culture, there are different social sanctions applied to different groups in regard to their conforming behavior.
When comparing conformity cross-culturally one should take into consideration the social context in which the behavior occurs. With a certain degree of generalization, we can suggest that all human behavior may be viewed as acts of conformity because most healthy individuals tend to adjust their behavior to particular sets of norms. Some forms of conformity can be facilitated. For instance, we conform easily and eagerly when the conforming behavior falls into the category of socially acceptable and when there is no serious moral dilemma present. That is probably why people conform readily when they see other people engaged in socially “good” and “desirable” behavior (Aronson & O’Leary, 1982-1983; Cialdini et al., 1990).
John Weisz (Weisz et al., 1984) explains differences in conformity across cultures with the following assumption. He argues that in some situations individuals try to change the present situation and increase their rewards. These actions are called primary control. In other situations, people guarantee their rewards by adjusting to the existing conditions. This behavior is called secondary control. There is evidence that primary control is more valued in the United States than in Japan, where secondary control is more often accepted. In other words, Americans tend to pursue self-governing and independent goals whereas people in Japan are more interested in aligning themselves with others. Such differences could be explained as differences in locus of control: Americans, compared with Japanese, have a more internal attribution style (Moghaddam, 1998, 233).
If America is such a diverse and heterogeneous country, should we expect that most of its citizens are less conformist that other people, living in, for instance, Turkey, Brazil, or India? Experimental research does not provide us with impressive evidence in support of this belief. Further, some studies confirm that Americans are not less conformist than people from other cultures tested in similar experimental situations. The results of one study conducted in Japan were rather surprising. The data showed the lowest rates of conformity on the Asch experiment in Japan, lower than in the same experiment in the United States (Frager, 1970). Hypothetically, Japanese subjects, who represent a collectivist culture, were expected to conform more frequently than subjects from individualistic cultures, such as the United States. What was the cause of such unexpected results? Was it an error in experimental procedure? Apparently, in collectivist cultures, people conform toward their in-groups, and behave less cooperatively toward out-groups. In the Asch experimental procedure, the participants knew each other very little or not at all. This situation could not be termed as “in-group pressure.” Studying research on conformity in Japan, Matsuda (1985) explained this phenomenon by hypothetically dividing Japanese groups into three categories. The first category—groups selected by the experimenter—does not show conformity, the second category—mutually selected friends—shows some conformity, and the third category—cohesive groups—shows maximum conformity. Fathali Moghaddam (1998) also interprets the findings about low rates of conformity in some Japanese subjects as a demonstration of how different social norms may affect experimental procedures. Most of the experiments on conformity were conducted in colleges and universities and most participants were students. For some of them, situations such as experimental interaction with “strangers” were not as significant as interaction with their families and other important groups, where conformity is apparently high. It is also interesting how uncertainty avoidance may be used to explain conformity. For example, Frager (1970) and later Gudykunst and his colleagues (1992) explained that in the United States, where uncertainty avoidance is low, people tend to have less similar “standard” rules in many social situations. In Japan, however, where uncertainty avoidance is high, people tend to have clear rules of behavior in different social contexts. Therefore, behavior with strangers could be quite different from behavior with in-group members.
Still, when we ask our students to express their opinions on how Americans compare with other national groups in regards to conformity, most say that Americans are much less conforming than people of other nationalities. Why does it appear this way to some? Those who travel can easily see that people who live in North America, Europe, and industrialized countries of the Far East have more choices in life. The choices are not only related to products and services, but also to political diversity, ideological choices, lifestyle, and religious orientations. When John has more choices in life than Mary, he can choose more possible ways to act than Mary can. In this situation, when we examine John’s and Mary’s behavior we would find that John’s behavior is more “complex and diverse.” However, this fact could not lead us to the conclusion that John is less conforming than Mary. Mary has fewer choices and opportunities in life, therefore her behavior is confined into a frame of the required behavioral models, but this does not necessarily mean she is more conforming than John.
At the very moment that you are reading this, somewhere on the planet someone is giving an order to someone else. For example, someone is commanding others to rise, to move, to work, to rescue, to build, or to kill. People obey other people—parents, teachers, police officers, military commanders, husbands, wives—in every culture. Obedience is a form of conformity when a person simply follows orders given by others. Obedience to authority is defined as following orders given by an authority figure. This type of behavior is usually based on a belief that those with authority have the right to issue requests and give such orders.
Research on obedience in the United States and around the world is most notably associated with the name Stanley Milgram, a prominent scientist from Yale University (see Milgram, 1963). As some psychologists point out, Milgram’s publications are among the most famous and widely recognized in psychology’s history (Hock, 1995).
Milgram showed in his experiments that some people easily obey others and by doing that, they also readily violate their own moral standards of behavior. Moreover, he found that the circumstances under which people become obedient do not have to be extraordinary. We sometimes obey even in insignificant social situations. The Milgram experiment, and many of those that have followed, shows that obedience to authority is not only typical of the extremely weak, frustrated, or pathological, but also of many “normal” individuals when under psychological pressure. It has also been found that we tend to obey with less hesitation when somebody assumes responsibility for our actions. In these situations we may do something that we otherwise consider unthinkable.
The Milgram experiment on obedience was reproduced in many countries, apparently with similar results: people tend to obey other people who have power. Despite variations, it is more likely that in countries with high power distance, rates of obedience will be higher than in countries with low power distance. (Power distance, discussed earlier in the book, is the extent to which there is inequality between supervisors and subordinates in an organization.) The power distance index is high when the members of a society accept that power in institutions is distributed unequally. Similarly, the power distance index is low when the members of a society tend to accept equality within the institutions (Hofstede, 1980).
Another factor that may affect obedience is the predominant leadership style in a studied society. An authoritarian style of leadership, for example, presumes direct communications from the leader to the led. The leader or any authority figure gives the orders, and the led must obey. Discussions and exchanges of information are significantly limited. In post-war Germany, for example, 40 percent of students who were age 12 between 1946 and 1953 reported actual participation in school discussions and debates, whereas and only 6 percent of the students who were age 12 between 1941 and 1945, during the last period of the Nazi dictatorship, reported participation in discussions (Almond & Verba, 1965). It was also found that obedience was one of the most important values cultivated by the system of German socialization during at least the past 200 years (Miller, D., 1983).
According to other studies, parents from low socioeconomic status groups value obedience more than middle-class families do (Kohn, 1969). Similar results were received in a large-scale study conducted in nine countries, in which parents were asked to say what characteristics in their children were considered to be most desirable. The answers from parents who lived in the United States and other industrialized countries, such as Korea, stressed the importance of personal independence and self-reliant behavior. Parents from less industrialized nations, such as Turkey and Indonesia, indicated the importance of obedience in their children and did not endorse independence (Kagitcibasi, 1996). Among the world’s different cultural areas, African societies are rated the highest in the socialization of compliance and obedience (Munroe & Munroe, 1972). Political ideologies also seem to influence the frequency of obedient reactions. In totalitarian countries, obedient reactions were reported to be more frequent than in democratic societies (Triandis, 1994).
From Introduction to Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2001, pp. 312-318. © 2001 by Allyn & Bacon [&url]www.ablongman.com[&stop]. Reprinted by permission. Use of this material without written permission from the publisher is prohibited.