SOCIAL INFLUENCE
CONFORMITY
Definition: A type of social influence involving a change in behaviour in
order to fit in with a group
Change is a response to real/imagined pressure from a person or group
TYPES OF CONFORMITY
Compliance: group acceptance
Going a long w majority in order to fit in, regardless of private
feelings
Adjust/change public behaviour for approval
Superficial, short-term change
Identification: group membership
When a person identifies w, values or likes the group
Changes in public behaviour + private beliefs- experience group
membership
Change is not permanent + short term
Internalisation: real acceptance of group norms
Group beliefs become part of own belief system
Content of attitude is consistent w own value system
Long-term change of public + private beliefs/behaviours
EXPLANATIONS FOR CONFORMITY
Normative social influence
Need to be liked, following the crowd, social approval
NSI occurs when a person goes along w majority to maintain group
harmony, to be accepted, gain social approval, avoid
disproval/rejection
A person must believe they’re under surveillance of group- leads to
temporary change in opinions/behaviour
Informational social influence
Need to be right, majority viewpoint likely to be right
ISI associated w internalisation- change in behaviour + belief is
result of person adopting a new belief system as they believe their
new beliefs are right
Evaluation
,STRENGTH
Evidence to support NSI
Asch (1951): many ppts conformed on an unambiguous line test
Confirmed in interviews that they felt self-conscious + afraid of
disapproval
When ppts wrote down their answer, conformity fell to 12.5%- no
group pressure
Shows conformity is result of need for approval
NSI is a valid explanation
STRENGTH
Real world application
Schultz et al. (2008): were able to change behaviour of hotel
guests
Printed messages suggesting that other guests were using fewer
towels
Linkenbach + Perkins (2003): found teens that were told most
people their age didn’t smoke were less likely to
People can be shaped by making them aware of social norms
LIMITATION
Cannot explain everyone’s behaviour in similar positions
Some people care more about being liked
nAffiliators- more affected by NSI
McGee + Teevan (1967): found these students more likely to
conform on tasks than others
Individual differences in way people conform
STRENGTH
Evidence to support
Lucas et al (2006): asked students to answer easy + hard maths
questions
Greater conformity when they were difficult- mainly people who
rated their maths as poor
Valid explanation- people conform + look to others + assume they
know better
LIMITATION
Influence depends on task type
Laughun (1999): people more likely to be influenced when
judgments had to be made about social reality
No objective reality to check
VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITY
Asch’s original conformity research
, Aim
To investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority
could affect a person to conform
Procedure
Sample of 123 male American students
Believed they were taking part in a vision test
One naïve ppt with 6-8 confederates- always sat second to last
Everyone took turns to say which line was most like the target line
Findings
Real ppts conformed to incorrect answer 36.8% of the time
75% conformed on at least one critical trial
25% never conformed
Less than 1% gave a wrong answer in the control group
Conclusion
Asch interviewed ppts after
Most said they knew the answer + went a long w the group to fit in
Confirms ppts conformed due to NSI
ASCH’S VARIATIONS (1955)
Group size
Aim
To determine how minority size affects conformity rate
Procedure
Variations ranged from 1-15 confederates
Findings
1 confederate: ppts conformed on 3% of trials
2 confederates: 13% conformity
3 confederates: 32% conformity
At around 9 confederates conformity started decreasing- highest
level w just 3 confederates
Conclusion
No need for a majority over 3
People may suspect collision over 3/4
Unanimity
Aim
To determine if a non-unanimous group influences conformity rates
Procedure + findings
One confederate gave correct answer- rate dropped to 5.5%
CONFORMITY
Definition: A type of social influence involving a change in behaviour in
order to fit in with a group
Change is a response to real/imagined pressure from a person or group
TYPES OF CONFORMITY
Compliance: group acceptance
Going a long w majority in order to fit in, regardless of private
feelings
Adjust/change public behaviour for approval
Superficial, short-term change
Identification: group membership
When a person identifies w, values or likes the group
Changes in public behaviour + private beliefs- experience group
membership
Change is not permanent + short term
Internalisation: real acceptance of group norms
Group beliefs become part of own belief system
Content of attitude is consistent w own value system
Long-term change of public + private beliefs/behaviours
EXPLANATIONS FOR CONFORMITY
Normative social influence
Need to be liked, following the crowd, social approval
NSI occurs when a person goes along w majority to maintain group
harmony, to be accepted, gain social approval, avoid
disproval/rejection
A person must believe they’re under surveillance of group- leads to
temporary change in opinions/behaviour
Informational social influence
Need to be right, majority viewpoint likely to be right
ISI associated w internalisation- change in behaviour + belief is
result of person adopting a new belief system as they believe their
new beliefs are right
Evaluation
,STRENGTH
Evidence to support NSI
Asch (1951): many ppts conformed on an unambiguous line test
Confirmed in interviews that they felt self-conscious + afraid of
disapproval
When ppts wrote down their answer, conformity fell to 12.5%- no
group pressure
Shows conformity is result of need for approval
NSI is a valid explanation
STRENGTH
Real world application
Schultz et al. (2008): were able to change behaviour of hotel
guests
Printed messages suggesting that other guests were using fewer
towels
Linkenbach + Perkins (2003): found teens that were told most
people their age didn’t smoke were less likely to
People can be shaped by making them aware of social norms
LIMITATION
Cannot explain everyone’s behaviour in similar positions
Some people care more about being liked
nAffiliators- more affected by NSI
McGee + Teevan (1967): found these students more likely to
conform on tasks than others
Individual differences in way people conform
STRENGTH
Evidence to support
Lucas et al (2006): asked students to answer easy + hard maths
questions
Greater conformity when they were difficult- mainly people who
rated their maths as poor
Valid explanation- people conform + look to others + assume they
know better
LIMITATION
Influence depends on task type
Laughun (1999): people more likely to be influenced when
judgments had to be made about social reality
No objective reality to check
VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITY
Asch’s original conformity research
, Aim
To investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority
could affect a person to conform
Procedure
Sample of 123 male American students
Believed they were taking part in a vision test
One naïve ppt with 6-8 confederates- always sat second to last
Everyone took turns to say which line was most like the target line
Findings
Real ppts conformed to incorrect answer 36.8% of the time
75% conformed on at least one critical trial
25% never conformed
Less than 1% gave a wrong answer in the control group
Conclusion
Asch interviewed ppts after
Most said they knew the answer + went a long w the group to fit in
Confirms ppts conformed due to NSI
ASCH’S VARIATIONS (1955)
Group size
Aim
To determine how minority size affects conformity rate
Procedure
Variations ranged from 1-15 confederates
Findings
1 confederate: ppts conformed on 3% of trials
2 confederates: 13% conformity
3 confederates: 32% conformity
At around 9 confederates conformity started decreasing- highest
level w just 3 confederates
Conclusion
No need for a majority over 3
People may suspect collision over 3/4
Unanimity
Aim
To determine if a non-unanimous group influences conformity rates
Procedure + findings
One confederate gave correct answer- rate dropped to 5.5%
