Social Influence:
Conformity:
Types of conformity:
● Compliance - following the group to gain approval, no acceptance of views privately
● Identification - accept influence for association with group, individual internalises the
views but does so to be accepted by the group
● Internalisation - following the group because of acceptance of views, which may lead to
a private acceptance as well
Explanations of Conformity:
● Normative social influence - go along with the majority view due to desire to be liked,
based on fear of rejection, no private internalisation and believe they are being
monitored
● Informational social influence - accept majority views as most likely to be right , this is
more likely in ambiguous situations and where ‘experts’ are present. Change behaviour
to fit with the group’s position.
Evaluation:
- Distinction between compliance and internalisation is complicated due to
difficulties in identifying when they are taking place. Compliance is said to be agreeing
with the majority publicly, but is possible that individuals originally accept the group view
and then later change their minds when new information is revealed. As a result, this
demonstrates that identifying compliance and internalisation is not as straightforward as
is suggested.
+ Supporting research - Asch (1956):
● Aim - to see whether real participants conformed with the majority
● Procedure - asked to judge lines of varying lengths, matching one to a standard
line, confederates of Asch in place of the other Ps. confederates were instructed
to give the same wrong answer every time.
● Findings - average conformity 33%; the majority of those who conformed
admitted to displaying compliance.
, Variables Affecting Conformity:
Group Size - Group size more significant in absence of an objectively correct answer and when
an individual is concerned about fitting in, less when there is a correct response and concerns
about being correct are present.
Unanimity of Majority - when confederate gave correct answers, conformity 5.5%, and also
dropped when they went against the others in the majority, suggesting that breaking unanimity
was the key factor in reducing the conformity rates
Difficulty of Task - when difficulty was increased, conformity increased, and in situations when
people have high self-efficacy (confidence in ability), they are more likely to remain independent,
regardless of difficulty as the relationship between difficulty and conformity is moderated by
self-efficacy.
Evaluation:
+ High internal validity as strict control over extraneous variables (EVs), such as timing
and type of task. Participants did the experiment before without confederates to see if
they knew the correct answer, removing confounding variable (CV) of lack of knowledge;
suggests that valid and reliable causal relationships can be established, as well as valid
conclusions.
+ Lab experiment meant that EV and CV are strictly controlled, and replication is easy.
Successful replication increases reliability of findings and reduces likelihood of
anomalous findings.
- Lacks Ecological Validity - as it was based on peoples’ perception of lines and so the
findings cannot be generalised to real life scenarios as it does not reflect the complexity
of real life conformity, which have many CVs.
- The findings of Asch may be unique because the study was conducted in a period
where conformity was more important (Cold War = fear of Russian spies). The study was
repeated with UK students but obtained virtually no conformity (cultural differences).
However, similar levels of conformity to the original study were found in a study with
youths on probation and officers as confederates. The latter research shows that
conformity is more likely if the perceived costs of not conforming are high, and as with
the McCarthy era in the US, and as a result the historical validity of the study is
challenged.
Conformity:
Types of conformity:
● Compliance - following the group to gain approval, no acceptance of views privately
● Identification - accept influence for association with group, individual internalises the
views but does so to be accepted by the group
● Internalisation - following the group because of acceptance of views, which may lead to
a private acceptance as well
Explanations of Conformity:
● Normative social influence - go along with the majority view due to desire to be liked,
based on fear of rejection, no private internalisation and believe they are being
monitored
● Informational social influence - accept majority views as most likely to be right , this is
more likely in ambiguous situations and where ‘experts’ are present. Change behaviour
to fit with the group’s position.
Evaluation:
- Distinction between compliance and internalisation is complicated due to
difficulties in identifying when they are taking place. Compliance is said to be agreeing
with the majority publicly, but is possible that individuals originally accept the group view
and then later change their minds when new information is revealed. As a result, this
demonstrates that identifying compliance and internalisation is not as straightforward as
is suggested.
+ Supporting research - Asch (1956):
● Aim - to see whether real participants conformed with the majority
● Procedure - asked to judge lines of varying lengths, matching one to a standard
line, confederates of Asch in place of the other Ps. confederates were instructed
to give the same wrong answer every time.
● Findings - average conformity 33%; the majority of those who conformed
admitted to displaying compliance.
, Variables Affecting Conformity:
Group Size - Group size more significant in absence of an objectively correct answer and when
an individual is concerned about fitting in, less when there is a correct response and concerns
about being correct are present.
Unanimity of Majority - when confederate gave correct answers, conformity 5.5%, and also
dropped when they went against the others in the majority, suggesting that breaking unanimity
was the key factor in reducing the conformity rates
Difficulty of Task - when difficulty was increased, conformity increased, and in situations when
people have high self-efficacy (confidence in ability), they are more likely to remain independent,
regardless of difficulty as the relationship between difficulty and conformity is moderated by
self-efficacy.
Evaluation:
+ High internal validity as strict control over extraneous variables (EVs), such as timing
and type of task. Participants did the experiment before without confederates to see if
they knew the correct answer, removing confounding variable (CV) of lack of knowledge;
suggests that valid and reliable causal relationships can be established, as well as valid
conclusions.
+ Lab experiment meant that EV and CV are strictly controlled, and replication is easy.
Successful replication increases reliability of findings and reduces likelihood of
anomalous findings.
- Lacks Ecological Validity - as it was based on peoples’ perception of lines and so the
findings cannot be generalised to real life scenarios as it does not reflect the complexity
of real life conformity, which have many CVs.
- The findings of Asch may be unique because the study was conducted in a period
where conformity was more important (Cold War = fear of Russian spies). The study was
repeated with UK students but obtained virtually no conformity (cultural differences).
However, similar levels of conformity to the original study were found in a study with
youths on probation and officers as confederates. The latter research shows that
conformity is more likely if the perceived costs of not conforming are high, and as with
the McCarthy era in the US, and as a result the historical validity of the study is
challenged.
