Conformity is the transformation of conduct or conviction due to the effect of a real or perceived source of pressure, which dictates the change process. In some cases, the transformation may be referred to as compliance, as in this case the conduct change is only depicted when the subject is being supervised or watched over. An example to explain conformity; is when a student taking an exam keeps his focus on the paper they are handling when the teacher is in the exam room; only to veer so as to look at other students, their books, or outside after the teacher walks out of the exam hall. The other case is the behavior of drivers to come to a complete stop when commanded to by a police officer, but keep moving in case the officer seems to have forgotten that they had commanded them to stop. On the other hand, the behavior change involving internalization or private acceptance does not require surveillance or supervision; as the subject takes to the behavior change on the basis of perceived benefits or advantage. An example, in this case, is the experience of a dedicated Christian; who does not lie in public and is not ready to do so even when not watched by any other person (Brittain, 1963).
The study involved sixth and twelfth-grade students from varied communities exposed to the conditions for conforming, peer pressure perception, and freedom to choose between adopting two major aspects of teenage life. The two aspects under study were the level of socialization they would embrace and misconduct that entailed alcohol and drug abuse; sexual behavior and minor behavioral delinquency. From the study, it was evident that individuals perceived less peer pressure but mostly conformed based on willful involvement. In this case, the subjects showed not much conformity to follow peers going into misconduct. From the study, it was further evidence that perceived peer pressure and the effects of conformity took the control of behavioral change. However, the levels of conformity and perceived pressure varied from one subject to the other, as well as dictating the level of subject-reported behavior (Brittain, 1963).
From the study, conformity can be considered one of the major determinants of behavior among adolescents. It further was found out that the levels of conformity increase from childhood through adolescence, dictating the levels of peer involvement and misconduct. The high levels of conformity resulted from the view that the affiliation and strength of the group, is dictated by the level of conformity. However, with the development of a stronger sense of self and autonomy in peers later in life; the need for sturdy group affiliation and conformity to the groups’ beliefs and behavior is lowered. However, it should be further noted that the levels of conformity and group affiliation increase from childhood through premature adolescence to middle adolescence, then start to drop after this stage. It was further noted that the levels of conformity dispositions swell from childhood to the ages of adolescence, but dropped in the later ages of adolescents. However, there were the facts that conformity was more felt towards adopting pro-social or neutral behavior than negative behavior. On the other hand, conformity dispositions seemed to be more felt, in making subjects follow antisocial behavior. Gender variations were considered in the response given to antisocial behavior, where females were less conforming than the male subjects (Hartup, 1983).
From the study it was evident that conformity levels vary depending on the area of origin of subjects; the age of subjects and their gender where the levels were lower in females, but invariably distributed over the different ages. Across the different variables, it was found out that adolescents were more willful in adopting and conforming to peer pressure, involving the take-up of neutral behaviors than antisocial ones. It was also found out that the conformity trends in the different subjects and areas of study; followed an inverted U-shaped model with the increase in age. Another fact from the study regarding the differences in take-up of behavior and conformity levels was that; males were more willing than their female counterparts in adopting antisocial behavior through conformity (Clasen & Brown, 1985).
From the different subjects studied in this case; it was evident that the level of perceived peer pressure varied from one subject to the other based on given specific variables. The variables involved in dictating the levels of conformity were the age of subjects, area of residence and environment surrounding the subjects; and the gender of the subjects. Within the area of perceived pressure, it was evident that; adolescents perceived stronger peer pressure in cases that involved peer involvement than in cases that involved the take-up of misconduct. It was also evident that in the different cases of study; the levels of perceived pressure followed a U-shaped inverted change of course with reference to the age of subjects as the main variable. From the different levels of perceived pressure; it was also found out that the levels of perceived pressure among male subjects were reportedly stronger than among the females towards engaging in misconduct (Clasen & Brown, 1985).
As a measure to ensure that the most realistic information was acquired from the study; the levels of peer conformity dispositions and those of perceived peer pressure were closely monitored; showing that there was a close relationship between the levels of self-reported behavior with the varied levels of interactive or independent trends of the two (Hartup, 1983).
From the study, it was evident that the connection between the levels of perceived peer pressure and peer conformity disposition to the varying levels of self-reported behavior; was stronger among subjects falling within the middle areas of adolescence. These subjects falling between the ages of 15 and 16 showed more levels of association between the three variables than in younger or older adolescents (Clasen & Brown, 1985).
In the pursuit of getting this information and ensuring that the information acquired from the study was very accurate; some measures were employed in carrying out the study. One of the measures was that the study emphasized overt peer pressure from friends or individuals that the subject interacted with; where the subject was consciously aware of it. The inverted curved age tendencies achieved from the study through the analysis of peer conformity characters; despite being in agreement with previous studies showed weaker relationships between the different variables (Hartup, 1983).
From the findings of this study, it is evident that the levels to which crime among juveniles takes place depend on the variables of area, age and gender. From this, it is clear that crime among minors is fueled by environmental variables that constitute their environment; the ages at which these minors are exposed to the criminal behavior, and the gender of the minors exposed to the criminal behavior. It was also evident that adolescents are more likely to adopt neutral behavior as compared to antisocial activities. This gives the understanding that most of the criminal activities by minors take place due to having been socialized; to appear social therefore easier to be taken. The level of conformity among females was less therefore this can be used to establish that criminal behavior among female minors may be fueled by other factors; which go beyond the impact of peer pressure and conformity. From the study it was evident that most of the conformity took place from perceived pressure, and not the real pressure; which can help understand the fact that juvenile crime often takes place based on the assumption that others are engaging in the same but not the real pressure (Clasen & Brown, 1985).
From this study, it is evident that juvenile crime often takes place in the middle ages of adolescence, and in areas that promote the take-up of these behaviors. From this account, it is clear that crime can be controlled better by changing the environmental conditions that promote its development; especially among the age group that is more likely to fall victim to conformity and influence (Brittain, 1963).
From this information, it is clear and evident that conformity is higher among the middle ages of adolescence. From this account, it should also be noted that due to the lower levels of conformity at the lower and higher ages of adolescence than at the middle ones; it will be more effective and efficient if the efforts to predict and control crime are employed at this stage. At these stages when the levels of conformity to delinquent behavior are low; good morals can be nurtured in the young offenders or potential ones to avoid them from falling victim to the habit and vice of crime. On the other hand; at the middle ages of adolescence where the levels of conformity are higher, measures to control criminal behavior can be employed to help manage these vices (Berndt, 1979).
The stage at which there is a greater risk of the development of criminal behavior is; during the middle adolescent ages as this period marks a time when these minors are more open to adapt and take up the behaviors practiced by the other individuals who have some command on them; including fellow minors or older role models (Berenda, 1950).
From a review of the different bases of power; it is evident that criminal behavior can be encouraged or discouraged depending on the levels to which the different bases of power dictate the disposition adopted by these adolescents among other age groups. An information base of power can either aid or deter the development of criminal behavior in that; given that a University memo passes the information that a term paper that was to be returned two weeks in the future is to be handed in to the tutor within three hours; any student who had not yet completed the assignment would be more likely to plagiarize or copy fellow students completed assignment. They would do this, so as not to fall victim to the consequences to be born if they don’t hand in the paper (Asch, 1951).
Legitimate power as a source of authority; would make an employee compromise their rightful judgment, policy formulations, and rules to employ a relative in need despite their not being qualified for the post; at the expense of employing a qualified individual leaving out the relative, he sympathizes with who can virtually take the post (Klein, 1999).
Expert power which gives individuals authority based on their professional or technical expertise; would make a lawyer in a position of defending an ignorant or illiterate woman; lie to her so that he can get a portion of the benefits he is defending on her behalf (Klein, 1999).
Reward and coercive power are that which allows a person who is not supposed to receive given services or favors from another to get them; because they reward them in some other way. An example here is the case where an employer compels a female employee to have an affair with them, based on the fact that the employee fears risking the loss of her job (Klein, 1999).
Referent power is that which gives an individual authority based on a relationship or the desire of one. An example here is a child who sacrifices to lie for their parents so as to keep the relationship they share (Klein, 1999).
Reference list
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In Guetzkow, H. (Eds.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
Berenda, R. W. (1950). The influence of the group on the judgments of children. New York: Kings Crown Pres.
Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15, 606-6.
Brittain, C. V. (1963). Adolescent choices and parent-peer cross-pressures. American Sociological Review, 28, 385-391.
Clasen, D. R., & Brown, B. B. (1985). The multidimensional of peer pressure. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 74,451-468.
Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In Heatherington. E. M. & P. H. Mussen (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4): Socialization, personality and social development (pp. 103-196).New York: Wiley.
Klein, G. (1999). Sources of Power: How people make power decisions. The MIT Press.