权利服从和从众心理区别

Conformity is a kind of social psychology and behavior phenomenon, which is generally existed in social life, is a kind of social psychology and behavior in the social life. Obedience is of great significance to the real life, and obedience ensures the realization of the group goal. The obedience of the leadership and the norms can make the members " listen to the command" in emergency. Individuals in the community always belong to a certain group, in the group to comply with all kinds of rules and regulations, obey the group norms, thus they will be respected and praised by others. If someone violate one of the norms of these groups, he will be punished, and harm the interests of individuals.
Obedience and conformity are caused by pressure, but there are some differences between them. Obedience is passive, decision is made in someone's direct command requirements. It is unconditional and therefore associated with dissatisfaction, so people always have reluctantly negativity emotions; while the herd is often active, there is no direct commands or requests you to do.
从众是指个体在群体的压力下改变个人意见而与多数人取得一致认识的行为倾向，是社会生活中普遍存在的一种社会心理和行为现象。

服从对于现实生活是十分有意义的，服从能够保证群体目标的实现。

对领导和规范的服从，可以使成员在一些紧急情况下“一切行动听指挥”。

个人在社会中又总是隶属于一定的群体，在群体中遵守各种规章制度，服从群体规范，就会受到他人的尊重和赞扬。

如果违反了这些群体规范就会受到惩罚，损害个人利益。

服从与从众都是由压力引起的行为，但两者又有一定的区别。

服从是被动的，是在别人的直接要求命令下做出的决定，是无条件的，因此伴随有不满、不情愿等否定性情绪；而从众往往是主动的，是没有人直接命令或要求你怎么样做。

从众试验的影响
Normative influence vs. referent informational influence
The Asch conformity experiments are often interpreted as evidence for the power of conformity and normative social influence, where normative influence is the willingness to conform publicly to attain social reward and avoid social punishment. From this perspective, the results are viewed as a striking example of people publicly endorsing the group response despite knowing full well that they were endorsing an incorrect response.
From this perspective, the Asch conformity experiments are viewed as evidence for the self-categorization theory account of social influence (otherwise known as the theory of referent informational influence). Here, the observed conformity is an example of depersonalization processes, whereby people expect to hold the same opinions as others in their ingroup and will often adopt those opinions.
he conformity demonstrated in Asch experiments is problematic for social comparison theory. Social comparison theory suggests that, when seeking to validate opinions and abilities, people will first turn to direct observation. If direct observation is ineffective or not available, people will then turn to comparable others for validation. In other words, social comparison theory predicts that social reality testing will arise when physical reality testing yields uncertainty. The Asch conformity experiments demonstrate that uncertainty can arise as an outcome of social reality testing. More broadly, this inconsistency has been used to support the position that the theoretical distinction between social reality testing and physical reality testing is untenable.
规范的影响与参考信息影响
的阿希从众实验往往为整合、规范性社会影响的力量的证据，在规范的影响是愿意遵守公开达到社会奖励和避免社会惩罚。

从这个角度来看，结果被视为人公开支持集团响应一个鲜明的例子，尽管明知他们认可一个不正确的反应。

从这个角度看，“阿希从众实验是社会影响的自我分类理论解释的证据（或称为参考信息影响的理论）。

在这里，观察到的一致性是人格解体过程的一个例子，即人们希望持相同意见的人在他们的圈内人，往往会采取这些意见。

在阿希实验合格证明他是有问题的社会比较理论。

社会比较理论认为，在寻求有效的意见和能力的时候，人们会先求助于直接观察。

如果直接观察是无效的或不可用，人们会把可比别人的验证。

换句话说，社会比较理论预测，社会现实测试时，会出现物理现实测试产生不确定性。

阿希从众实验表明，不确定性的产生作为结果的社会现实检验。

更广泛地说，这种不一致已经被用来支持的立场，社会现实的测试和物理现实测试之间的理论区别是站不住脚的。

权利服从试验的影响
's conclusion is explosive because these" obey "behavior are in Americans, which means it will happen to all of us. Most people are likely to become abusers. "Obey" ratio is very high, which is contrary to many people expected, Milgram had to seek the views in colleagues and students, most people think the ratio will not exceed 10%.
After the publication of the " Milgram Experiment ", a number of critical voices have emerged, focusing on the ethical issues of experimental design. "Obedience experiment" use tricks. Volunteers are under the high pressure. Many people appear certain physiological reaction. What's more important, the volunteers act on their own guilt sense may cause permanent damage to their psychological health. At the end of the experiment, the "learner" will be brought over from the next room, and said "learners" who just whine, actually were ok, but Milgram didn't tell the "teacher" that "learners" did not suffer from shock in fact, and not evary volunteer were given this commentary. Some volunteers have been disturbed by their behavior after the experiment, being worried about whether they have hurt a stranger. According to Perry, a volunteer in the experiment always pays attention to local newspaper obituaries even after a few weeks. Not until several months later did MilGram write a letter to the volunteer to explain the real purpose of the experiment.
These results suggest that, although the contextual environment plays an important role in the behavior, it does not cover the impact of the individual characteristics on the behavior. What Interested us is that , those interpersonal adaptability characteristics which are widely expected to bring positive results (such as a healthy psychological state, pro social behavior, the weakening of the attack), such as "affinity" and "serious", also will have a dark side, such as easier to make destructive and immoral behaviors of obedience.
“服从实验”结论的爆炸性在于这些“服从”行为发生在美国人身上，也就是说会发生在所有人身上，大部分人都可能成为施虐者。

“服从”比率之高是出乎许多人预料的，米尔格拉姆曾在同事和学生中征求看法，大部分人认为服从的比率不会超过10%。

“服从实验”发表之后，出现许多批评的声音，重点是针对实验设计的伦理问题。

“服从实验”采用欺骗手段，将志愿者置于高度压力之下，许多人出现了一定的生理反应，更重要的是，志愿者对自己行为的负罪感可能对其心理健康造成长久损害。

在实验结束后，“学习者”会从隔壁房间带过来，表示刚才还在哀叫的“学习者”其实一点事儿都没有，但是米
尔格拉姆不会告诉“老师”其实“学习者”没有遭受电击，而且不是每个志愿者都给了这番解说。

有些志愿者在实验结束之后被自己的行为所困扰，担心伤害了一个陌生人。

根据佩里的资料，有一名志愿者在实验之后的几个星期内，一直在留心当地报纸上的讣告。

直到几个月之后，米尔格拉姆才向志愿者去信解释实验的真正目的。

这些结果都提示，尽管情境性环境对行为起着重要作用，但并不能掩盖个人特质对行为的影响。

有趣的是，被广泛认为会带来积极结果（如健康的心理状态，亲社会行为，减弱的攻击性）的人际领域适应性特征，如“亲和”和“认真”，也会有黑暗的一面，比如更容易做出毁灭性和不道德的服从行为。