Conformity
AO1 AO3
Conformity Research support - Task difficulty
- A change in a person’s behaviour/opinions - Lucas et al (2006) investigated conformity and the impact of
- as a result of real or imagined pressure from increasingly ambiguous maths questions.
- a person or group of people (NSI or ISI) - E: When given harder maths questions, conformity increased
- Supports Asch’s findings about difficulty
Baseline conformity procedure: Line judgement task - Informational social influence, desiring to be right and,
- Asch (1951) conforming in an ambiguous situation.
- Investigating conformity - L: Greater external validity; although it is hard to detect if ISI
- 123 male American undergraduate students or NSI is operating - they can act simultaneously (less
- 6-8 confederates explanatory power)
- 37% = baseline conformity
- 25% = never conformed
- 75% = conformed at least once Methodology - High control
- 5% = conformed every time - Conducted in a laboratory setting
FINDINGS: - Asch was able to manipulate the IVs
- People will conform to the opinions of others even if they are - (group size or the presence of a dissenter) while keeping all
clearly wrong. other conditions standardised.
- Specific stimuli used (the lines) / the procedure for presenting
Investigation of 3 main variables them / the behavior of the confederates.
- Group size / unanimity / task difficulty - E: Strict control minimized the impact of EVs that might have
otherwise influenced the results, allowing Asch to isolate the
Group size effect of the manipulated variable on the participants'
- Varied between 2-16 people (1-15 confeds) conformity.
- Relationship between conformity & group size is curvilinear - L: Asch could establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship,
- 2 ppts = 13.5% conformity to the wrong answer increasing the INT. validity of his findings
- 3 ppts = peak 31.8% conformity
- Above 3 = levelled off / plateaued Artificial task + demand characterisics
Explanation: - Fiske (2014) argued that the task was artificial and the groups
- No majority/uneven number reduces the impact of NSI “weren’t very groupy”
- Reduces the pressure to conform. - Findings lacked validity & demand c’s
- We are very sensitive to the opinions of others. - Lab environment - guessing the aim & changing behaviour
- Small unanimous group = strong social pressure - Andocentric, fails to generalise to America or females.
- L: Findings lack EXT. validity & low mundane realism - failure
Unanimity to generalise to social interactions.
- On av. conformity to the wrong answer was reduced by
over 25%
- When there was a lack of unanimous answers. Culture bias & gender bias
Explanation: - Neto (1995) suggested if the study was NOT androcentric (all
- Dissenting confederate / ally = frees participants to their own male) & more women were tested
autonomy and they feel as though they can act freely. - Then conformity may have been greater
- Withdrawal of the dissenter = increased conformity - As women are stereotypically more ‘conformist’ due to a
- Social support. possible greater concern for social relationships
- E: Smith & Bond (1996) argue the study can’t be generalised
Task difficulty to collectivist cultures (China)
- Asch made the lines more similar in length - As it was done in the US (individualist)
- Increased conformity as the task became more ambiguous - Findings show higher conformity rates in collectivist cultures
- Ppts looked for social support (ISI & NSI) - L: Findings lack ecological validity as conformity may vary
- They didn’t know how to behave and looked to others for depending on cultural norms.
guidance in uncertainty.
Ethical limitations
- Deception - ppts believed they were taking part in a test of
perception
- Lack of protection from harm - ppts were put in a stressful &
embarrassing situation
- Lack of informed consent - ppts did NOT consent to take
part in a study of conformity
, Types & explanations of conformity
AO1 AO3
3 types of conformity: Research support for NSI
Internalisation (thinking the group is right) - Asch (1951) found that when ppts wrote down their answers,
- About a belief conformity levels reduced to 12.5%
- Publicly and privately conform to a certain belief. - Normative social influence couldn’t act
- Usually permanent attitudes are internalised and part of the - As there was reduced social pressure to conform and no
person’s beliefs. chance of looking foolish.
- E: This was significantly lower than the baseline (36.8%)
Identification (value the group) - Some conformity is about a desire to not be rejected
- About belonging - L: Explanatory power of NSI & insight into mechanisms
- So you publicly go along with the group beliefs even if you
privately disagree Research support for ISI
- We identify/value the group so we identify with their - Lucas et al (2006) found that when ppts were asked to do
beliefs. easy/hard maths questions
- We want to be part of the group and fit in. - People conformed to the wrong answer MORE when the
questions were HARDER.
Compliance (temporary agreement) - E: In ambiguity, they relied on the answers they were
- Superficial change, going along with the group, not provided with - demonstrating ISI principles.
changing private opinions/behaviours. - L: ISI would predict this outcome, in a more ambiguous
- Compliance ceases when group pressure stops. situation, there is a desire to be right
- Temporal discomfort
Research support for internalisation
- Bokemper et al. (2021) investigated how social influence
2 explanations of conformity: impacted adherence to public health guidelines during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
NSI - Normative social influence - E: Individuals were MORE LIKELY to conform to behaviours
- An emotional process like mask-wearing & social distancing
- Occurs in ambiguous situations when you are unsure of the - WHEN they perceived a strong social consensus around
social norm or how to act these actions, particularly within their immediate social
- Seeking social support & conforming to the group norm networks or communities.
- Desire to not look foolish and can lead to identification, fear - L: NSI played a significant role in shaping public health
of rejection & more pronounced in stress inducing situations compliance, as people accepted the norms of mask-wearing.
- You desire social approval.
- Based on norms (regulate the behaviour of groups/people) Dispositional differences in NSI
- Leads to identification - McGhee & Teevan (1967) found that people are more likely
to conform if they have the “nAffilitator” disposition
ISI - Informational social influence characteristic, they desire to fit in & seek more social
- A cognitive process approval
- Going along with the majority through acceptance of new - E: Students who were nAffiliators were MORE LIKELY to
information conform
- Conformity in ambiguous / novel / difficult situations - L: NSI underlines some conformity scenarios for some
- Occurs in situations when you desire to be right / correct people more than others, dispositional differences can’t be
- Leads to internalisation of a belief explained by a theory of situational pressures
- Permanent change in view / behaviour
Limitations: Hard to distinguish / 2-process theory
Hard to distinguish between NSI/ISI as it is impossible to work out
which one is operating
2-process theory of social influence
- Deutsch & Gerard (1955)
- People conform because of 2 basic human needs, the need
to be right and the need to be liked.
AO1 AO3
Conformity Research support - Task difficulty
- A change in a person’s behaviour/opinions - Lucas et al (2006) investigated conformity and the impact of
- as a result of real or imagined pressure from increasingly ambiguous maths questions.
- a person or group of people (NSI or ISI) - E: When given harder maths questions, conformity increased
- Supports Asch’s findings about difficulty
Baseline conformity procedure: Line judgement task - Informational social influence, desiring to be right and,
- Asch (1951) conforming in an ambiguous situation.
- Investigating conformity - L: Greater external validity; although it is hard to detect if ISI
- 123 male American undergraduate students or NSI is operating - they can act simultaneously (less
- 6-8 confederates explanatory power)
- 37% = baseline conformity
- 25% = never conformed
- 75% = conformed at least once Methodology - High control
- 5% = conformed every time - Conducted in a laboratory setting
FINDINGS: - Asch was able to manipulate the IVs
- People will conform to the opinions of others even if they are - (group size or the presence of a dissenter) while keeping all
clearly wrong. other conditions standardised.
- Specific stimuli used (the lines) / the procedure for presenting
Investigation of 3 main variables them / the behavior of the confederates.
- Group size / unanimity / task difficulty - E: Strict control minimized the impact of EVs that might have
otherwise influenced the results, allowing Asch to isolate the
Group size effect of the manipulated variable on the participants'
- Varied between 2-16 people (1-15 confeds) conformity.
- Relationship between conformity & group size is curvilinear - L: Asch could establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship,
- 2 ppts = 13.5% conformity to the wrong answer increasing the INT. validity of his findings
- 3 ppts = peak 31.8% conformity
- Above 3 = levelled off / plateaued Artificial task + demand characterisics
Explanation: - Fiske (2014) argued that the task was artificial and the groups
- No majority/uneven number reduces the impact of NSI “weren’t very groupy”
- Reduces the pressure to conform. - Findings lacked validity & demand c’s
- We are very sensitive to the opinions of others. - Lab environment - guessing the aim & changing behaviour
- Small unanimous group = strong social pressure - Andocentric, fails to generalise to America or females.
- L: Findings lack EXT. validity & low mundane realism - failure
Unanimity to generalise to social interactions.
- On av. conformity to the wrong answer was reduced by
over 25%
- When there was a lack of unanimous answers. Culture bias & gender bias
Explanation: - Neto (1995) suggested if the study was NOT androcentric (all
- Dissenting confederate / ally = frees participants to their own male) & more women were tested
autonomy and they feel as though they can act freely. - Then conformity may have been greater
- Withdrawal of the dissenter = increased conformity - As women are stereotypically more ‘conformist’ due to a
- Social support. possible greater concern for social relationships
- E: Smith & Bond (1996) argue the study can’t be generalised
Task difficulty to collectivist cultures (China)
- Asch made the lines more similar in length - As it was done in the US (individualist)
- Increased conformity as the task became more ambiguous - Findings show higher conformity rates in collectivist cultures
- Ppts looked for social support (ISI & NSI) - L: Findings lack ecological validity as conformity may vary
- They didn’t know how to behave and looked to others for depending on cultural norms.
guidance in uncertainty.
Ethical limitations
- Deception - ppts believed they were taking part in a test of
perception
- Lack of protection from harm - ppts were put in a stressful &
embarrassing situation
- Lack of informed consent - ppts did NOT consent to take
part in a study of conformity
, Types & explanations of conformity
AO1 AO3
3 types of conformity: Research support for NSI
Internalisation (thinking the group is right) - Asch (1951) found that when ppts wrote down their answers,
- About a belief conformity levels reduced to 12.5%
- Publicly and privately conform to a certain belief. - Normative social influence couldn’t act
- Usually permanent attitudes are internalised and part of the - As there was reduced social pressure to conform and no
person’s beliefs. chance of looking foolish.
- E: This was significantly lower than the baseline (36.8%)
Identification (value the group) - Some conformity is about a desire to not be rejected
- About belonging - L: Explanatory power of NSI & insight into mechanisms
- So you publicly go along with the group beliefs even if you
privately disagree Research support for ISI
- We identify/value the group so we identify with their - Lucas et al (2006) found that when ppts were asked to do
beliefs. easy/hard maths questions
- We want to be part of the group and fit in. - People conformed to the wrong answer MORE when the
questions were HARDER.
Compliance (temporary agreement) - E: In ambiguity, they relied on the answers they were
- Superficial change, going along with the group, not provided with - demonstrating ISI principles.
changing private opinions/behaviours. - L: ISI would predict this outcome, in a more ambiguous
- Compliance ceases when group pressure stops. situation, there is a desire to be right
- Temporal discomfort
Research support for internalisation
- Bokemper et al. (2021) investigated how social influence
2 explanations of conformity: impacted adherence to public health guidelines during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
NSI - Normative social influence - E: Individuals were MORE LIKELY to conform to behaviours
- An emotional process like mask-wearing & social distancing
- Occurs in ambiguous situations when you are unsure of the - WHEN they perceived a strong social consensus around
social norm or how to act these actions, particularly within their immediate social
- Seeking social support & conforming to the group norm networks or communities.
- Desire to not look foolish and can lead to identification, fear - L: NSI played a significant role in shaping public health
of rejection & more pronounced in stress inducing situations compliance, as people accepted the norms of mask-wearing.
- You desire social approval.
- Based on norms (regulate the behaviour of groups/people) Dispositional differences in NSI
- Leads to identification - McGhee & Teevan (1967) found that people are more likely
to conform if they have the “nAffilitator” disposition
ISI - Informational social influence characteristic, they desire to fit in & seek more social
- A cognitive process approval
- Going along with the majority through acceptance of new - E: Students who were nAffiliators were MORE LIKELY to
information conform
- Conformity in ambiguous / novel / difficult situations - L: NSI underlines some conformity scenarios for some
- Occurs in situations when you desire to be right / correct people more than others, dispositional differences can’t be
- Leads to internalisation of a belief explained by a theory of situational pressures
- Permanent change in view / behaviour
Limitations: Hard to distinguish / 2-process theory
Hard to distinguish between NSI/ISI as it is impossible to work out
which one is operating
2-process theory of social influence
- Deutsch & Gerard (1955)
- People conform because of 2 basic human needs, the need
to be right and the need to be liked.
