Explore the vast range of titles available.

Both adults and adolescents often conform their behavior and opinions to peer groups, even when they themselves know better. The current study investigated this phenomenon in 24 groups of 4 children between 4; 2 and 4; 9 years of age. Children often made their judgments conform to those of 3 peers, who had made obviously erroneous but unanimous public judgments right before them. A follow-up study with 18 groups of 4 children between 4; 0 and 4; 6 years of age revealed that children did not change their \"real\" judgment of the situation, but only their public expression of it. Preschool children are subject to peer pressure, indicating sensitivity to peers as a primary social reference group already during the preschool years.

A comparison of data from three empirical surveys, carried out in 1995, 2005 and 2015 with SVS (Schwartz Value Survey; Schwartz, 1992) among 18-29 year-old students, is presented in the article. The aim of the study is to trace out the dynamics of the significance and hierarchy of basic individual values among emerging adults, which is insufficiently analyzed problem in the psychological literature. The results reveal that in the studied 20-year period, individual and collective values both increase their significance. The priorities of the values remain stable in time, but they become more ambivalent – security and conformity joined self-direction at the categories of values and conservatism joined openness to change and self-transcendence at the poles of the dimensions of values. The collective interests prevail over individual ones, as a result of the intensive growth of some collective values such as conformity and conservatism in 2015. This study raises some questions related to the specificity of value models in this age group and their change in post-totalitarian context.

The main goal of this PhD research was to investigate social influences on moral judgment and factors that might moderate these effects. Specifically, this research explored (1) whether adults conform with others' moral opinions; (2) whether there are domain differences in moral conformity; (3) whether culture and gender moderate the effects of social influences on moral judgment; (4) whether normative and informational influences affect moral conformity; and (5) how others' moral reasons affect individuals' own moral judgments. These questions were examined in four empirical studies. Chapter 2 reports on two studies that combined theories of moral judgment and social conformity. Chapter 3 reports on two studies investigating whether there are differences in UK and Kuwaiti adults when making ethical risky decisions and decisions in other risk domains (i.e., the health/safety, social, and recreational risk domains). The study reported in Chapter 4 investigated the role of normative and informational influences on moral conformity across five moral foundations (i.e., the harm, justice, ingroup, authority, and purity foundations). While the previous studies assessed whether simply being presented with others' opinions affected more judgment, the study reported in Chapter 5 investigated how others' moral reasons influenced individuals' moral judgments. Overall, the findings of this research show that others' opinions do influence adults' moral judgments across domains, cultures, genders and when different conformity tasks are used. Others' moral reasons and moral emotions, however, exert a weaker influence on individuals' moral judgments. Social influences, and particularly moral conformity, should be considered in further detail to strengthen theories of moral decision-making and moral intervention programmes.

Adolescence is a period of life in which peer relationships become increasingly important. Adolescents have a greater likelihood of taking risks when they are with peers rather than alone. In this study, we investigated the development of social influence on risk perception from late childhood through adulthood. Five hundred and sixty-three participants rated the riskiness of everyday situations and were then informed about the ratings of a social-influence group (teenagers or adults) before rating each situation again. All age groups showed a significant social-influence effect, changing their risk ratings in the direction of the provided ratings; this social-influence effect decreased with age. Most age groups adjusted their ratings more to conform to the ratings of the adult social-influence group than to the ratings of the teenager social-influence group. Only young adolescents were more strongly influenced by the teenager social-influence group than they were by the adult social-influence group, which suggests that to early adolescents, the opinions of other teenagers about risk matter more than the opinions of adults.

Conformity occurs when the subject demonstrates the same behavior or attitude as the object. The subject is the individual who conforms. The object(s) may be individuals, groups, organizations, policies, rules and regulations, or the experience or natural instinct of the subject. Conformity is divided into 2 categories: irrational conformity (herd behavior) and rational conformity (abidance, compliance, and obedience). In this study we explain the meaning of abidance, compliance, obedience, and herd behavior. The conclusions have implications in the fields of commerce, education, service, politics, management, religion, and more.

Conformity occurs when the subject demonstrates the same behavior or attitude as the object. The subject is the individual who conforms. The object(s) may be individuals, groups, organizations, policies, rules and regulations, or the experience or natural instinct of the subject. Conformity is divided into 2 categories: irrational conformity (herd behavior) and rational conformity (abidance, compliance, and obedience). In this study we explain the meaning of abidance, compliance, obedience, and herd behavior. The conclusions have implications in the fields of commerce, education, service, politics, management, religion, and more.

Abstract The study investigated the influence of conformity and obedience on intentions to help a child whose relative had caused harm to the participant’s family during historical events of violence. Participants from Belgium, Cambodia, and Rwanda faced different social scenarios with two types of social influence and had to choose whether to respond helpfully. A multi-method and cross-cultural approach combining self-reports, behaviours, decision times (DTs), and electroencephalography (EEG) data was used. Participants explicitly reported being more influenced by authority (obedience) than by a group (conformity), a finding supported by faster DTs when following authority recommendations compared to either a group or an individual alone (compliance). However, behavioural and neural data showed no distinction between obedience and conformity. Behaviourally, authority and group influences exceeded individual influence but did not differ significantly. EEG results revealed higher mid-frontal theta (FMθ) activity for both the authority and the group indicating stronger inhibition of alternative choices compared to individual compliance. These results suggest that the type of measurement impacts the observed influence of authority and conformity, thus posing interesting questions regarding what may influence real behaviours. Variations were observed between countries, highlighting the importance of accounting for cross-cultural differences and avoiding generalization from a single population sample.