TYPES AND EXPLANATIONS OF
CONFORMITY*
Kelman argues are three types of conformity, internalisation, identification and compliance.
Internalisation is when the individual has accepted the group norms publicly as well as
privately. The change is more permanent and persistent in the absence of the group as ideas
have become internalised ( apart of how the person thinks). Identification is when an
individual identifies with a group that they value so we publicly change our opinions even if
we don’t privately agree. Compliance is when an individual goes along with the group in
public but does not change beliefs in private as it is only a superficial change. Conformity is
due to informative social influence (ISI) and normative social influence (NSI). Informative
social influence occurs in an ambiguous situation when individuals are uncertain about the
correct information, so beliefs are changed in order to be right. Normative social influence
occurs when an individual has a fear of rejection and are unaware of the norms to others to
behave in attempt to gain social approval.
One strength of informative social influence is that there is research support. Lucas et al
asked students to give answers to easy and more difficult maths questions. There was more
conformity to incorrect answers when the problems were difficult. This was most true for
student who rated their maths ability as poor. Thus people conform in situations where they
don’t know the answer so look to others to assume their right.
Another strength is that there is research support for normative social influence. Ash asked
participants why they agreed to give the wrong answer. Some said they felt self-conscious
giving the right answer and were afraid of disapproval. When Asch asked participants to right
down their answers conformity rates fell to 12.5%. This supports the participants own reports
that they were conforming due to NSI.
A limitation of informative social influence is that there are individual differences. Asch
found that some participants were less conformist (28%) than other participants (37%). Perrin
and Spencer also found less conformity in engineering students as they were confident. Thus
people who are knowledgeable or more confident are less influenced by the ‘right’ view of
the majority. Therefore there are individual differences in how individuals respond.
A limitation of normative social influence is that there are individual differences. People who
care more about being liked are more likely to be affected by NSI. They are known as
nAffiliators, those who have a greater need for social relationships. McGhee and Teevan
found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. Thus, the desire to be
liked underlies conformity for some people more than others, therefore there are individual
differences in the way people respond.
CONFORMITY*
Kelman argues are three types of conformity, internalisation, identification and compliance.
Internalisation is when the individual has accepted the group norms publicly as well as
privately. The change is more permanent and persistent in the absence of the group as ideas
have become internalised ( apart of how the person thinks). Identification is when an
individual identifies with a group that they value so we publicly change our opinions even if
we don’t privately agree. Compliance is when an individual goes along with the group in
public but does not change beliefs in private as it is only a superficial change. Conformity is
due to informative social influence (ISI) and normative social influence (NSI). Informative
social influence occurs in an ambiguous situation when individuals are uncertain about the
correct information, so beliefs are changed in order to be right. Normative social influence
occurs when an individual has a fear of rejection and are unaware of the norms to others to
behave in attempt to gain social approval.
One strength of informative social influence is that there is research support. Lucas et al
asked students to give answers to easy and more difficult maths questions. There was more
conformity to incorrect answers when the problems were difficult. This was most true for
student who rated their maths ability as poor. Thus people conform in situations where they
don’t know the answer so look to others to assume their right.
Another strength is that there is research support for normative social influence. Ash asked
participants why they agreed to give the wrong answer. Some said they felt self-conscious
giving the right answer and were afraid of disapproval. When Asch asked participants to right
down their answers conformity rates fell to 12.5%. This supports the participants own reports
that they were conforming due to NSI.
A limitation of informative social influence is that there are individual differences. Asch
found that some participants were less conformist (28%) than other participants (37%). Perrin
and Spencer also found less conformity in engineering students as they were confident. Thus
people who are knowledgeable or more confident are less influenced by the ‘right’ view of
the majority. Therefore there are individual differences in how individuals respond.
A limitation of normative social influence is that there are individual differences. People who
care more about being liked are more likely to be affected by NSI. They are known as
nAffiliators, those who have a greater need for social relationships. McGhee and Teevan
found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. Thus, the desire to be
liked underlies conformity for some people more than others, therefore there are individual
differences in the way people respond.
