Fluent Essays

People conform to social pressures for various reasons; perhaps they seek acceptance and approval, or they may conform because that is their natural preference. Conformity can be a good thing (e.g., conforming to workplace protocols builds group identity and cohesiveness); however, sometimes it is hard to explain the motive to conform when conformity means enduring something unpleasant or doing something that harms others. Conformity to fashion styles is one of the many examples of how the behavior of others can influence our own. Social psychologists are always seeking to understand how this influence can shape the choices that individuals make. “Beauty is pain”—this is a popular expression that grossly understates problems associated with some fashion trends. For some, wearing high heels (especially stilettos) can increase knee and hip pain and can cause lower back pain, stress fractures, blisters, corns, hammertoes, bunions, and toenail fungus (Basha, Devi, & Priya, 2018). High heels can also permanently alter the structure of the foot and the rest of the body. Notwithstanding these problems, you will find stiletto heels are touted as the trendy footwear for women with fashion sense in most fashionable shoe stores. Indeed, millions of women everywhere wear high heels every day and love them. They are willing to spend a fortune and bear the pain. When asked why, the answer, more often than not, “they make me look thinner and my legs look longer.” This week, you will analyze social conformity to popular trends and examine the reasons for conforming to authority. Reference: Basha, F. Y. S., Devi, R. G., & Priya, A. J. (2018). A survey on comparative effects of wearing high heels among long-term and short-term users. Drug Invention Today, 10(11), 2244–2248.   Discussion 1: Conformity Fashion is a fascinating phenomenon, largely because people seem to conform to its dictates. Be it clothing, footwear, accessories, makeup, hairstyle, home décor, lifestyle, and even body styles, people tend to go along with the latest trends. Media fashion images are inescapable; at supermarket checkouts, fashion magazine covers feature perfectly dressed, coifed, accessorized women and tanned, broad-shouldered, men with six-pack abs and bulging biceps. Most people do not look like this—but they try to—as evidenced by the billions spent yearly on clothes, cosmetics, diet plans, and gym memberships. For this Discussion, you will examine social conformity as it applies to fashion trends. Review the Learning Resources related to conformity and think about how social psychology theory and research explain why women and men conform to the pressures of fashion, diet, body styles, and lifestyles.  Post Informed by social psychology theory and research, please explain why, health reasons aside, women and men conform to the pressure of fashion dictates.    Explain the advantages and disadvantages of schemas.   Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the social psychology theory and research. In addition to the Learning Resources, search the Walden Library and/or Internet for peer-reviewed articles to support your post and responses. Use proper APA format and citations, including those in the Learning Resources.Going Along Versus Going Alone: When Fundamental Motives Facilitate Strategic (Non)Conformity Vladas Griskevicius, Noah J. Goldstein, Chad R. Mortensen, Robert B. Cialdini, and Douglas T. Kenrick Arizona State University Three experiments examined how 2 fundamental social motives—self-protection and mate attraction— influenced conformity. A self-protective goal increased conformity for both men and women. In contrast, the effects of a romantic goal depended on sex, causing women to conform more to others’ preferences while engendering nonconformity in men. Men motivated to attract a mate were particularly likely to nonconform when (a) nonconformity made them unique (but not merely a member of a small minority) and when (b) the topic was subjective versus objective, meaning that nonconformists could not be revealed to be incorrect. These findings fit with a functional evolutionary model of motivation and behavior, and they indicate that fundamental motives such as self-protection and mate attraction can stimulate specific forms of conformity or nonconformity for strategic self-presentation. Keywords: nonconformity, mating goals, fear, self-presentation, social influence Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain Imagine that Solomon, a young professor, and three of his male colleagues meet for dinner at a new restaurant. Inspecting the slate of delectable dishes on the menu, the young professor soon finds himself in a dilemma: What should he order? His new colleagues, however, are unanimous in their selections: Eerily reminiscent of a scene from a classic social psychological study, one by one, each man confidently orders the same item. Considering the choices of the group, how do you think Solomon will order? Over half a century of research on conformity informs us that people are heavily influenced by the actions and beliefs of others (Asch, 1956; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Moscovici, 1985; Sherif, 1936). Given that the young professor is likely motivated to gain the approval of his colleagues (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and to make a good decision (White, 1959), conformity would help him realize each of these general goals (Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Goldstein & Cialdini, in press). In fact, the restaurant predicament is teeming with factors that make conformity especially probable: The decision is public (Argyle, 1957; Campbell & Fairey, 1989); the professor finds the group desirable (Dittes & Kelley, 1956); the group is composed of no fewer than three individuals (Asch, 1956; Milgram, Bickman, & Berkowitz, 1969); the group’s opinion is unanimous (Asch, 1956); the other group members are similar to the professor (Festinger, 1954; Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2006; Hornstein, Fisch, & Holmes, 1968); and he is uncertain about his decision (Tesser, Campbell, & Mickler, 1983). However, what if, in the process of ordering, the young profes- sor’s aAccessible luxury fashion brand building via fat discrimination Ulf Aagerup Department of Marketing, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate if accessible luxury fashion brands discriminate overweight and obese consumers. Design/methodology/approach – The physical sizes of garments are surveyed in-store and compared to the body sizes of the population. A gap analysis is carried out in order to determine whether the supply of clothes match the demand of each market segment. Findings – The surveyed accessible luxury garments come in very small sizes compared to the individuals that make up the population. Research limitations/implications – The survey is limited to London stores but the garment sizes are compared to the British population. It is therefore possible that the discrepancies between assortments and the population are in part attributable to geographic and demographic factors. The study’s results are, however, so strikingly clear that even if some of the effects were due to extraneous variables, it would be hard to disregard the poor match between overweight and obese women and the clothes offered to them. Practical implications – For symbolic/expressive brands that are conspicuously consumed, that narrowly target distinct and homogenous groups of people in industries where elitist practices are acceptable, companies can build brands via customer rejection. Social implications – The results highlight ongoing discrimination of overweight and obese fashion consumers. Originality/value – The study is the first to provide quantitative evidence for brand building via customer rejection, and it delineates under which conditions this may occur. This extends the theory of typical user imagery. Keywords Fashion, Branding, Obesity, Assortments, Fat discrimination, Typical user imagery Paper type Research paper Introduction Consumers tend to judge brands by their users; if consumers have a clear picture of what kind of person would use a specific brand in their minds, the brand takes on similar characteristics (Aaker, 1997; Keller, 2000; Hayes et al., 2008). The tendency to equate brand personality to the personality of the user is particularly pronounced, and particularly relevant for, symbolic offerings that relate to the consumer’s self-image (Sirgy et al., 2000). Fashion fulfills these criteria (Levy, 1959; McCracken, 1988) and this is the reason companies display attractive models alongside their products in ads (Vermeir and Sompel, 2014). However, user imagery is not just a result of advertising. It can also be formed through consumers’ observation of real-world users (Keller, 1993). From a marketing standpoint, it would therefore make sense, not just that companies would try to attract customers with desirable traits, but also that they would reject customers who display undesirable traits. While advertising imagery has received ample attention from scholars (e.g. Bower and LandArticle Would You Deliver an Electric Shock in 2015? Obedience in the Experimental Paradigm Developed by Stanley Milgram in the 50 Years Following the Original Studies Dariusz Doliński 1 , Tomasz Grzyb 1 , Michał Folwarczny 1 , Patrycja Grzybała 1 , Karolina Krzyszycha 1 , Karolina Martynowska 1 , and Jakub Trojanowski 1 Abstract In spite of the over 50 years which have passed since the original experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram on obedience, these experiments are still considered a turning point in our thinking about the role of the situation in human behavior. While ethical considerations prevent a full replication of the experiments from being prepared, a certain picture of the level of obedience of participants can be drawn using the procedure proposed by Burger. In our experiment, we have expanded it by controlling for the sex of participants and of the learner. The results achieved show a level of participants’ obedience toward instructions similarly high to that of the original Milgram studies. Results regarding the influence of the sex of participants and of the “learner,” as well as of personality characteristics, do not allow us to unequivocally accept or reject the hypotheses offered. Keywords conformity, obedience, social influence Experiments conducted by Milgram (1963, 1965), in which the study participant is encouraged by the experimenter to admin- ister an electric shock to another person, are generally consid- ered to be one of the most important (if not the most important) in the field of social psychology (e.g., Benjamin & Simpson, 2009; Blass, 2004). The entire series of experiments carried out by Milgram (1974) demonstrated that under conditions of pres- sure from an authority, the majority of people will carry out his commands even when they are informed at the beginning that they have the right to end their participation in the experiment at any time, while the information placed on the device used in emitting electric shocks states unequivocally that it can damage the health of the “learner,” or even kill him. Following the publishing of Milgram’s work (1963, 1965), there were discussions in the psychological literature concern- ing the ethical aspect of such experiments (e.g., Fischer, 1968; Kaufmann, 1967). While a few replication experiments were carried out in the 1970s in various countries (e.g., Kilham & Mann, 1974; Shanab & Yahya, 1978), further work within this paradigm was then halted. Naturally, an attempt was made at finding various alterna- tives to direct replications of the original Milgram studies. For example, Slater et al. (2006) conducted an experiment in which the “electric shock” was administered not to a living human but rather a computer-generated avatar. Participants in this experi- ment were seated in front of a screen displaying a picture of a woman (“the learner”) reacting in real time to electric shocks. Another idea for creating an ethically accept