The Relationship Between Intra-Group Status and Propensity for Conformity in the Process of Forming Group Norms
Abstract
The question of the relationship between the intragroup status of a group member and the degree of his conformity remains unresolved. Proponents of the idea of "middle-status conformity" tend to view low-status members as weakly susceptible to social influence, while their opponents - the most conforming part of the group. An experimental study of this problem became the purpose of this article. 74 students of the 4th senior (8-11) grades took part in it. The following methods were used: a specially designed experiment to study the process of formation of group norms, sociometry and referentometry. The obtained results did not confirm the idea of middle status conformity. At the same time, the hypothesis of the existence of a significant negative relationship between intragroup status and susceptibility to group influence was confirmed. Leaders are characterized by stability of opinion and immutability of position, while low-status members are characterized by pronounced fluctuations in assessments and opinions. It is shown that with age, the revealed relationship between in-group status and the degree of susceptibility to social influence increases. The conclusions drawn are limited to natural, long-established and well-structured groups; physical characteristics in a situation of uncertainty as an object of assessment; definition of intragroup status as a combination of sociometric status with referentiality; conforming behavior in the form of internalization.
Downloads
References
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M.S., Cochrane, S. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity, and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00892.x
Abrams, D., Levine, J.M. (2012). Norm formation: Revisiting Sherif's autokinetic illusion study. Social psychology: Revisiting the classic studies / Smith J.R., Haslam S.A. (eds.). Sage Publications Ltd., 57–75.
Driskell, J.E., Mullen, B. (1990). Status, Expectations, and Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review and Test of the Theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(3), 541-553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167290163012
Dost-Gozkan, A., Keith, D.S. (2019). Norms, Groups, Conflict, and Social Change: Rediscovering Muzafer Sherif's psychology. Routledge, 396 p.
Fard, S.A. (2010). Effect of gender and social status on conformity. Psychological Research, 13(1), 30–50. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:147038978
Gündüz, Y. (2017). Levels of Conformity to Leader in Normal and Critical Situations. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(8), 1332–1344. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050806
Hogg, A., Gaffney, A.M. (2018). Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. Developmental and Social Psychology. Wiley, 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170174.epcn414
Jetten, J., Hornsey, M.J., Adarves-Yorno, I. (2006). When Group Members Admit To Being Conformist: The Role of Relative Intragroup Status in Conformity Self-Reports. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205279904
Melamed, D., Savage, S.V., Munn, C. (2019). Uncertainty and Social Influence. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119866971
Phillips, D.J., Zuckerman, E.W. (2001). Middle-Status Conformity: Theoretical Restatement and Empirical Demonstration in Two Markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 379–429. https://doi.org/10.1086/324072
Prato, M., Kypraios, E., Ertug, G., Lee, Y.G. (2019). Middle-Status Conformity Revisited: The Interplay between Achieved and Ascribed Status, 62(4), 17-31. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/5930
Sherif, M. (2017). Social Interaction: Process and Products. Routledge.
