Talk:Conformity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jackdawgirl. Peer reviewers: Granto47.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

References for Revisions

My name is Christina Graham. I will be editing this article as part of my History and Systems of Psychology class at Shenandoah University. Below are a list of references I plan to use:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cgraham09 (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Conformity as an Assignment

The parts of this wikipedia page entitled "Real World Applications of Conformity," "Conformity and Gender Differences In Body Image," and "Oline Communities and Social Influence" were completed by a team of students attending the University of California at Merced as an assignment for our Social Psychology class. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.227.29 (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Queen Bee Redirect sucks!

I just wanted to lodge a huge protest that this stub under Queen Bee (subculture) (which is listed on the Queen Bee disambiguation page) was redirected here. That stub was way way way more informative than this page... because the stub has gestures towards what I actually was looking for while "Conformity" as understood by social psychologists is interestingly and tangentially related to it but basically not what I wanted at all. There's a whole literature in feminist cultural critique that I wanted summarized that the stub was working towards and someone killed it :-(

(Also, this is just a general comment, but I stopped trying to edit wikipedia a while ago because everything I tried to add was deemed "not important enough" and rather than fight stick in the muds for no pay I decided to just give up on the project... this deletion is a perfect example of something important to many people but not to the editor cliques who are willing to put up with so much crap that they dominate this wiki in ways that actually reduce it's net value. Kind of amusing that I finally broke down and wrote out this complaint on a page about "Conformity"... sigh.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.107.95.234 (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Given that there was no consensus to redirect it in the first place, I have restored the queen bee (subculture) article. It could possibly merge with leadership at some point, but it doesn't have much to do with this article. --Jcbutler (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Conformity in the general sociaty a way to conservative bankruptcy - Soviet union’s fall

I think conformism in a general society should have a section.

Conformity can be imposed by the leadership and most commonly in dictatorships like the Soviet union, where non-conformity was treated with prosecution, anti-Soviet activity and so on. But most of all conformity, to be able to get jobs and other opportunities in the society. It is a common dominion for most dictatorships and to a large extent describes the free world outside as a threat to the entire society and its values. The conformism in Islamic movements are very strong as well as Christian sects. It is to a large extent a power issue. We can see the Pussy Riots court cases in Russia today as a natural follow up and in the Russian society most people are still so used to conformity demands that they find it natural and something to protect the society.

The conformism is a true conservative phenomena and the conservatism in the Soviet union in the 70ies and 80ies, imposed by Stalin but when Brezhnev took over a bankruptcy of ideas and leading themes to drive the society forward (even if the predecessors ideas were mad, the drove the society forward). Were so strong that it led to the systems bankruptcy. The inability to adapt and try out new ways of working and solving problems and needs. Gorbachev knew he couldn’t put food on the table a few years ahead and made the reforms to survive from a rigid society. The most interesting parts is the stronger and stronger soviet behaviour in the the Western societies since the fall of Soviet union as conformism, modern budget steering like Gosplan and a stronger general conservatism and huge renewal problems. It is like when Soviet union is gone as a bad example it is allowed in the West?

More interesting is that art can’t be conformist, it would be rather therapy. And the most important issue of art is showing that it is possible to do things in new better ways, always. And it is a matter of looking for it and allowing it. In many cases we can see how great art and development in the society follow each other.

"Interpersonal social influence"?

Hi all. I recently removed an addition from Skepticalnicole with reasons stated concisely in the edit summary. Skepticalnicole has reinserted that content without alteration. In the interests of nipping this dispute in the bud I thought it might help if I fleshed out my concerns here. While I did have a few concerns about writing and referencing style, such things do not usually necessitate removal. There were, unfortunately, two issues that I thought were quite significant:

• Undue weight: The content largely reported one single study with very little explanation of how that study contributes to the current body of knowledge pertaining to conformity. Given that conformity is an enormous field of cross disciplinary research, referring to a single study would require significant justification. Spending 350 words on the methodological details of that study would require extraordinary justification. Neither is justified in my view.
• Origional research: There is significant content that is not substantiated by the source provided. In fact the source article does not at all mention “minorities”, “normative influence”, “informational influence”, or even “interpersonal social influence”. To my knowledge this contextualizing is original research and thus not appropriate for Wikipedia. If it is not original research then appropriate sources are needed (although I would be sceptical of any theory that differentiates between social influence and "interpersonal social influence").

With a little luck this clarifies things for Skepticalnicole and any future additions do not possess these worrying characteristics. Alternatively, if anyone thinks that I am way off the mark or being unreasonable then please let me know. Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Nazis!

Sorry, I don't know where to put this. You should add in the introduction that conformity may lead to dangerous and devastating phenomena, like in the Nazi Germany.

Hi Anon. While technically you are probably correct, I think you will find that conformity has had a causal role in every political movement ever. To justify the inclusion of this particular case in the article an editor would need to find reputable sources that speak to the special importance of conformity in that aspect of global history. If you do find such sources then by all means make a contribution along those lines. Cheers Andrew (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Without conformity, the movement moves apart, not forward. With the Nazis, it's just as true that their noncomformity in the wider picture was what started the war, which wound up devastating a lot more than if Europe had conformed to the Nazi conformation plan. If the people in the lands the Nazis wanted had rolled over and played dead, many would have avoided being actually dead.

Generally, resistance and exhaustion are the killers. But they're natural parts of our General Adaption Syndrome, and we're pretty much forced to comply with that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Conformity as healthy

I may have missed it, but this article does not seem to address conformity as just a healthy behaviour. Such as the way that we conform to grammar so that we can be understood, or that we conform to laws because we recognise a need for an orderly society. It appears to presume either sheepishness or an ulterior motive (wanting to be liked) LeapUK (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

BillyBlueJay (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 23:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)BillyBlueJay (talk) I agree with LeapUK. There definitely needs to be a more balanced point of view added here. The introduction to this article does not do an adequate job of conveying that all societies depend on conformity to norms, rules, laws whether they be informal or formal. Without conformity, humans do not have societies or cultures. In every social group or society, there are both formal and informal mechanisms for determining how much tolerance there will be for deviations from the norms, rules, and laws the group or society has established. When, where, and how much deviation is tolerated is the crux of important cultural differences (e.g., Collectivism vs. Individualism, as well as Tightness vs. Looseness of cultures) and thus should receive far more attention than is given in this article.

Same as bandwagon effect?

Is conformity identical to the bandwagon effect? C9mVio9JRy (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Shenandoah University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)