TYPES OF CONFORMITY
1. Conformity- change in behaviour/ opinions as a result of real or
imagined pressure from group of people. Types: compliance,
internalisation, identification.
2. Compliance- superficial and temporary type of conformity, outwardly go
along with the majority view in public but don’t change private opinions
or behaviour. This stops when the group is absent.
3. Identification- moderate type, act in the same way as the group because
we value it and want to be part of it. Publicly change opinions/
behaviour to be accepted but don’t necessarily agree.
4. Internalisation- deep type of conformity. Genuinely accept the majority
view because we accept as correct. Private and public change of
opinions/behaviour. Permanent and persists when group is absent.
5. REASONS PEOPLE CONFORM- the need to be right (ISI) and the need to
be liked (NSI).
6. Informational social influence- the need to be right in ambiguous
situations. Assume that the majority view is correct, so we go along with
this because we need to be correct too. May lead to internalisation.
Cognitive process- to do with what we think. SHERIF.
7. Normative social influence- the need to be liked in a situation of
strangers. We are concerned with not appearing foolish and gaining
social approval rather than rejection. Creates social pressure so
individuals conform to norms of group. Leads to compliance- temporary
change in opinions/behaviour. Emotional process. ASCH.
8. SHERIF- demonstrate why people conform (ISI). Asked individual people
to say how much the light moved and what direction. They developed
their own personal norm but varied between individuals. When asked in
a group of three they made judgements very close together. Group
norm rapidly replaced personal norm- influence of social influence.
When they started with groups of three, a group norm developed and as
an individual the judgment reflected influence of group.
9. ISI-
10.STRENGTH- lucas et al- participants conformed more to incorrect
answers in difficult maths problems. Easy problems they knew their own
minds, but when situation was ambiguous, they didn’t want to be wrong
, so relied on other answers. Valid explanation because results are what
ISI would predict.
11. HOWEVER, LIMITATION- unclear whether its NSI or ISI at work. ASCH
when there was a dissenting participant, conformity was reduced. Is it
NSI or ISI? This may reduce power of NSI as social support is provided
or ISI because there is another source of information. Hard to separate
them as they probably operate at the same time in real world
situations.
12. LIMITATION- asch found that ISI doesn’t affect everyone’s behaviour in
the same way. He found that students (28%) conformed less than
participants (37%).
13. NSI
14. STRENGTH- RESEARCH SUPPORT- ASCH found that some participants
conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the right answer as
they were afraid of disapproval. BUT when they wrote answers down
conformity fell to 12.5% as privately answering meant there was no
normative group pressure.
15. LIMITATION- NSI doesn’t predict conformity in every case. Naffiliators
are people who have a greater concern with being liked. They were
more likely to conform because they have greater desire to be liked.
There are individual differences in conformity that can’t be explained by
one general theory.
16. LIMITATION- NSI relates to conformity more for some people than
others. Individual differences in conformity that can’t be explained by a
theory of situational pressures.
17.LIMITATION- naïve p’s deceived because they thought confederates
were real participants
ASCH
1. Asch devised a procedure to measure the extent to which people would
conform to the opinions of others in an unambiguous situation when the
answer is certain.
2. PROCEDURE- 123 American men put into groups of 6 to 8. Only one was
a genuine participant and the rest were confederates giving the same
incorrect answers each time. They were given two cards each time. One
with the line X and on the other card there were three lines, one of them
was clearly the same size as X and the others were obviously different.
On each trial participants said aloud which line was the same size as X.
1. Conformity- change in behaviour/ opinions as a result of real or
imagined pressure from group of people. Types: compliance,
internalisation, identification.
2. Compliance- superficial and temporary type of conformity, outwardly go
along with the majority view in public but don’t change private opinions
or behaviour. This stops when the group is absent.
3. Identification- moderate type, act in the same way as the group because
we value it and want to be part of it. Publicly change opinions/
behaviour to be accepted but don’t necessarily agree.
4. Internalisation- deep type of conformity. Genuinely accept the majority
view because we accept as correct. Private and public change of
opinions/behaviour. Permanent and persists when group is absent.
5. REASONS PEOPLE CONFORM- the need to be right (ISI) and the need to
be liked (NSI).
6. Informational social influence- the need to be right in ambiguous
situations. Assume that the majority view is correct, so we go along with
this because we need to be correct too. May lead to internalisation.
Cognitive process- to do with what we think. SHERIF.
7. Normative social influence- the need to be liked in a situation of
strangers. We are concerned with not appearing foolish and gaining
social approval rather than rejection. Creates social pressure so
individuals conform to norms of group. Leads to compliance- temporary
change in opinions/behaviour. Emotional process. ASCH.
8. SHERIF- demonstrate why people conform (ISI). Asked individual people
to say how much the light moved and what direction. They developed
their own personal norm but varied between individuals. When asked in
a group of three they made judgements very close together. Group
norm rapidly replaced personal norm- influence of social influence.
When they started with groups of three, a group norm developed and as
an individual the judgment reflected influence of group.
9. ISI-
10.STRENGTH- lucas et al- participants conformed more to incorrect
answers in difficult maths problems. Easy problems they knew their own
minds, but when situation was ambiguous, they didn’t want to be wrong
, so relied on other answers. Valid explanation because results are what
ISI would predict.
11. HOWEVER, LIMITATION- unclear whether its NSI or ISI at work. ASCH
when there was a dissenting participant, conformity was reduced. Is it
NSI or ISI? This may reduce power of NSI as social support is provided
or ISI because there is another source of information. Hard to separate
them as they probably operate at the same time in real world
situations.
12. LIMITATION- asch found that ISI doesn’t affect everyone’s behaviour in
the same way. He found that students (28%) conformed less than
participants (37%).
13. NSI
14. STRENGTH- RESEARCH SUPPORT- ASCH found that some participants
conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the right answer as
they were afraid of disapproval. BUT when they wrote answers down
conformity fell to 12.5% as privately answering meant there was no
normative group pressure.
15. LIMITATION- NSI doesn’t predict conformity in every case. Naffiliators
are people who have a greater concern with being liked. They were
more likely to conform because they have greater desire to be liked.
There are individual differences in conformity that can’t be explained by
one general theory.
16. LIMITATION- NSI relates to conformity more for some people than
others. Individual differences in conformity that can’t be explained by a
theory of situational pressures.
17.LIMITATION- naïve p’s deceived because they thought confederates
were real participants
ASCH
1. Asch devised a procedure to measure the extent to which people would
conform to the opinions of others in an unambiguous situation when the
answer is certain.
2. PROCEDURE- 123 American men put into groups of 6 to 8. Only one was
a genuine participant and the rest were confederates giving the same
incorrect answers each time. They were given two cards each time. One
with the line X and on the other card there were three lines, one of them
was clearly the same size as X and the others were obviously different.
On each trial participants said aloud which line was the same size as X.
