SOCIAL INFLUENCE
TYPES OF CONFORMITY
Internalisation: when a person genuinely changes their beliefs or behaviours to fit a
wider social group because they have internalised those beliefs of behavioural
norms, and they think they are their own. This change is usually permanent and
persists even in the absence of other group members.
Identification: When one conforms to the opinions/ behaviours of a group because
there is something about the group that they value. This may mean they publicly
change their opinions to be accepted by the group, even if they don’t privately agree
with everything the group stands for.
Compliance: involves simply ‘going along with others’ in public, but privately not
changing personal opinions. This only results in a superficial change and means a
particular behaviour stops as soon as group pressure stops.
EXPLANATIONS FOR CONFORMITY
Informational Social Influence: conforming and changing your behaviour based on
information gained from or about the wider social group, occurs when you think
someone else in the group knows more than you or there is ambiguity in the task, so
you conform in hopes they are correct. ISI is a cognitive process because it is to do
with what you think. Leads to a permanent change in opinion, most likely
internalisation.
Normative Social Influence: conforming or changing your behaviour based on
apparent social ‘norms’ and expected behaviour. NSI is an emotional process as
people do not like to appear foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than be
rejected. It leads to a temporary change in opinions, most likely compliance. Likely to
occur with strangers where you may feel concerned about rejection in stressful
situations.
+ RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR NSI
When Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed as they felt self-
conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When ppts.
wrote their answers down, conformity fell from 36.8% to 12.5% because giving
answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure.
+RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR ISI
Todd Lucas et al. found that ppts. conformed more often to incorrect answers they
were given when the maths problems were difficult because when the problems
were easy, the ppts. ‘Knew their own minds’ but when the problems were hard, the
situation became ambiguous, so they relied on the answers given by others.
C/A: unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work. For example, Asch found that conformity
is reduced when there is one other dissenting ppt. The dissenter may reduce the
, power of NSI as they provide social support, or they may reduce the power of ISI as
they provide an alternative source of social information. So, it is hard to separate ISI
and NSI and both processes operate together in most real-world conformity
situations.
-INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN NSI
NSI does not predict conformity in every case. Some people are more concerned
with being liked by others than some others and such people are called nAffiliators.
McGhee and Teevan found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to
conform, showing that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does
for others. The individual differences in conformity cannot be fully explained by one
general theory of situational pressures.
ASCH’S EXPERIMENT
-a laboratory experiment using an ‘independent groups’ design
-participants were asked to state which of 3 lines matched a ‘standard line’
-ppts. were placed in groups of 8, but were not told that the other 7 people in the
group were actually confederates
-they gave their answer last or next to last; the confederates gave deliberately wrong
answers
-in the control group, ppts. only got it wrong about 1% of the time, this was a trivial
task with little difficulty
-in the groups with confederates, ppts. gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time, they
were influenced by the confederates and conformed to the wrong answers before
them
-ppts. were influenced by the developing social norm (NSI), but it also could have
been because they thought the other ppts. knew how to judge lines better than them
(ISI)
-this was a lab experiment with good control of the variables, so a cause-and-effect
relationship could be established
-but this was a trivial task with little ecological validity, low mundane realism and
participants were deceived by not being told the other 7 in the group were
confederates.
ASCH’S VARIABLES
Group size – a curvilinear relationship was found between group size and conformity
rate. With 3 confederates, conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8% but the
presence of more confederates made little difference, the conformity rate soon
levelled off.
Unanimity – Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other
confederates and the genuine participant conformed less often in the presence of a
dissenter as it appeared to free the naïve ppt to behave more independently, even
when the dissenter disagreed with the genuine participant.
TYPES OF CONFORMITY
Internalisation: when a person genuinely changes their beliefs or behaviours to fit a
wider social group because they have internalised those beliefs of behavioural
norms, and they think they are their own. This change is usually permanent and
persists even in the absence of other group members.
Identification: When one conforms to the opinions/ behaviours of a group because
there is something about the group that they value. This may mean they publicly
change their opinions to be accepted by the group, even if they don’t privately agree
with everything the group stands for.
Compliance: involves simply ‘going along with others’ in public, but privately not
changing personal opinions. This only results in a superficial change and means a
particular behaviour stops as soon as group pressure stops.
EXPLANATIONS FOR CONFORMITY
Informational Social Influence: conforming and changing your behaviour based on
information gained from or about the wider social group, occurs when you think
someone else in the group knows more than you or there is ambiguity in the task, so
you conform in hopes they are correct. ISI is a cognitive process because it is to do
with what you think. Leads to a permanent change in opinion, most likely
internalisation.
Normative Social Influence: conforming or changing your behaviour based on
apparent social ‘norms’ and expected behaviour. NSI is an emotional process as
people do not like to appear foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than be
rejected. It leads to a temporary change in opinions, most likely compliance. Likely to
occur with strangers where you may feel concerned about rejection in stressful
situations.
+ RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR NSI
When Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed as they felt self-
conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When ppts.
wrote their answers down, conformity fell from 36.8% to 12.5% because giving
answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure.
+RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR ISI
Todd Lucas et al. found that ppts. conformed more often to incorrect answers they
were given when the maths problems were difficult because when the problems
were easy, the ppts. ‘Knew their own minds’ but when the problems were hard, the
situation became ambiguous, so they relied on the answers given by others.
C/A: unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work. For example, Asch found that conformity
is reduced when there is one other dissenting ppt. The dissenter may reduce the
, power of NSI as they provide social support, or they may reduce the power of ISI as
they provide an alternative source of social information. So, it is hard to separate ISI
and NSI and both processes operate together in most real-world conformity
situations.
-INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN NSI
NSI does not predict conformity in every case. Some people are more concerned
with being liked by others than some others and such people are called nAffiliators.
McGhee and Teevan found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to
conform, showing that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does
for others. The individual differences in conformity cannot be fully explained by one
general theory of situational pressures.
ASCH’S EXPERIMENT
-a laboratory experiment using an ‘independent groups’ design
-participants were asked to state which of 3 lines matched a ‘standard line’
-ppts. were placed in groups of 8, but were not told that the other 7 people in the
group were actually confederates
-they gave their answer last or next to last; the confederates gave deliberately wrong
answers
-in the control group, ppts. only got it wrong about 1% of the time, this was a trivial
task with little difficulty
-in the groups with confederates, ppts. gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time, they
were influenced by the confederates and conformed to the wrong answers before
them
-ppts. were influenced by the developing social norm (NSI), but it also could have
been because they thought the other ppts. knew how to judge lines better than them
(ISI)
-this was a lab experiment with good control of the variables, so a cause-and-effect
relationship could be established
-but this was a trivial task with little ecological validity, low mundane realism and
participants were deceived by not being told the other 7 in the group were
confederates.
ASCH’S VARIABLES
Group size – a curvilinear relationship was found between group size and conformity
rate. With 3 confederates, conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8% but the
presence of more confederates made little difference, the conformity rate soon
levelled off.
Unanimity – Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other
confederates and the genuine participant conformed less often in the presence of a
dissenter as it appeared to free the naïve ppt to behave more independently, even
when the dissenter disagreed with the genuine participant.
