Types of Conformity
CONFORMITY
Type of social influence that describes how a person changes their attitude or behaviour in
response to group pressure
TYPES OF CONFORMITY
COMPLIANCE • Person only changes their behaviour in the public
• Hope to achieve a favourable reaction from others
IDENTIFICATION • Person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs only in the
presence of a group
• Wanting to fit into a group, or to be associated with them
INTERNALISATION • Person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs
• Content of behaviour aligns with their value system
EXPLANATIONS FOR CONFORMITY
NORMATIVE SOCIAL • Person conforms to be accepted, and to feel that they belong to a
INFLUENCE group
(Compliance, • Usually a short-term change
Identification)
INFORMATIONAL • Person conforms to gain knowledge, or because they believe that
SOCIAL INFLUENCE someone else is right
(Internalisation) • Usually a long-term change
EVALUATION
Strengths Limitations
Real world applications demonstrating Individual differences may cause social
Normative Social Influence occurs beyond influence to affect people’s behaviours
the laboratory setting differently
Schultz et al. (2008): In hotel rooms, door Perrin and Spencer (1980): Conducted Asch’s
hangers were put up informing guests about experiment only using engineering students in
the environmental benefits of reusing towels the UK — Only one conforming response out
• In rooms with additional information stating of 400 trials
that “75% of the guests chose to reuse the • Students may have felt more confident in
towels”, guests reduced their use of fresh their ability to judge line lengths due to their
towels by 25%, conforming to fit in with the engineering experience
perceived group behaviour • Or historical bias: conducted 30 years later
and social norms have changed
Research support for Normative Social Normative influence may not be detected as
Influence people may not realise the effect that others
• Asch (1951): Participants changed their have on them
answers to avoid disapproval from the rest of Nolan et al. (2008): People believed the
the group, showing compliance behaviour of neighbours had the least impact
• Asch (1955): Variation where participants on their own energy conservation, yet results
were asked to write down their answers on a showed it had the greatest impact
piece of paper, to eliminate the pressure to
publicly conform — Dropped to 12.5%
, Research support for Informational Social Difficult to distinguish between compliance
Influence and internalisation
Jenness (1932): 26 participants were asked to Person who publicly agrees with a majority yet
guess the number of beans in a bottle, but disagrees in private is demonstrating
almost all changed their numbers after complicance, but it is possible that acceptance
discussion with others of the group’s views occurred in public but
dissipated in private
• Occurs especially in unfamiliar, ambiguous
situations
ASCH (1951)
Sample Size: 123 male undergraduate students
Method: Participants were asked to compare lengths of three lines to a standard line, and
placed in groups with confederates
• Total of 18 trials, with confederates giving the same incorrect answer on 12 trials
Results: 33% conformity rate, with participants knowing that their answers incorrect but going
along with the majority to fit in, as they were afraid they would be ridiculed
VARIATIONS OF ASCH
GROUP SIZE UNANIMITY DIFFICULTY OF THE TASK
Group of 3: Highest conformity • When one confederate gave Made the task more
• 1 confederate: 3% a correct answer throughout: ambiguous by decreasing the
Dropped to 5% difference between line
• 2 confederates: 12.8% lengths: rate of conformity
• One confederate gave a
• 15 confederates: Dropped to different incorrect answer to increased
29% as participants became the majority: Dropped to 9%
suspicious
EVALUATION
Limitations
Low external validity: lacks population validity, ecological validity and historical validity
• Lacks Population Validity: Biased sample of male students from America, cannot be
generalised to other populations
• Lacks mundane realism: Artificial task that does not reflect conformity in everyday life
• Lacks historical validity: Asch’s experiment took place in 1950 when conformity was arguably
higher in the US, and may not provide an accurate reflection of conformity in modern times
Broke ethical guidelines: Deception and protection from harm
Required deception to achieve valid results, or participants would. have displayed demand
characteristics and acted differently
Most people displayed independent behaviour rather than conformity
Only 33% of the people conformed, so 66% of people resolutely stuck to their original
judgement even though they were faced with an overwhelming majority expressing a totally
different view
CONFORMITY
Type of social influence that describes how a person changes their attitude or behaviour in
response to group pressure
TYPES OF CONFORMITY
COMPLIANCE • Person only changes their behaviour in the public
• Hope to achieve a favourable reaction from others
IDENTIFICATION • Person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs only in the
presence of a group
• Wanting to fit into a group, or to be associated with them
INTERNALISATION • Person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs
• Content of behaviour aligns with their value system
EXPLANATIONS FOR CONFORMITY
NORMATIVE SOCIAL • Person conforms to be accepted, and to feel that they belong to a
INFLUENCE group
(Compliance, • Usually a short-term change
Identification)
INFORMATIONAL • Person conforms to gain knowledge, or because they believe that
SOCIAL INFLUENCE someone else is right
(Internalisation) • Usually a long-term change
EVALUATION
Strengths Limitations
Real world applications demonstrating Individual differences may cause social
Normative Social Influence occurs beyond influence to affect people’s behaviours
the laboratory setting differently
Schultz et al. (2008): In hotel rooms, door Perrin and Spencer (1980): Conducted Asch’s
hangers were put up informing guests about experiment only using engineering students in
the environmental benefits of reusing towels the UK — Only one conforming response out
• In rooms with additional information stating of 400 trials
that “75% of the guests chose to reuse the • Students may have felt more confident in
towels”, guests reduced their use of fresh their ability to judge line lengths due to their
towels by 25%, conforming to fit in with the engineering experience
perceived group behaviour • Or historical bias: conducted 30 years later
and social norms have changed
Research support for Normative Social Normative influence may not be detected as
Influence people may not realise the effect that others
• Asch (1951): Participants changed their have on them
answers to avoid disapproval from the rest of Nolan et al. (2008): People believed the
the group, showing compliance behaviour of neighbours had the least impact
• Asch (1955): Variation where participants on their own energy conservation, yet results
were asked to write down their answers on a showed it had the greatest impact
piece of paper, to eliminate the pressure to
publicly conform — Dropped to 12.5%
, Research support for Informational Social Difficult to distinguish between compliance
Influence and internalisation
Jenness (1932): 26 participants were asked to Person who publicly agrees with a majority yet
guess the number of beans in a bottle, but disagrees in private is demonstrating
almost all changed their numbers after complicance, but it is possible that acceptance
discussion with others of the group’s views occurred in public but
dissipated in private
• Occurs especially in unfamiliar, ambiguous
situations
ASCH (1951)
Sample Size: 123 male undergraduate students
Method: Participants were asked to compare lengths of three lines to a standard line, and
placed in groups with confederates
• Total of 18 trials, with confederates giving the same incorrect answer on 12 trials
Results: 33% conformity rate, with participants knowing that their answers incorrect but going
along with the majority to fit in, as they were afraid they would be ridiculed
VARIATIONS OF ASCH
GROUP SIZE UNANIMITY DIFFICULTY OF THE TASK
Group of 3: Highest conformity • When one confederate gave Made the task more
• 1 confederate: 3% a correct answer throughout: ambiguous by decreasing the
Dropped to 5% difference between line
• 2 confederates: 12.8% lengths: rate of conformity
• One confederate gave a
• 15 confederates: Dropped to different incorrect answer to increased
29% as participants became the majority: Dropped to 9%
suspicious
EVALUATION
Limitations
Low external validity: lacks population validity, ecological validity and historical validity
• Lacks Population Validity: Biased sample of male students from America, cannot be
generalised to other populations
• Lacks mundane realism: Artificial task that does not reflect conformity in everyday life
• Lacks historical validity: Asch’s experiment took place in 1950 when conformity was arguably
higher in the US, and may not provide an accurate reflection of conformity in modern times
Broke ethical guidelines: Deception and protection from harm
Required deception to achieve valid results, or participants would. have displayed demand
characteristics and acted differently
Most people displayed independent behaviour rather than conformity
Only 33% of the people conformed, so 66% of people resolutely stuck to their original
judgement even though they were faced with an overwhelming majority expressing a totally
different view
