Social influence
Types of and explanations for conformity:
Conformity = is a change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined
pressure from a person or group of people
Kelman (1958) suggested three levels of conformity:
Compliance (shallow)
Identification (intermediate)
Internalisation (deep)
Compliance – agreeing with the group but keeping personal opinions. Results in a temporary
change in behaviour
Identification – we value membership of a group so we will conform to their behaviour or ideas
to be a part of the groups, even if we don’t fully agree
Internalisation – deepest level of conformity. Personal opinions genuinely change to match the
groups. This is a permanent change in beliefs
There are two explanations for conformity:
Informational social influence (ISI)
Normative social influence (NSI)
Information social influence (ISI):
- In situations when the correct behaviour is uncertain, we look to the majority for
guidance on how to behave because we want to be correct
- ISI often results in internalisation, permanently adopting views of the majority
Normative social influence (NSI):
- In situations when the individual wants to appear normal and be one of the majority, so
they are approved and not rejected.
- NSI often results in compliance, or a superficial change in behaviour
,Evaluative Research:
Supporting evidence for NSI from Asch,
When given an unambiguous line length test pps would choose incorrect answers when
the incorrect answer was selected by confederates.
When interviewed afterwards pps said they conformed to avoid rejection by others.
This shows that people will show compliant behaviour in order to fit in and be approved
by the majority
However:
- The task in Asch’s line experiment was unusual and not like a task performed in day-to-
day life therefore lacks mundane realism
- It could be argued that conformity would act differently in real life
Supporting evidence for ISI by Jenness 1932…
Who asked pps first alone, then in groups, then make a second guess alone, the number
of jelly beans in a jar.
This is an ambiguous task, there is no obvious correct answer.
Jenness found that the individuals second guess would move closer to the groups guess
demonstrating ISI with women conforming more
However,
- The task in jenness’s experiment was unusual and not like a task performed in day-to-
day life, therefore lacks mundane realism.
- It could be argued that conformity would act differently in real world situations
Evaluation A03
, Strength of NSI is that there is research support
Asch (1951) found many pps conformed rather than give the correct answer because
they were afraid of disapproval
When pps wrote down answers (no normative pressure), conformity fell to 12.5%
This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the
group for disagreeing with them
Limitation is individual differences in NSI
- Some people are concerned about being liked by others – nAfiliators have a strong need
for ‘affiliation’ (need to relate to other people)
- McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAfifiliatord were more likely
to conform
- This shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than for others – an
individual difference not explained by a theory of situational pressures
Strength is research support for ISI
Lucas et al (2006) found pps conformed more to incorrect answers when maths
problems were difficult
For hard problems, the situation was ambiguous so they relied on the answers they were
given
This supports ISI because the results are what ISI would predict
However..
- It is unclear if NSI or ISI operate studies and real life. A dissenter may reduce the power
of NSI (social support) or reduce the power of ISI
- Therefore ISI and NSI are hard to separate and operate together in most real-world
situations
Variables affecting conformity - Asch
Types of and explanations for conformity:
Conformity = is a change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined
pressure from a person or group of people
Kelman (1958) suggested three levels of conformity:
Compliance (shallow)
Identification (intermediate)
Internalisation (deep)
Compliance – agreeing with the group but keeping personal opinions. Results in a temporary
change in behaviour
Identification – we value membership of a group so we will conform to their behaviour or ideas
to be a part of the groups, even if we don’t fully agree
Internalisation – deepest level of conformity. Personal opinions genuinely change to match the
groups. This is a permanent change in beliefs
There are two explanations for conformity:
Informational social influence (ISI)
Normative social influence (NSI)
Information social influence (ISI):
- In situations when the correct behaviour is uncertain, we look to the majority for
guidance on how to behave because we want to be correct
- ISI often results in internalisation, permanently adopting views of the majority
Normative social influence (NSI):
- In situations when the individual wants to appear normal and be one of the majority, so
they are approved and not rejected.
- NSI often results in compliance, or a superficial change in behaviour
,Evaluative Research:
Supporting evidence for NSI from Asch,
When given an unambiguous line length test pps would choose incorrect answers when
the incorrect answer was selected by confederates.
When interviewed afterwards pps said they conformed to avoid rejection by others.
This shows that people will show compliant behaviour in order to fit in and be approved
by the majority
However:
- The task in Asch’s line experiment was unusual and not like a task performed in day-to-
day life therefore lacks mundane realism
- It could be argued that conformity would act differently in real life
Supporting evidence for ISI by Jenness 1932…
Who asked pps first alone, then in groups, then make a second guess alone, the number
of jelly beans in a jar.
This is an ambiguous task, there is no obvious correct answer.
Jenness found that the individuals second guess would move closer to the groups guess
demonstrating ISI with women conforming more
However,
- The task in jenness’s experiment was unusual and not like a task performed in day-to-
day life, therefore lacks mundane realism.
- It could be argued that conformity would act differently in real world situations
Evaluation A03
, Strength of NSI is that there is research support
Asch (1951) found many pps conformed rather than give the correct answer because
they were afraid of disapproval
When pps wrote down answers (no normative pressure), conformity fell to 12.5%
This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the
group for disagreeing with them
Limitation is individual differences in NSI
- Some people are concerned about being liked by others – nAfiliators have a strong need
for ‘affiliation’ (need to relate to other people)
- McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAfifiliatord were more likely
to conform
- This shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than for others – an
individual difference not explained by a theory of situational pressures
Strength is research support for ISI
Lucas et al (2006) found pps conformed more to incorrect answers when maths
problems were difficult
For hard problems, the situation was ambiguous so they relied on the answers they were
given
This supports ISI because the results are what ISI would predict
However..
- It is unclear if NSI or ISI operate studies and real life. A dissenter may reduce the power
of NSI (social support) or reduce the power of ISI
- Therefore ISI and NSI are hard to separate and operate together in most real-world
situations
Variables affecting conformity - Asch
