COMPLIANCE, OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY 1

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

Electronic or manual submission

UNIT NAME OF STUDENT STUDENT ID

PSY1204 SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF (Print clearly) NO.
BEHAVIOUR
BENDER ALISE 10367282
CODE TITLE FAMILY NAME FIRST NAME

NAME OF LECTURER DUE DATE

EYAL GRINGART 09/10/14

Topic of assignment
ESSAY
Group or tutorial (if applicable) Course CAMPUS
K13 JO

I certify that the attached assignment is my own work and that any material drawn from OFFICE USE
other sources has been acknowledged. This work has not previously been submitted for ONLY
assessment in any other unit or course.
Copyright in assignments remains my property. I grant permission to the University to make
copies of assignments for assessment, review and/or record keeping purposes. I note that
the University reserves the right to check my assignment for plagiarism. Should the
reproduction of all or part of an assignment be required by the University for any purpose
other than those mentioned above, appropriate authorisation will be sought from me on the
relevant form.
If handing in an assignment in a paper or other physical form, sign here to indicate that you have read
this form, filled it in completely and that you certify as above.
Signature Date

OR, if submitting this paper electronically as per instructions for the unit, place an ‘X’ in the box below to
indicate that you have read this form and filled it in completely and that you certify as above. Please
include this page in/with your submission. Any electronic responses to this submission will be sent to
your ECU email address.
Agreement X Date 09/10/14

FOR PROCEDURES AND PENALTIES ON LATE ASSIGNMENTS PLEASE refer to the University Admission,
Enrolment and Academic Progress Rule 24, and the ECU Course and Unit Delivery and Assessment Policy
COMPLIANCE, OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY 2
The ECU English Language Proficiency Measure (Feb 2014)
Levels of Low proficiency Developing proficiency Moderate proficiency High proficiency
proficiency
Incorrect or inappropriate Incorrect or inappropriate Aspects of writing are Aspects of writing are
aspects of writing obscure aspects of writing obscure mostly accurate. Mistakes appropriate and optimally
meaning in many places. meaning in some places. rarely affect clarity of constructed, allowing clarity
meaning. of meaning.
Significant editing needed to Some editing needed to clarify Minor editing needed to clarify Meaning is clear and needs
Aspects of writing clarify the meaning, along the meaning, along with the meaning, along with only a light proofread to
(Indicate with an X main with extensive proofreading extensive proofreading to careful proofreading to correct correct technical errors.
area(s) needing improvement) to correct technical errors. correct technical errors. technical errors.
Sentence structure

1. sentence completeness

2. sentence length

3. phrase/clause order

4. use of conjunctions

5. word order

6. punctuation
Word use
7. word choice
8. word form
9. word
omission/redundancy
10. verb
tense/agreement
11. spelling
12. apostrophes

Sentence Structure
1. Sentence completeness: sentence includes subject, verb and
complete thought.
2. Sentence length: length is appropriate to context or discipline.
3. Phrase/clause order: parts of the sentence (phrases and clauses)
are ordered logically.
4. Use of conjunctions: linking words are used correctly to show the
relationship between ideas.
5. Word order: words are ordered correctly in a sentence.
6. Punctuation: the correct use of full stops, commas, semicolons,
colons and capitals.

Word Use
7. Word choice: words are correct and appropriate for the context.
8. Word form: correct part of speech is used, e.g., [to] affect / [the]
effect.
9. Word omission/redundancy: words should not be missing or be
unnecessarily repetitive.
10. Verb tense/agreement: correct use of verbs that indicate time
and correct word forms that agree grammatically with other
words in the sentence.
11. Spelling: correct spelling is used.
12. Apostrophes: indicate ownership or contraction.
COMPLIANCE, OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY
3

Running Head: COMPLIANCE, CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE

Title: The Comparing and Contrasting of Compliance, Conformity and Obedience

Edith Cowan University
Alise Bender
COMPLIANCE, OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY
4

ABSTRACT

Social influence is a continuing factor driving change within individual’s beliefs and actions.

Compliance, conformity and obedience are all significant forms of social influence which

play a vital role in how we act accordingly. Compliance is the overt behaviour which occurs

when an individual is asked a request. Conformity is the internal change of an individual

when they desire to adhere to social norms. Obedience is the form of social influence

whereby an individual is given a demand by an authority figure. This essay will explore these

three forms of social influence by explaining each in relation to relevant research and theory.

Using this as a foundation, this essay will then compare and contrast compliance, conformity

and obedience whilst highlighting the main similarities and differences using original

examples. Social influence produces a varying depth of change within all human beings, thus

enhancing the importance of understanding the underlying dispositions of compliance,

conformity and obedience.

COMPLIANCE, OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY
5

Social influence is a significant determinant of the behaviour and attitudes emitted by

individuals. Different types of social influence can produce varying changes in one’s internal

and/or external behaviour. Compliance, conformity and obedience are all different forms of

social influence that have an impact on how we perceive others and consequently behave.

This essay will explain compliance, conformity and obedience in relation to relevant research

and theory. It will then compare and contrast these three notions by highlighting the

differences and similarities of each concept. Social influence is a phenomenon founded

within society making it inevitable to escape the change it produces.

Compliance is the superficial transitory change in behaviour and attitudes when a

request is initiated from another person and can be induced by certain techniques (Vaughan &

Hogg, 2011). Ingratiation and reciprocity are examples of techniques which increase a

person’s compliance with one’s requests. Ingratiation occurs when an individual is trying to

get one to like them in order to obtain compliance with a request (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011).

For example, when a politician creates an electoral platform specifically manipulated to gain

compliance through requesting the publics’ votes. Reciprocity is the concept of an individual

engaging someone in a way whereby they think they owe that person something;

consequently they feel obliged to comply (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2008). For instance when

a person gives someone else a large sum of money and after some time asks them to commit

a crime for them; they would do so as they felt they owed them for the money. This type of

social influence occurs daily, however the level of compliance of the individual will differ

due to the perceived social status the person who is asking the request is seen to have.

Compliance is also enhanced or heightened when the individual demanding the

request is perceived to have significant social power, in this sense, power can be interpreted

as the capacity to exert influence (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011). An individual is more likely to
COMPLIANCE, OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY
6

comply with a doctor than a pharmacist when being instructed on which medication to take,

as they perceive a doctor to have higher social status than a pharmacist. Cialdini & Goldstein

(2004) explain how people will therefore comply more readily when requested by someone

of a higher perceived social standing. Compliance is the most superficial of the three social

influences in that the act itself is overt, directed and manipulated behaviour. Social influence

can also occur on a deeper more intimate level of one’s self, this type of internal change is

termed conformity.

Conformity produces indirect change within an individual, largely due to group

pressure and social norms (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2008). It is based on the subjective

validity of social norms, whereby the individual is confident that the beliefs and actions

described by the perceived norm are correct, appropriate and socially desirable (Vaughan &

Hogg, 2011). Thus, conformity produces the yield for individuals to behave in accord with

the group of which they want to belong to, or want to be perceived to belong to. For instance,

when someone is willing to conform to a particular cult, their attitude and behaviour must

unify those of the cult they desire to join. However the level of which conformity arises will

differ due to individual differences and situational factors.

Conformity can be enhanced by a number of personal attributes and circumstances.

Vaughan and Hogg (2011) state that research has suggested that one’s personality could

predispose their susceptibility to conform. It’s suggested that those who conform tend to have

low self-esteem, are self-conscious, have a high need for social acceptance and have feelings

of inferiority or a low status within in a group (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011). In light of this,

inferences can be made that conformity is common among many young teenagers within the

school environment. Teenagers often have low self-confidence and are searching for a place

or group to fit in so they can be socially accepted. Therefore they will conform to the group
COMPLIANCE, OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY
7

they either want to join, or want to be perceived to be a part of. Conformity is the lasting

internal change that occurs more apparently within certain personality types, this is much

unlike the concept of obedience.

Milgram’s (1963) study was one of the first experiments to expose the

interesting concept of individuals obeying authority. Obedience occurs when an

individual follows orders from a person with a high status within a defined hierarchal social

system (Miller, 2000). Milgram’s results showed distinct factors which impacted the level of

obedience gained by the participants. Firstly, the proximity and legitimacy of the authority

figure; obedience was reduced to 20.5% when the experimenter was absent from the room

and gave orders via telephone (Milgram, 1963). Second is the immediacy of the victim,

whereby 100% of people shocked to the highest limit of 450V when the victim was

completely unseen and not heard of at all (Milgram, 1963). Lastly is the degree of social

support for obedience or disobedience, in other words group pressure. The presence of two

disobedient peers to the person administering the shock reduced complete obedience to 10%,

whilst the presence of two obedient peers increased obedience to 92.5% (Milgram, 1963). As

Milgram depicted, obedience is a significant form of social influence which impacts those

who fall beneath an authority figure within a social hierarchy.

Compliance, conformity and obedience are evidently all forms of social influence,

however when comparing and contrasting these concepts the behavioural tendencies

produced by individuals vary. Conformity is fundamentally different from compliance and

obedience in many aspects. Unlike compliance and obedience, conformity is not based on

power, the person is succumbing to values not orders or demands, and the behavioural change

is internal not overt. However a substantial similarity between the three concepts is the

increased effect group pressure has on the individual. When someone is confronted by a
COMPLIANCE, OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY
8

group, they are more likely to comply with the request, obey the demand and conform

subjectively to the group pressure. Each concept is significant in its own right, however when

juxtaposed to one another, the underlying dispositions of each become more distinct and

palpable.

Compliance and obedience are built on a similar basis of power. Coercive compulsion

in particular requires the source of social influence to be perceived by the target to have

substantial power (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011). This means that one is more likely to comply

with the request when it is given by someone whom the target perceives to be socially

superior to them. For example, a child is more likely to comply with a request made by an

adult rather than another child as the adult is superior to them. This is alike obedience in that

one gives priority to the judgements of an authoritative figure as they feel obligated to obey

the orders of that figure, irrespective of the orders legitimacy (Brownlee, 2004). In this

instance, when a soldier is given an order by their commanding officer they are highly likely

to obey it regardless of its legitimacy or morality. As previously stated, these two terms are

also similar in relation to the impact group pressure has on an individual to comply or obey a

request.

Group pressure increases both obedience and compliance, particularly when the

actions of others confirm to the individual that the command is either legitimate or

illegitimate (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011). Peer pressure is a clear example of the increased affect

group pressure has compliance as an individual is more likely to feel obliged to comply with

the group’s request. As Milgram’s study found, obedience of an individual was 95% more

likely to increase when peer’s also obeying the same orders were present. This factor can be

observed within the social setting of a police training academy. The training officers are more

likely to obey illegitimate orders given by the sergeant if other officers are also doing so.
COMPLIANCE, OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY
9

Obedience and compliance hold similar aspects to one another, although when differentiating

between the two, the status of the authority figure giving a command or request is significant

distinction.

Obedience and compliance can be distinguished by the status of the authority figure

initiating the social influence. Compliance involves authority based on one’s expertise,

moreover their social status (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). This is evident among varying

social settings for example, principles within schools, doctors within hospitals, security

guards within shopping centres, and businessman within the community. In contrast,

obedience involves authority based on one’s relative position in a hierarchy (Cialdini &

Goldstein, 2004). In this instance one may observe the army, police force, criminal justice

system and the government. To distinguish these concepts, the status of the authority figure

within the social situation is vital. This is unlike the contrasting of conformity and

compliance as they withhold significantly different aspects.

Conformity and compliance are very distinct from one another in that conformity is

an internal, private change whereas compliance is an external, behavioural change.

Conformity has been explained by Kassin, Fein, and Markus (2008) as the subjective

acceptance of social norms which produce an internal change that persists within the

individual in the absence of social surveillance. In contrast to this, Vaughan and Hogg (2011)

specifically state that compliance is an outward change in behaviour and expressed attitudes

which occur when ones behaviour is under surveillance. The difference between conformity

and compliance can be observed within the differences between high school and university.

In high school children are constantly complying with teachers, friends and parents requests

as a means of attending, achieving and graduating. Whereas within university, one has
COMPLIANCE, OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY
10

conformed and continues to conform to the social setting of willingly attending as they

internally desire to achieve. Furthermore, conformity will continue to occur within an

individual regardless of social surveillance, whilst compliance is an explicit behaviour change

which only occurs in the presence of social observation.

Additionally, compliance and conformity differ in regards to the awareness of the

individual whom is being socially influenced. It is inferred that when compliance occurs, the

individual recognises that they are being urged to act in a socially desirable manner (Vaughan

& Hogg, 2011). However, when one is conforming, they are unaware of their behavioural or

attitudinal change. Jones (1964) suggests that these two concepts can be seen similar in that

the product of conformity actually enhances the overt and public behaviour of compliance.

Thus, despite one being unaware of their change, during or after an individual has conformed

to certain social norms, it increases their susceptibility to comply with social requests.

Obedience and conformity withhold limited similar characteristics however both

concepts require the target of influence to submit to whom it is expected from. Brownlee

(2004) explains that obedience involves the submission of one’s will to the authority of

another. This is alike conformity, as when defined in a stronger sense it involves actions of

acquiescence whereby one is behaving in accord with socially expected ideals (Brownlee,

2004). In this instance, the target of influence for both concepts is unlikely to recognise their

susceptibility to such impact.

In contrast, conformity and obedience differ in what the target of influence is adhering

to. Conformity implies adherence to the values and principles embedded within a certain

social standard, for example the transition of barracking for a new football team because that

who all your friends support (Brownlee, 2004). Whereas obedience occurs as the target of
COMPLIANCE, OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY
11

influence adheres to commands and orders, moreover a person obeying a police officer.

These differences are what distinguish between the internal and external behavioural change

of an individual.

In conclusion, social influence is a powerful cause for differing changes within an

individual. Compliance, conformity and obedience are three distinct forms which all produce

varying levels of behavioural and attitudinal transformation. When comparing and

contrasting these three notions, it is evident that compliance and obedience are very similar in

their associations with authority and power and the overt and public behaviour they both

produce. Conformity largely differs from these two notions in that it is an internal change and

occurs under due to the own individuals desires. The depth of change social influence can

cause is a significant phenomenon, especially in relation to these three concepts.

COMPLIANCE, OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY
12

Reference List
Brownlee, K. (2004). Obedience, conformity, and deference. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
267-274.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity .
Annual Review of Psychology, 591-604.
Jones, J. A. (1964). The nature of compliance in correctional institutions for juvenile
offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 83-96.
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2008). Social Psychology . Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 371-378.
Miller, A. G. (2000). Obedience. In Encyclopedia of Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 483-485). US:
American Psychological Association.
Vaughan, G., & Hogg, M. (2011). Social Psychology (7th ed.). Frenchs Forest, Australia:
Pearson Education Australia.