Social Influence:
Types and Explanations of Conformity:
● Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in belief or behaviour in order to
fit in with the group
○ This change is in response to real or imagined social pressure
● Types of conformity:
○ Internalisation: when a person genuinely accepts the group norms, both in public
and in private
■ Strongest form of conformity
○ Identification: a person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs, but only
when they are in the presence of the group
■ Usually only a short-term change and normally the result of normative social
influence
○ Compliance: ‘going along with others’ in public, but internally or privately, not
changing personal opinions
■ This results in only a superficial change and stops when the group pressure
stops
■ Weakest form of conformity
● Deutsch & Gerard (1955) developed a two-process theory which aimed to explain why
people conform
○ Informational Social Influence (ISI)
■ Cognitive process → you conform because you want to be right
■ This occurs when we look to the majority group for information as we are
unsure about the way in which to behave
● A person will conform because they genuinely believe the majority
to be right so look to them for the right answer
○ Normative Social Influence (NSI)
■ Emotional process → you conform because you want to be liked
■ This occurs when we wish to be liked by the majority group, so we go along
with them even though we may not agree with them
● This is following the crowd in order to fit in with the ‘norm’ and be
liked by the group
● Lucas et al. (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems, getting harder
○ Greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than easier
○ + Supports ISI → demonstrates people conforming when they don’t know the
answer
● NSI doesn’t affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way - people who are less concerned
about being liked are less affected than those who cared about being liked
○ E.g. Perrin & Spender’s Asch-recreated with engineering students study
○ - The two-process theory does not consider differences between people
● The idea is that the two processes work separately, however, they can work together
○ - Goes against what the two-process theory states
, Asch’s Research (1951):
● Aim: to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a
person to conform
● Procedure: Asch tested conformity by showing participants two large white cards at a time:
one card was a ‘standard line’ and on the other card were three ‘comparison lines’
○ Out of the three comparison lines, one was the same length as the standard line and
the other two were clearly wrong
○ Participants were asked which of the three lines matched the standard line
■ The participants were 123 American male undergraduate students
○ Each naive participant was tested individually within a group of between six and
eight confederates
■ The naive participants were not aware that the other ‘participants’ were
confederates
○ A trial is defined as one occasion identifying the length of a standard line
○ Initially, all confederates gave the right answers but then they started purposely
making errors - all confederates were instructed to give the same wrong answer
○ Altogether, each participant took part in 18 trials and 12 ‘critical trials’ in which the
confederates gave the wrong answer
● Findings: the naive participant gave a wrong answer on average 36.8% of the time
○ Overall, 25% of the participants did not conform on any trial → 75% did
○ The term, ‘Asch effect’, has been used to describe the result - the extent to which
participant conform even when the situation is unambiguous
○ When participants were interviewed afterwards, most said they conformed to avoid
social rejection - supports NSI
● Asch’s variation studies → investigated conditions that might lead to a change in conformity
○ Group size: adding three confederates increased conformity to 31.8%
○ Unanimity: the presence of a dissenting participant reduced conformity to ¼ of what
it was when the majority was unanimous
○ Task difficulty: more difficult tasks increase conformity levels
● Perrin & Spender (1980): repeated Asch’s study with engineering students in the UK → only
one student conformed in 396 trials
○ Engineering students → felt more confident with answers
○ 1950s were more conformist
○ - Asch effect is not consistent across different time periods
● Artificial situation and task: demand characteristics could have occured
○ Task of identifying lines is relatively trivial and had no real reason to conform
○ - Findings cannot be generalised to everyday situations
● Limited application of findings
○ Only tested male participants → Neto (1995) says women may be more conformist
○ - Limited generalisability as they are only applicable to American men
● Findings only apply to certain situations: had to answer out loud (wanted to impress)
○ Williams and Sogon (1984): higher conformity rates when majority were friends
○ - Conformity levels depend on situation, lacks mundane realism (artificial setting)
● Ethical issues: participants were deceived → they thought confederates were participants
○ - Can lead to a distrust of the discipline of psychologists
Types and Explanations of Conformity:
● Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in belief or behaviour in order to
fit in with the group
○ This change is in response to real or imagined social pressure
● Types of conformity:
○ Internalisation: when a person genuinely accepts the group norms, both in public
and in private
■ Strongest form of conformity
○ Identification: a person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs, but only
when they are in the presence of the group
■ Usually only a short-term change and normally the result of normative social
influence
○ Compliance: ‘going along with others’ in public, but internally or privately, not
changing personal opinions
■ This results in only a superficial change and stops when the group pressure
stops
■ Weakest form of conformity
● Deutsch & Gerard (1955) developed a two-process theory which aimed to explain why
people conform
○ Informational Social Influence (ISI)
■ Cognitive process → you conform because you want to be right
■ This occurs when we look to the majority group for information as we are
unsure about the way in which to behave
● A person will conform because they genuinely believe the majority
to be right so look to them for the right answer
○ Normative Social Influence (NSI)
■ Emotional process → you conform because you want to be liked
■ This occurs when we wish to be liked by the majority group, so we go along
with them even though we may not agree with them
● This is following the crowd in order to fit in with the ‘norm’ and be
liked by the group
● Lucas et al. (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems, getting harder
○ Greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than easier
○ + Supports ISI → demonstrates people conforming when they don’t know the
answer
● NSI doesn’t affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way - people who are less concerned
about being liked are less affected than those who cared about being liked
○ E.g. Perrin & Spender’s Asch-recreated with engineering students study
○ - The two-process theory does not consider differences between people
● The idea is that the two processes work separately, however, they can work together
○ - Goes against what the two-process theory states
, Asch’s Research (1951):
● Aim: to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a
person to conform
● Procedure: Asch tested conformity by showing participants two large white cards at a time:
one card was a ‘standard line’ and on the other card were three ‘comparison lines’
○ Out of the three comparison lines, one was the same length as the standard line and
the other two were clearly wrong
○ Participants were asked which of the three lines matched the standard line
■ The participants were 123 American male undergraduate students
○ Each naive participant was tested individually within a group of between six and
eight confederates
■ The naive participants were not aware that the other ‘participants’ were
confederates
○ A trial is defined as one occasion identifying the length of a standard line
○ Initially, all confederates gave the right answers but then they started purposely
making errors - all confederates were instructed to give the same wrong answer
○ Altogether, each participant took part in 18 trials and 12 ‘critical trials’ in which the
confederates gave the wrong answer
● Findings: the naive participant gave a wrong answer on average 36.8% of the time
○ Overall, 25% of the participants did not conform on any trial → 75% did
○ The term, ‘Asch effect’, has been used to describe the result - the extent to which
participant conform even when the situation is unambiguous
○ When participants were interviewed afterwards, most said they conformed to avoid
social rejection - supports NSI
● Asch’s variation studies → investigated conditions that might lead to a change in conformity
○ Group size: adding three confederates increased conformity to 31.8%
○ Unanimity: the presence of a dissenting participant reduced conformity to ¼ of what
it was when the majority was unanimous
○ Task difficulty: more difficult tasks increase conformity levels
● Perrin & Spender (1980): repeated Asch’s study with engineering students in the UK → only
one student conformed in 396 trials
○ Engineering students → felt more confident with answers
○ 1950s were more conformist
○ - Asch effect is not consistent across different time periods
● Artificial situation and task: demand characteristics could have occured
○ Task of identifying lines is relatively trivial and had no real reason to conform
○ - Findings cannot be generalised to everyday situations
● Limited application of findings
○ Only tested male participants → Neto (1995) says women may be more conformist
○ - Limited generalisability as they are only applicable to American men
● Findings only apply to certain situations: had to answer out loud (wanted to impress)
○ Williams and Sogon (1984): higher conformity rates when majority were friends
○ - Conformity levels depend on situation, lacks mundane realism (artificial setting)
● Ethical issues: participants were deceived → they thought confederates were participants
○ - Can lead to a distrust of the discipline of psychologists
