COMPLIANCE AND CONFORMITYCONFORMITY AND STATUSResearch in the Asch and Sherif paradigms focus-
es on conformity pressures among peers. Howev-
er, when group members differ in status, it affects
the group’s tolerance of their nonconformity. High-
er status members receive fewer sanctions for
nonconformity than lower status members (Gerson
1975). As long as they adhere to central group
norms, high status members’ nonconformity can
actually increase their influence in the group
(Berkowitz and Macauley 1961). Edwin Hollander
(1958) argues that, because high status members
are valued by the group, they are accorded ‘‘idio-
syncrasy credits’’ that allow them to nonconform
and innovate without penalty as long as they stay
within certain bounds. It is middle status members
who actually conform the most (Harvey and Consalvi
1960). They have fewer idiosyncrasy credits than
high status members and more investment in the
group than low status members.
Nonconformity can also affect the position of
status and influence a person achieves in the group.
Hollander (1958, 1960) proposed that individuals
earn status and idiosyncrasy credits by initially
conforming to group norms, but replications of
his study do not support this conclusion (see
Ridgeway 1981 for a review). Conformity tends to
make a person ‘‘invisible’’ in a group and so does
little to gain status. Nonconformity attracts atten-
tion and gives the appearance of confidence and
competence which can enhance status. But it also
appears self-interested, which detracts from status
(Ridgeway 1981). Consequently, moderate levels
of nonconformity are most likely to facilitate sta-
tus attainment.
COMPLIANCE WITH AUTHORITYReacting to the Nazi phenomenon of World War
II, studies of compliance to authority have focused
on explaining people’s obedience even when or-
dered to engage in extreme or immoral behavior.
Compliance in this situation is comparable to
conformity in the Asch paradigm in that individu-
als must go against their own standards of conduct
to obey. The power of a legitimate authority to
compel obedience was dramatically demonstrated
in the Milgram (1963, 1974) experiments. As part
of an apparent learning study, a scientist-experi-
menter ordered subjects to give increasingly strong
electric shocks to another person. The shock gen-
erator used by the subject labelled increasing lev-
els as ‘‘danger-severe shock’’ and ‘‘XXX’’ (at 450
volts). The victim (a confederate who received no
actual shocks) protested, cried out, and complained
of heart trouble. Despite this, 65 percent of the
subjects complied with the scientist-experimenter
and shocked the victim all the way to the 450 volt
maximum. It is clear that most of the time, people
do as they are told by legitimate authorities.Uncertainty over their responsibilities in the
situation (a definition of social reality issue) and
concern for the authority’s ability to punish or
reward them seem to be the principle causes for
people’s compliance in such circumstances. Note
the comparability of these factors to informational
and normative influence. Situational factors that
socially define the responsibility question as a duty
to obey rather than to disobey increase compli-
ance (Kelman and Hamilton 1989), as do factors
that increase the authority’s ability to sanction.Research has demonstrated several such fac-
tors. Compliance is increased by the legitimacy of
the authority figure and his or her surveillance of
the individual’s behavior (Milgram 1974; Zelditch
and Walker 1984). When others in the situation
obey or when the individual’s position in the chain
of command removes direct contact with the vic-
tim, compliance increases (Milgram 1974). On the
other hand, when others present resist the authori-
ty, compliance drops dramatically. Stanley Milgram
(1974) found that when two confederates working
with the subject refused to obey the experimenter,
only 10 percent of subjects complied fully them-
selves. As with a fellow dissenter from a unani-
mous majority, other resisters define disobedi-
ence as appropriate and provide support for
resisting. In an analysis of ‘‘crimes of obedience’’
in many government and military settings, Her-
bert Kelman and Lee Hamilton (1989) show how
such factors lead to compliance to illegal or im-
moral commands from authority.Conformity and compliance are fundamental
to the development of norms, social organization,
group culture, and people’s shared social identi-
ties. As a result, research on conformity and com-
pliance continues to develop in several directions.
Efforts are underway to develop broader models
of the social influence process that can incorpo-
rate both conformity and compliance (see Cialdini