Conformity refers to the phenomenon of social uniformity, whereby individuals align their behavior, attitudes, and beliefs with group norms. The Sash’s experiment showcased this tendency by having participants match a given line with another line of equal length. Despite the clear correct answer, most participants conformed to their group’s decision. This inclination towards conformity is observed in both small groups and society at large.
Conformity can happen in the presence of others or when we are by ourselves. Research has demonstrated that it often stems from feelings of insecurity or lack of competence, especially when we expect to be seen by others who admire the group’s status and attractiveness. Frequently, we conform to avoid rejection or gain social approval. This phenomenon is referred to as normative social influence, where we abide by societal norms for accepted and expected behavior (Myers, 2014). Obedience towards the group leader is another component associated with conformity within groups.
Stanley Amalgam, a psychologist, conducted a renowned and controversial experiment on obedience that has become psychology’s most famous experiment. The experiment aimed to explore the phenomenon of individuals following orders from authority figures, even when it contradicts their own moral compass. To achieve this, Amalgam invited a diverse group of individuals to partake in a memory study under the pretense that it was the true objective. However, the actual purpose was to examine the extent of obedience towards authority figures.
According to Myers (2010), the majority of participants in Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment followed orders and administered high electric shocks. Obedience refers to individuals accepting instructions from authority figures, which is distinct from compliance influenced by peers and conformity to match the majority (Boundless, 2015). In summary, conformity involves changing behavior or beliefs due to group pressure, while obedience entails acting according to direct commands (Myers, 2010, p. 192). Conformity and obedience are not necessarily negative as they promote confidence and unity. However, malevolent individuals can exploit them for control purposes. This was evident in Germany after World War I when Adolf Hitler gained power and orchestrated mass killings in Nazi concentration camps. It raises the question of what motivated these individuals to carry out their given orders.
The primary factor in the production of eager killers during the Holocaust was obedience, although anti-Semitic ideology also played a role. In the summer of 1942, around 500 middle-aged German reserve police officers were sent to Josef, Poland, which was under German occupation, to round up Jews suspected of aiding the enemy. At that time, all capable men were sent to work camps while others were immediately executed. The commander gave the recruits an opportunity to decline participation in the killings, but only about a dozen initially refused. Within 17 hours, the remaining 485 officers brutally murdered over one thousand defenseless women, children, and elderly.
In the real world, just like in Amalgam’s experiments, only a minority resisted early on. According to Myers (2014), the Amalgam experiments shed light on the comprehensibility of the Nazi crimes. Amalgam himself proposed that a significant factor contributing to the Holocaust was humans’ innate tendency to obey authorities, even when such obedience is morally wrong. As a result, this led to the cruel mistreatment of Jewish and disabled individuals during the Third Reich. The individuals who carried out these acts transferred their accountability onto others.
According to Eely (2003), when individuals perceive an order as coming from a superior authority, they tend to view their actions as appropriate. To comply with authority, the person obeying must recognize the legitimacy of the command. A notable example demonstrating this phenomenon is the case of Doll Coachman. In 1962, Coachman was executed for his involvement in the Holocaust, a horrific event in which six million Jewish individuals were systematically murdered by the Nazi regime. Coachman played a pivotal role in organizing the effective collection, transportation, and extermination of those targeted for elimination.
During his trial, the accused expressed surprise at the hatred he received from the Jewish population, claiming that he had simply followed orders. He believed that following orders was a positive act. The accused was deemed mentally sound by six psychiatrists and was described as a normal family man during the trial. However, if we consider that there was nothing particularly unusual about the accused, we must confront the uncomfortable possibility that his actions were a result of the social circumstances in which he found himself. The militaristic environment in the state compelled him to engage in cruel behavior as an act of obedience and conformity to society (McLeod, 2007).
Following World War II, psychologists began examining the concept of human obedience in light of the Holocaust. Initially, explanations focused on the notion that German culture had a unique characteristic that allowed for the occurrence of the Holocaust (McLeod, 2007). However, as shown by Amalgam’s experiment, it is evident that brutal behavior under authority is not exclusive to any particular culture but rather a characteristic of people. Mass events served as one means of control.
The Nazi party celebrated the newfound unity of Germany, emphasizing the importance of the collective over the individual: “The individual is of no significance; only the society matters. Once we achieve internal unity, we can defeat our external enemies.” (Allen, 1965, p. 199) This emphasis on conformity can also be understood in a historical context. After World War One, people were searching for a sense of community in the aftermath and destruction of the war. The disorientation and confusion during this period made them vulnerable to totalitarian regimes. Being an isolated minority was no easy task.
