1. Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance. Explanations for
conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence.
Internalisation - Occurs when a person genuinely accepts the group norms. This results in a private
as well as a public change of opinions and behaviour. This change is permanent because attitudes
have been internalised. This change persists even in the absence of the group.
Identification - When we conform to the opinions or behaviours of a group as we identify with the
group and want to be part of it. This may mean that we publicly change our opinions or behaviours
to be accepted by the group, even if we don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for.
Compliance - This type of conformity involves the others in public, but privately not changing personal
opinions and behaviours. It is a superficial change. Meaning that the behaviour or opinion stops as
soon as the group pressure stops.
Informational Social Influence
- This is when we follow the behaviour of the majority as we assume them to be correct and
we want to be right too.
- This will often lead to internalisation
- This is likely to happen in situations that are new to a person and there is ambiguity.
Normative Social Influence
- This is an emotional process which causes a temporary change in our behaviours.
- We do this to gain approval and avoid rejection and looking foolish.
One strength of NSI is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity. For example, when
Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self conscious
giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote their answers
down, conformity fell to 12.5%. This is because giving answers privately meant there was no
normative group pressure. This shows that at least some conformity is due a desire not to be rejected
by the group for disagreeing with them.
Another strength is that there is research evidence to support ISI from the study by Lucas et al.
Lucas found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers when they were given
difficult maths questions, This is because when the questions were easy, the participants knew they
were correct. But when difficulty increased, the situation became ambiguous to them and they did
not want to be wrong, therefore looked to others for guidance. This shows that ISI is a valid
explanation of conformity because the results are what the ISI would predict. However it is unclear
to know whether it is ISI or NSI at work in research studies. For example, Asch found that
conformity is reduced when there is one dissenting participant. The dissenter may reduce the power
of NSI (social support) or may reduce the power of ISI (providing an alternative source of social
information). Both interpretations are possible. Therefore, it is hard to separate ISI and NSI and
both processes probably operate together in most real world conformity situations.
One limitation is that the NSI does not predict conformity in every case. Some people are greatly
concerned with being liked by others, and have a strong need for this. Researchers have found that
these type of people are more likely to conform. This shows that NSI underlies conformity for
some people more than others. Suggesting that there are individual differences that cannot be
fully explained by a general situational theory.
, 2. Variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as
investigated by Asch.
1. Group Size - Asch wanted to know whether the size of the group would be more important
than the agreement of the group. To test this, he varied the number of confederated from 1 -
15. He found that conformity increased with group size up to a certain point. With 3
confederates, conformity rose to 31.9% but the presence of more confederates made little
difference. This suggests that most people are sensitive to the views of others as 1-2
confederates are strong enough to sway opinions.
2. Unanimity - Asch wondered if the presence of a non conforming person would affect the
naive participants conformity. He introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other
confederates. The naive participant conformed less in the presence of a dissenter, this
freed the naive participant to behave more independently. This suggests that the influence
of the majority depends to a large extent of it being unanimous.
3. Task Difficulty - Asch wanted to know whether making the task harder would affect the
degree of conformity. He increased the difficulty of the line judging task by making the
stimulus line and comparison lines more similar in length. This meant it became harder
and the naive participant may have looked for guidance for the correct answer.
One limitation of Asch’s research is that the task and situation were artificial. Participants knew
they were in a research task and may have simply gone along with what was expected of them.
Additionally, the task of identifying lines is relatively trivial and therefore gives no real reason to not
conform. Therefore suggesting that the findings do not generalise to real world situations, where
the consequences of conformity might be important.
Another limitation is that Asch’s participants were American men. Other research has since
suggested that women may be more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned about
social relationships and being accepted. Furthermore, the USA is an individualistic culture. Similar
conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures have found that conformity rates are higher. This
means that asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from some
cultures.
One strength of Asch’s research is support from other studies for the effects of task difficulty. For
example, Lucas asked participants to solve easy or hard maths questions. Participants were given
answers from three other confederates. They found that the participants would conform more
often when the problems were harder. This shows Asch was correct in claiming task difficulty can
affect conformity. However, Lucas’ study found conformity to be more complex, as participants with
high confidence on their abilities conformed less. This shows that an individual level factor can
influence conformity by interacting with situational variables, which Asch did not research.
conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence.
Internalisation - Occurs when a person genuinely accepts the group norms. This results in a private
as well as a public change of opinions and behaviour. This change is permanent because attitudes
have been internalised. This change persists even in the absence of the group.
Identification - When we conform to the opinions or behaviours of a group as we identify with the
group and want to be part of it. This may mean that we publicly change our opinions or behaviours
to be accepted by the group, even if we don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for.
Compliance - This type of conformity involves the others in public, but privately not changing personal
opinions and behaviours. It is a superficial change. Meaning that the behaviour or opinion stops as
soon as the group pressure stops.
Informational Social Influence
- This is when we follow the behaviour of the majority as we assume them to be correct and
we want to be right too.
- This will often lead to internalisation
- This is likely to happen in situations that are new to a person and there is ambiguity.
Normative Social Influence
- This is an emotional process which causes a temporary change in our behaviours.
- We do this to gain approval and avoid rejection and looking foolish.
One strength of NSI is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity. For example, when
Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self conscious
giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote their answers
down, conformity fell to 12.5%. This is because giving answers privately meant there was no
normative group pressure. This shows that at least some conformity is due a desire not to be rejected
by the group for disagreeing with them.
Another strength is that there is research evidence to support ISI from the study by Lucas et al.
Lucas found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers when they were given
difficult maths questions, This is because when the questions were easy, the participants knew they
were correct. But when difficulty increased, the situation became ambiguous to them and they did
not want to be wrong, therefore looked to others for guidance. This shows that ISI is a valid
explanation of conformity because the results are what the ISI would predict. However it is unclear
to know whether it is ISI or NSI at work in research studies. For example, Asch found that
conformity is reduced when there is one dissenting participant. The dissenter may reduce the power
of NSI (social support) or may reduce the power of ISI (providing an alternative source of social
information). Both interpretations are possible. Therefore, it is hard to separate ISI and NSI and
both processes probably operate together in most real world conformity situations.
One limitation is that the NSI does not predict conformity in every case. Some people are greatly
concerned with being liked by others, and have a strong need for this. Researchers have found that
these type of people are more likely to conform. This shows that NSI underlies conformity for
some people more than others. Suggesting that there are individual differences that cannot be
fully explained by a general situational theory.
, 2. Variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as
investigated by Asch.
1. Group Size - Asch wanted to know whether the size of the group would be more important
than the agreement of the group. To test this, he varied the number of confederated from 1 -
15. He found that conformity increased with group size up to a certain point. With 3
confederates, conformity rose to 31.9% but the presence of more confederates made little
difference. This suggests that most people are sensitive to the views of others as 1-2
confederates are strong enough to sway opinions.
2. Unanimity - Asch wondered if the presence of a non conforming person would affect the
naive participants conformity. He introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other
confederates. The naive participant conformed less in the presence of a dissenter, this
freed the naive participant to behave more independently. This suggests that the influence
of the majority depends to a large extent of it being unanimous.
3. Task Difficulty - Asch wanted to know whether making the task harder would affect the
degree of conformity. He increased the difficulty of the line judging task by making the
stimulus line and comparison lines more similar in length. This meant it became harder
and the naive participant may have looked for guidance for the correct answer.
One limitation of Asch’s research is that the task and situation were artificial. Participants knew
they were in a research task and may have simply gone along with what was expected of them.
Additionally, the task of identifying lines is relatively trivial and therefore gives no real reason to not
conform. Therefore suggesting that the findings do not generalise to real world situations, where
the consequences of conformity might be important.
Another limitation is that Asch’s participants were American men. Other research has since
suggested that women may be more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned about
social relationships and being accepted. Furthermore, the USA is an individualistic culture. Similar
conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures have found that conformity rates are higher. This
means that asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from some
cultures.
One strength of Asch’s research is support from other studies for the effects of task difficulty. For
example, Lucas asked participants to solve easy or hard maths questions. Participants were given
answers from three other confederates. They found that the participants would conform more
often when the problems were harder. This shows Asch was correct in claiming task difficulty can
affect conformity. However, Lucas’ study found conformity to be more complex, as participants with
high confidence on their abilities conformed less. This shows that an individual level factor can
influence conformity by interacting with situational variables, which Asch did not research.
