outline research into types of conformity (8)
Conformity is the change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined
pressure from a group or person. Kellman suggested 3 ways in which people conform to the
opinion of the majority. (1) Internalisation: a person genuinely accepts the group's norms
leading to both a private and public change of opinions/behaviour. This change is permanent
and persists even in the absence of the group members as it has been internalised. (2)
identification: occurs when people adjust their behaviour/opinions to those of a group,
because they want to be like them. The person alters their behaviour/opinions in private, as
well as demonstrating public acceptance. However, these changes are generally temporary
and are not maintained when a person leaves the group. (3) compliance: a
superficial/temporary type where they outwardly go along with the majority view but privately
disagree. It often lasts as long as the group pressure is present but disappears in the
absence of group pressure. Compliance tends to be the result of normative social influence.
outline and evaluate explanations for conformity
(16)
Gerard developed a 2 process theory explaining 2 reasons why people conform. (1)
Normative Social Influence (NSI): Type of conformity where people go along with the
behaviour of the group to fit in/avoid rejection and gain social approval from others; it's often
linked with compliance. (2) Informational Social Influence: is when we agree with the opinion
of the majority because we believe it is correct, and we accept it because we want to be
correct as well. a person conforms because they see others as a source of the correct
information and use this to guide their personal decisions. This is likely to occur when the
situation is unclear and a person is unsure of the correct answer. They will then look to
others to lead their response, believing the majority to be correct (often linked with
internalisation).
A strength of informational social influence (ISI) is that it is supported by research evidence,
such as Jenness’s study. Jenness investigated whether individual judgments of the number
of jellybeans in a jar were influenced by group discussion. Initially, participants privately
estimated the number of jellybeans in the jar. After a group discussion, participants were
asked to make a second private estimate. Jenness found that the second private estimates
shifted closer to the group’s collective judgment, indicating that participants were influenced
by the majority opinion. This supports ISI as it demonstrates that people conform when they
believe the group holds more accurate information. This research also demonstrates
internalization, as participants privately accepted the group’s decision as correct rather than
simply complying publicly. Therefore, Jenness’s findings provide clear evidence for the
credibility of ISI, showing how people conform in uncertain situations because they seek to
adopt what they perceive as the correct or informed view.
A limitation of NSI is that it fails to account for individual differences in conformityFor
example, some people more about being accepted by others and are more likely to
be influenced by the majority and conform to be liked than those who care less about being
,liked. Shute found people with an external locus of control are more likely to conform, as
they believe the cause of behaviour lies externally and beyond their own control Thus, the
problem with the dual process model is that it believes that all humans react to conformity in
the same way. This is a key oversight because these personality related factors are key in
determining the likelihood of conforming and are factors that vary between individuals.
Therefore, individual differences are not accounted for, rendering the NSI explanation
incomplete and reducing its validity
The two-process approach suggests that behaviour is either due to NSI or ISI, when in fact
quite often both processes are involved. Asch’s study showed that conformity was reduced
when a dissenter disagreed with the group. However, its unclear whether this occurred
because the dissenter reduced the power of NSI by providing social support, or because
they reduced the power of ISI by introducing an alternative source of information. This
ambiguity highlights how NSI and ISI may operate simultaneously rather than independently
in influencing behavior. This challenges the two-process approach because it suggests that
conformity cannot always be neatly categorized into NSI or ISI. Therefore, the two-process
approach is limited as it fails to capture the complexity of social influence, where NSI and ISI
often interact rather than functioning as separate and distinct explanations for conformity.
One strength of the normative social influence explanation of conformity is that there is
supporting evidence. For example, Asch found that on 12 critical trials, there was
approximately a 37% conformity rate to wrong answers. Participants conformed to the
incorrect responses given by the confederates even when the correct answer was obvious.
Participants conformed because they wanted to be part of the majority. The participants had
a ‘desire to be liked.’ Also they wanted to ‘avoid being rejected’. Therefore, this supports the
role of normative social influence in conformity. Thus, increasing the credibility of this
explanation
outline and evaluate asch’s research into
conformity (16)
Asch tested conformity by showing participants two large white cards at a time. One one
card there was a standard line and on the other card there were three comparison lines. One
of the three lines was the same length as the standard line and the other two were
substantially wrong. Participants were then asked which of the 3 lies matched the standard.
Each naive participant was tested individually with a group of 6-8 confederates where they
were not made aware that the others were confederates. On the first few trials the
confederates gave the right answer but then started making errors - where all confederates
were instructed to give the same wrong answer. Each participant took part in 18 trials and 12
critical trials where the confederates gave the wrong answer. He found the naive participants
gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time. Where 75% conformed at least once. Participants
were then interviewed after and said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI).
, Asch later investigated the conditions that might have led to an increase or decrease in
conformity. He did this by carrying out variations of his original procedure. (1) group size:
investigated whether the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of
the group. He found that with 3 confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%.
But the addition of further confederates made little difference. This suggests that a small
majority is not sufficient for influence to be exerted but, as the other extreme there is no
need for a majority of more than three. (2) unanimity: is the extent to which all the members
of a group agree. He investigated whether the presence of another non-confroming person
would affect the naive participant's conformity. In his variation he introduced a confederate
who agreed with the others. The presence of the dissenting confederate meant that
conformity was reduced by a ¼ from the level it was when the majority was unanimous. The
dissenter allowed the naive participant to behave more independently suggesting that the
influence of the majority depends to some extent on the group being unanimous. (3) task
difficulty: asch made the line-judging task harder by making the stimulus line and the
comparison lines more similar in length and found conformity increased in this condition.
This suggests informative social influence plays a greater role when tasks become harder
because the situation is more ambiguous therefore we are more likely to look to others for
guidance and assume they are eight and we are wong
One limitation of Asch’s research is that there are ethical issues. The British Psychological
Society outlines six key guidelines all psychology research must follow in order to be
considered ethical, including informed consent, deception. In Asch’s study, participants were
told they were participating in a study into visual perception, whereas in reality they were
being studied on whether they conformed to the group. This breaks the guidelines of no
deception, as participants were not told the truth, and informed consent, as participants were
not informed of the true aim of the study. Therefore, Asch's study can be considered as
limited due to the ethical problems it exposed participants to.
One limitation of Asch’s research is that there are cultural differences in conformity rates
around the world. Smith conducted a meta-analysis and found an average conformity rate of
31.2%. However, individualist cultures showed a lower conformity rate (25%), while
collectivist cultures had a higher rate closer to Asch’s original findings. This suggests that
Asch’s study reflects cultural norms specific to 50s America and can’t be applied universally.
Generalising his findings to other cultures would be an example of imposed etic, as later
research has shown that conformity levels differ based on cultural values. Therefore, Asch’s
study lacks cultural validity, as it only provides insight into conformity within a Western,
individualist society and does not account for cross-cultural differences.
A strength of Asch’s research is that it is supported by his own variations. Asch investigated
the effect of group size on conformity by varying the number of confederates. He found that
with 1 confederate, conformity was only 3%, increasing to 13% with 2 confederates and 32%
with 3. Beyond 3 confederates, conformity remained consistent with his original study at
around 37%. This supports Asch’s initial findings by showing that people conform to group
norms to avoid standing out (normative social influence). The fact that his results remained
consistent across variations suggests that conformity follows a predictable pattern.
Therefore, Asch’s research is reliable as repeated variations produced similar findings,
reinforcing the credibility of his conclusions about group influence on conformity.
One strength of Asch’s research is its application to real-life situations. For example,
research has shown that in over 95% of cases, the first vote of the jury determines the final
verdict, demonstrating the influence of group pressure in decision-making contexts. This
supports Asch’s findings by showing that conformity is not just a laboratory phenomenon but
Conformity is the change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined
pressure from a group or person. Kellman suggested 3 ways in which people conform to the
opinion of the majority. (1) Internalisation: a person genuinely accepts the group's norms
leading to both a private and public change of opinions/behaviour. This change is permanent
and persists even in the absence of the group members as it has been internalised. (2)
identification: occurs when people adjust their behaviour/opinions to those of a group,
because they want to be like them. The person alters their behaviour/opinions in private, as
well as demonstrating public acceptance. However, these changes are generally temporary
and are not maintained when a person leaves the group. (3) compliance: a
superficial/temporary type where they outwardly go along with the majority view but privately
disagree. It often lasts as long as the group pressure is present but disappears in the
absence of group pressure. Compliance tends to be the result of normative social influence.
outline and evaluate explanations for conformity
(16)
Gerard developed a 2 process theory explaining 2 reasons why people conform. (1)
Normative Social Influence (NSI): Type of conformity where people go along with the
behaviour of the group to fit in/avoid rejection and gain social approval from others; it's often
linked with compliance. (2) Informational Social Influence: is when we agree with the opinion
of the majority because we believe it is correct, and we accept it because we want to be
correct as well. a person conforms because they see others as a source of the correct
information and use this to guide their personal decisions. This is likely to occur when the
situation is unclear and a person is unsure of the correct answer. They will then look to
others to lead their response, believing the majority to be correct (often linked with
internalisation).
A strength of informational social influence (ISI) is that it is supported by research evidence,
such as Jenness’s study. Jenness investigated whether individual judgments of the number
of jellybeans in a jar were influenced by group discussion. Initially, participants privately
estimated the number of jellybeans in the jar. After a group discussion, participants were
asked to make a second private estimate. Jenness found that the second private estimates
shifted closer to the group’s collective judgment, indicating that participants were influenced
by the majority opinion. This supports ISI as it demonstrates that people conform when they
believe the group holds more accurate information. This research also demonstrates
internalization, as participants privately accepted the group’s decision as correct rather than
simply complying publicly. Therefore, Jenness’s findings provide clear evidence for the
credibility of ISI, showing how people conform in uncertain situations because they seek to
adopt what they perceive as the correct or informed view.
A limitation of NSI is that it fails to account for individual differences in conformityFor
example, some people more about being accepted by others and are more likely to
be influenced by the majority and conform to be liked than those who care less about being
,liked. Shute found people with an external locus of control are more likely to conform, as
they believe the cause of behaviour lies externally and beyond their own control Thus, the
problem with the dual process model is that it believes that all humans react to conformity in
the same way. This is a key oversight because these personality related factors are key in
determining the likelihood of conforming and are factors that vary between individuals.
Therefore, individual differences are not accounted for, rendering the NSI explanation
incomplete and reducing its validity
The two-process approach suggests that behaviour is either due to NSI or ISI, when in fact
quite often both processes are involved. Asch’s study showed that conformity was reduced
when a dissenter disagreed with the group. However, its unclear whether this occurred
because the dissenter reduced the power of NSI by providing social support, or because
they reduced the power of ISI by introducing an alternative source of information. This
ambiguity highlights how NSI and ISI may operate simultaneously rather than independently
in influencing behavior. This challenges the two-process approach because it suggests that
conformity cannot always be neatly categorized into NSI or ISI. Therefore, the two-process
approach is limited as it fails to capture the complexity of social influence, where NSI and ISI
often interact rather than functioning as separate and distinct explanations for conformity.
One strength of the normative social influence explanation of conformity is that there is
supporting evidence. For example, Asch found that on 12 critical trials, there was
approximately a 37% conformity rate to wrong answers. Participants conformed to the
incorrect responses given by the confederates even when the correct answer was obvious.
Participants conformed because they wanted to be part of the majority. The participants had
a ‘desire to be liked.’ Also they wanted to ‘avoid being rejected’. Therefore, this supports the
role of normative social influence in conformity. Thus, increasing the credibility of this
explanation
outline and evaluate asch’s research into
conformity (16)
Asch tested conformity by showing participants two large white cards at a time. One one
card there was a standard line and on the other card there were three comparison lines. One
of the three lines was the same length as the standard line and the other two were
substantially wrong. Participants were then asked which of the 3 lies matched the standard.
Each naive participant was tested individually with a group of 6-8 confederates where they
were not made aware that the others were confederates. On the first few trials the
confederates gave the right answer but then started making errors - where all confederates
were instructed to give the same wrong answer. Each participant took part in 18 trials and 12
critical trials where the confederates gave the wrong answer. He found the naive participants
gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time. Where 75% conformed at least once. Participants
were then interviewed after and said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI).
, Asch later investigated the conditions that might have led to an increase or decrease in
conformity. He did this by carrying out variations of his original procedure. (1) group size:
investigated whether the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of
the group. He found that with 3 confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%.
But the addition of further confederates made little difference. This suggests that a small
majority is not sufficient for influence to be exerted but, as the other extreme there is no
need for a majority of more than three. (2) unanimity: is the extent to which all the members
of a group agree. He investigated whether the presence of another non-confroming person
would affect the naive participant's conformity. In his variation he introduced a confederate
who agreed with the others. The presence of the dissenting confederate meant that
conformity was reduced by a ¼ from the level it was when the majority was unanimous. The
dissenter allowed the naive participant to behave more independently suggesting that the
influence of the majority depends to some extent on the group being unanimous. (3) task
difficulty: asch made the line-judging task harder by making the stimulus line and the
comparison lines more similar in length and found conformity increased in this condition.
This suggests informative social influence plays a greater role when tasks become harder
because the situation is more ambiguous therefore we are more likely to look to others for
guidance and assume they are eight and we are wong
One limitation of Asch’s research is that there are ethical issues. The British Psychological
Society outlines six key guidelines all psychology research must follow in order to be
considered ethical, including informed consent, deception. In Asch’s study, participants were
told they were participating in a study into visual perception, whereas in reality they were
being studied on whether they conformed to the group. This breaks the guidelines of no
deception, as participants were not told the truth, and informed consent, as participants were
not informed of the true aim of the study. Therefore, Asch's study can be considered as
limited due to the ethical problems it exposed participants to.
One limitation of Asch’s research is that there are cultural differences in conformity rates
around the world. Smith conducted a meta-analysis and found an average conformity rate of
31.2%. However, individualist cultures showed a lower conformity rate (25%), while
collectivist cultures had a higher rate closer to Asch’s original findings. This suggests that
Asch’s study reflects cultural norms specific to 50s America and can’t be applied universally.
Generalising his findings to other cultures would be an example of imposed etic, as later
research has shown that conformity levels differ based on cultural values. Therefore, Asch’s
study lacks cultural validity, as it only provides insight into conformity within a Western,
individualist society and does not account for cross-cultural differences.
A strength of Asch’s research is that it is supported by his own variations. Asch investigated
the effect of group size on conformity by varying the number of confederates. He found that
with 1 confederate, conformity was only 3%, increasing to 13% with 2 confederates and 32%
with 3. Beyond 3 confederates, conformity remained consistent with his original study at
around 37%. This supports Asch’s initial findings by showing that people conform to group
norms to avoid standing out (normative social influence). The fact that his results remained
consistent across variations suggests that conformity follows a predictable pattern.
Therefore, Asch’s research is reliable as repeated variations produced similar findings,
reinforcing the credibility of his conclusions about group influence on conformity.
One strength of Asch’s research is its application to real-life situations. For example,
research has shown that in over 95% of cases, the first vote of the jury determines the final
verdict, demonstrating the influence of group pressure in decision-making contexts. This
supports Asch’s findings by showing that conformity is not just a laboratory phenomenon but
