Social essay

The power of social influence has been a subject of extensive research (Hogg, 1992). The notion that groups working towards a mutual goal perform better than independent individuals has been largely accepted not only by social psychologists but also by employers (Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, Hogg & Turner, 2001). Employers for example would often suggest team building exercises because they recognize the importance of group cohesiveness and entitattivity (Baron, Brainscombe, & Byrne, 2009). Group cohesiveness and entitattivity can have a negative effect on person’s individuality to the extent to which the association with the group’s values and norms is so strong that the group members become highly deindividuated (Hogg, 1992; Diener, 1977). With the aid of relevant studies this essay will critically examine whether individuality gets lost in groups. For this purpose the reasons why people join a group would be briefly examine as they are an important motivation factor in the process of decision making (Hogg, Hohman, & Rivera, 2008). Then this essay will focus on individuality changes particularly with regards conformity theory. The conclusion will provide a brief summary of the main topics discussed in this essay.

Several theories provide an explanation as to why do people join groups. In particular the sociometer, the uncertainty-identity theory as well as the terror management theory relate their arguments to the need of belonging, which in turn reduces self-doubt, fear of death, promotes feelings of acceptance, pleasure, certainty and security (Hogg et al, 2008). Another theory which summarizes all of the above is the social exchange theory, however it also points out a very important factor regarding group functioning: groups do not only provide benefits but there are often costs, closely associated with joining a group (Baron & Kerr, 2003). The costs do not necessarily have to be material they can relate to time, commitment and even compromises with one’s individual values and privately held beliefs in order to comply with group norms (Baron & Kerr, 2003).This concept is closely related to conformity and social comparison theories demonstrated by many social psychologists such as Sherif (1937); Solomon Asch (1951, 1955) as well as Turner (1991), (as cited in Abrams, et al, 2001; Brewer, 2001; Postmes, Spears, Lee, & Novak, 2005; Turner, 1991 ). Although the groups investigated in these studies are not characterized by high level of cohesiveness they provide a very detailed perspective on just how much individuals are influenced by their groups. Another study that illustrates conformity is Zimbardo’s prison experiment (Zimbardo, 2008). Zimbardo’s study demonstrates how destructive conformity can be. Many of the participants assigned to play the role of prison guards were heavily criticized due to their inhuman behavior as a result of their deindividuation (Baron & Kerr, 2003). The negative effects of deindividuation as a result of group conformity are particularly evident in the study of Silke (2010), which describes crime as a result of deindividuation related to anonymity and group influence.
With regards to specific studies on group processes this essay has provided a brief overview on the matter of individuality loss in a group setting. The observed studies suggest that individuality loss is expected to occur in groups that have high conformity levels.

Refrence List

Abrams, D., Wetherell, M.,Cochrane, S., Hogg,M., & Turner, J. (2001). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. In Hogg, M. & Abrams, D., (Eds.). Intergroup relations (pp. 270-297). Sussex, UK; Psychology Press.
Baron, N & Kerr, N.,(2003). Group process, group decision, group action (2nd ed).Buckingham, UK; Open University Press
Baron, R., Brainscombe, N. & Byrne, D. (2009). Social and developmental psychology (12th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Bearson Education Inc.
Brewer, M. (2001). The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. In Hogg, M. & Abrams, D., (Eds.), Intergroup relations (pp. 245-253). Sussex, UK; Psychology Press.
Diener, E., (1977). Deindividuations: causes and consequenes. Social behavior & personality; An International Journal, 5(1), 143-155, retrieved 09 October 2014 from: http://dm6zv4xf5h.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=DEINDIVIDUATION%3A+CAUSES+AND+CONSEQUENCES&rft.jtitle=Social+Behavior+and+Personality%3A+an+international+journal&rft.au=Diener%2C+Edward&rft.date=1977&rft.pub=Scientific+Journal+Publishers&rft.issn=0301-
2212&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=143&rft.epage=155&rft_id=info:doi/10.2224%2Fsbp.1977.5.1.143&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=n%2Fa¶mdict=en-US
Hogg, M., (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: from attraction to social identity. Hamstead, Uk; Harvester Wheatsheaf
Hogg, M.,Hohman, Z. & Rivera, J. (2008). Why do people join groups? Three motivational accounts from social psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1269-1280. Doi; 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00099.x
Postmes,T.,Spears, R., Lee, A. & Novak, R. (2005). Individuality and social influence in groups: inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 747-763. Doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.744
Sikle, A. (2010). Deindividuation, anonymity, andviolence: findings from northern Ireland. The Journal of Social psychology,143 (4), 493-499. Doi; 10.1080/00224540309598458
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2008). The lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House Trade.

As demonstrated by Lott and Lott’s (1965) study was not concentrated on inviduality and conformity determined that liking and attraction as well as similarities beteenw group memberes are key resons for high group cohesiveness. Group cohesivness on theother hand is a fundamental factor in conformity the higher the level of cohesivness the more grpup members would conform. Another study that illustrates the conformity with groups and groups’ social norms is Zimbardo’s staford prison, which was highly critisised due to its brutality but also demonstrated the extent to which group members are prone to social influence andconformity.Utimatelly the decision wheter to conformor not is determined by the extent to which an individual is willing to remain independednt and unique. can lead to compliance, identification and internalization. Socialconformity results from normative and or informational socialinfluence, where normativeis based on the desire to be included, accepted andliked, however it does not necessarily involve personal acceptance of group norms or beliefs. The internalization can have more lasting impact as it implies that people want to be correct and they use their groups as a way to verify their believes and as a result when in contrast with these views individuals are prone to change their own personaly held views to mach the those of the group. Alhough therewete no lasting effects the studies conducted by Sherif(1937) and Asch(1950) illustrate how individual perceptions, views and individuality can be affercted by conforming to group ideas. Another fctor that influences conformity and therefore individual decisions is the group size, Asch experiment found that the level of conformity increasedwith the group size low when
Another factor influencing conformity is the group cohesiveness. The study of Lott and Lott is a good example.

ies of Lott and Lott and

http://www.radford.edu/~jaspelme/_private/gradsoc_articles/individualism_collectivism/conformity%20and%20culture.pdf- bond and smith http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/172844?uid=2134&uid=2484707567&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=2484707557&uid=60&sid=21104847413297-kelman https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/psyifp/aeechterhoff/wintersemester2011-12/vorlesungkommperskonflikt/lott_groupcohesattr_psychbull1965.pdf lott and lott
Sociometry
Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 1975), pp. 340-357 http://www.jstor.org.login.library.ucs.ac.uk/stable/pdfplus/2786169.pdf?acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true In his view identification and interzalization have the stongest effect on individuality chane as they appeal to the value system and the core beliefs of the person They are seen as a direct Despite their importance conformity to group influence and group norms can often result in individuality loss. In its essence conformity theory looks at how individual’s behaviuor, attitudes, perceptions and even thoughts and feelings change as a relut of group pressure. Thereare several types of social influence In a study of compliance, Kelman(1958) has determined three types of conformity: compliance, identification and internalization. According to him compliance has a weeker effect on individuality change as it does not necessarily involve change of personally held views or behavior, it is rather a process where an individual agrees with a group because of a personal gain such as acceptance for example. Identification has more lasting effect as it is based on attraction and association with a group and is closely related to shared similarities wether in appearance or views. Internalization has the strongest impact on individuality and self-definition as it actually invoves both social and privet acceptance of the group’s views and norms. The studies of Sherif( 1937) and Asch(1950) demonstrate just how powerful social influence and group preasure to conform are. As a result of these studies there are two tyes of social influence Furthermore two types of social influencesome key reasons as why individuals feel compelled to conform. \their studies suggest that people

whter in apprerance or views. result from change of personal views or oppenions but it he study of KAlthough both social groups and the norms within these groups norm are beneficial and even essential for the group members conformity to they are also the direct cause of individuality loss. Conformity to group norms and even beneficial to human beings they often influenc
The power of social influence has been a subject of extensive research and has provided evidence suggesting that individuality often gets lost in groups (Hogg, 1992). One of the theories associate with group functioning and its effects on individuality is the social conformity theory. IN its essence it examins the ways in which personal beliefs, attitudes, feelings and oppenions change under the influence of group members and social norms. Kelman (1958) has distinguished between three types of conformity: compliance, inedntification and internalization. According to him Complience occred as a result of possible gaind, not aceeptance of ideas; identification is based on attractiveness and similarities and internalization is a process of privet acceptance. In his view identification and interzalization have the stongest effect on individuality chane as they appeal to the value system and the core beliefs of the person. Asche’s experimenton the other hand privet acceptance
In this context the group influence is seen as normative and informational influence where the first is seen as a direct result of individual’s desire to belong and be liked whereas the second is more broadr concept of approval related to consensus regarding social definitions such as understanding of social reality. In other words people tend to conform because they want to be accepted and because they want to ensure that they are correct with regards to their perception of social world. The power of informational influenceis clearly illustrated in the experiments of Sherif (1936) and Asch(1950In his study on conformity Asch (1950) illustrated just how powerful the aspect of informational influence is by demonstrating how majority ofindividuals can influence a minority As a result The process of conformity often involves chnge of oppenieon such as

regarding the real worldand conformation The group influence can be seenThe influence of groups members is often related to individual’s desire to belong, to be included and liked, or as otherwise known normative social influence while th soial norms Groups are often a product of cTherefore individuality often gets lost Several theories such as the sociometer, uncertainty-identity and terror mnagment theory provide an extensive list of the benefits associated with group membership, however group membership is often closely associated with certain costs which are not necessarirly of material nature but are often related to idendividuality compromises such as agreeing to certain norms or beliefs in order to be accepted. Research in conformity suggests that individuality does often get lost in group especially when there is strong sence of similarity, identification and attractiveness between and individual and other group members or groups values and purposes. Research in conformity conformity

explanation as to why do people join groups. In particular the sociometer, the uncertainty-identity theory as well as the terror management theory relate their arguments to the need of belonging, mutual attractiveness and similarities; fear of death, promotes feelings of acceptance, pleasure, certainty and security (Hogg et al, 2008). Another theory which summarizes all of the above is the social exchange theory, however it also points out a very important factor regarding group functioning: groups do not only provide benefits but there are often costs, closely associated with joining a group (Baron & Kerr, 2003). The costs do not necessarily have to be material they can relate to time, commitment and even compromises with one’s individual values and privately held beliefs in order to comply with group norms (Baron & Kerr, 2003).This concept is closely related to conformity and social comparison theories demonstrated by many social psychologists such as Sherif (1937); Solomon Asch (1951, 1955) as well as Turner (1991), (as cited in Abrams, et al, 2001; Brewer, 2001; Postmes, Spears, Lee, & Novak, 2005; Turner, 1991 ). Although the groups investigated in these studies are not characterized by high level of cohesiveness they provide a very detailed perspective on just how much individuals are influenced by their groups. Another study that illustrates conformity is Zimbardo’s prison experiment (Zimbardo, 2008). Zimbardo’s study demonstrates how destructive conformity can be. Many of the participants assigned to play the role of prison guards were heavily criticized due to their inhuman behavior as a result of their deindividuation (Baron & Kerr, 2003). The negative effects of deindividuation as a result of group conformity are particularly evident in the study of Silke (2010), which describes crime as a result of deindividuation related to anonymity and group influence.
With regards to specific studies on group processes this essay has provided a brief overview on the matter of individuality loss in a group setting. The observed studies suggest that individuality loss is expected to occur in groups that have high conformity levels.

As demonstrated by Lott and Lott’s (1965) study was not concentrated on inviduality and conformity determined that liking and attraction as well as similarities beteenw group memberes are key resons for high group cohesiveness. Group cohesivness on theother hand is a fundamental factor in conformity the higher the level of cohesivness the more grpup members would conform. Another study that illustrates the conformity with groups and groups’ social norms is Zimbardo’s staford prison, which was highly critisised due to its brutality but also demonstrated the extent to which group members are prone to social influence andconformity.Utimatelly the decision wheter to conformor not is determined by the extent to which an individual is willing to remain independednt and unique. can lead to compliance, identification and internalization. Socialconformity results from normative and or informational socialinfluence, where normativeis based on the desire to be included, accepted andliked, however it does not necessarily involve personal acceptance of group norms or beliefs. The internalization can have more lasting impact as it implies that people want to be correct and they use their groups as a way to verify their believes and as a result when in contrast with these views individuals are prone to change their own personaly held views to mach the those of the group. Alhough therewete no lasting effects the studies conducted by Sherif(1937) and Asch(1950) illustrate how individual perceptions, views and individuality can be affercted by conforming to group ideas. Another fctor that influences conformity and therefore individual decisions is the group size, Asch experiment found that the level of conformity increasedwith the group size low when
Another factor influencing conformity is the group cohesiveness. The study of Lott and Lott is a good example.

ies of Lott and Lott and

http://www.radford.edu/~jaspelme/_private/gradsoc_articles/individualism_collectivism/conformity%20and%20culture.pdf- bond and smith http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/172844?uid=2134&uid=2484707567&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=2484707557&uid=60&sid=21104847413297-kelman https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/psyifp/aeechterhoff/wintersemester2011-12/vorlesungkommperskonflikt/lott_groupcohesattr_psychbull1965.pdf lott and lott
Sociometry
Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 1975), pp. 340-357 http://www.jstor.org.login.library.ucs.ac.uk/stable/pdfplus/2786169.pdf?acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true In his view identification and interzalization have the stongest effect on individuality chane as they appeal to the value system and the core beliefs of the person They are seen as a direct Despite their importance conformity to group influence and group norms can often result in individuality loss. In its essence conformity theory looks at how individual’s behaviuor, attitudes, perceptions and even thoughts and feelings change as a relut of group pressure. Thereare several types of social influence In a study of compliance, Kelman(1958) has determined three types of conformity: compliance, identification and internalization. According to him compliance has a weeker effect on individuality change as it does not necessarily involve change of personally held views or behavior, it is rather a process where an individual agrees with a group because of a personal gain such as acceptance for example. Identification has more lasting effect as it is based on attraction and association with a group and is closely related to shared similarities wether in appearance or views. Internalization has the strongest impact on individuality and self-definition as it actually invoves both social and privet acceptance of the group’s views and norms. The studies of Sherif( 1937) and Asch(1950) demonstrate just how powerful social influence and group preasure to conform are. As a result of these studies there are two tyes of social influence Furthermore two types of social influencesome key reasons as why individuals feel compelled to conform. \their studies suggest that people

whter in apprerance or views. result from change of personal views or oppenions but it he study of KAlthough both social groups and the norms within these groups norm are beneficial and even essential for the group members conformity to they are also the direct cause of individuality loss. Conformity to group norms and even beneficial to human beings they often influenc
The power of social influence has been a subject of extensive research and has provided evidence suggesting that individuality often gets lost in groups (Hogg, 1992). One of the theories associate with group functioning and its effects on individuality is the social conformity theory. IN its essence it examins the ways in which personal beliefs, attitudes, feelings and oppenions change under the influence of group members and social norms. Kelman (1958) has distinguished between three types of conformity: compliance, inedntification and internalization. According to him Complience occred as a result of possible gaind, not aceeptance of ideas; identification is based on attractiveness and similarities and internalization is a process of privet acceptance. In his view identification and interzalization have the stongest effect on individuality chane as they appeal to the value system and the core beliefs of the person. Asche’s experimenton the other hand privet acceptance
In this context the group influence is seen as normative and informational influence where the first is seen as a direct result of individual’s desire to belong and be liked whereas the second is more broadr concept of approval related to consensus regarding social definitions such as understanding of social reality. In other words people tend to conform because they want to be accepted and because they want to ensure that they are correct with regards to their perception of social world. The power of informational influenceis clearly illustrated in the experiments of Sherif (1936) and Asch(1950In his study on conformity Asch (1950) illustrated just how powerful the aspect of informational influence is by demonstrating how majority ofindividuals can influence a minority As a result The process of conformity often involves chnge of oppenieon such as

regarding the real worldand conformation The group influence can be seenThe influence of groups members is often related to individual’s desire to belong, to be included and liked, or as otherwise known normative social influence while th soial norms Groups are often a product of cTherefore individuality often gets lost Several theories such as the sociometer, uncertainty-identity and terror mnagment theory provide an extensive list of the benefits associated with group membership, however group membership is often closely associated with certain costs which are not necessarirly of material nature but are often related to idendividuality compromises such as agreeing to certain norms or beliefs in order to be accepted. Research in conformity suggests that individuality does often get lost in group especially when there is strong sence of similarity, identification and attractiveness between and individual and other group members or groups values and purposes. Research in conformity conformity

explanation as to why do people join groups. In particular the sociometer, the uncertainty-identity theory as well as the terror management theory relate their arguments to the need of belonging, mutual attractiveness and similarities; fear of death, promotes feelings of acceptance, pleasure, certainty and security (Hogg et al, 2008). Another theory which summarizes all of the above is the social exchange theory, however it also points out a very important factor regarding group functioning: groups do not only provide benefits but there are often costs, closely associated with joining a group (Baron & Kerr, 2003). The costs do not necessarily have to be material they can relate to time, commitment and even compromises with one’s individual values and privately held beliefs in order to comply with group norms (Baron & Kerr, 2003).This concept is closely related to conformity and social comparison theories demonstrated by many social psychologists such as Sherif (1937); Solomon Asch (1951, 1955) as well as Turner (1991), (as cited in Abrams, et al, 2001; Brewer, 2001; Postmes, Spears, Lee, & Novak, 2005; Turner, 1991 ). Although the groups investigated in these studies are not characterized by high level of cohesiveness they provide a very detailed perspective on just how much individuals are influenced by their groups. Another study that illustrates conformity is Zimbardo’s prison experiment (Zimbardo, 2008). Zimbardo’s study demonstrates how destructive conformity can be. Many of the participants assigned to play the role of prison guards were heavily criticized due to their inhuman behavior as a result of their deindividuation (Baron & Kerr, 2003). The negative effects of deindividuation as a result of group conformity are particularly evident in the study of Silke (2010), which describes crime as a result of deindividuation related to anonymity and group influence.
With regards to specific studies on group processes this essay has provided a brief overview on the matter of individuality loss in a group setting. The observed studies suggest that individuality loss is expected to occur in groups that have high conformity levels.