SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance
Kelman 1958 suggested that there are 3 ways in which people conform to the opinion of a
majority
Internalisation the highest level of conformity, we take on the majority view because we
accept it as correct
Identification middle level of conformity, only when in presence of group they are identifying
with as value it and want to be a part of it
Compliance lowest level of conformity, outwardly go along with the majority view but
privately disagree with it, change in behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring
us
Change in Public Change in Private Beliefs Temporary/ NSI/ISI
Behavior Permanent
Compliance YES NO Temporary NSI
Identification YES YES Temporary (with NSI
group)
Internalisation YES YES (needs to be
effectively persuaded)
Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence
Informative Social Influence (ISI) one conforms to gain knowledge and be ‘right/correct’ as
it means acting appropriately and avoiding stand out (leads to internalisation)
Normative Social Influence (NSI) one conforms to be part of a group as it is socially
rewarding and avoids punishment (leads to compliance and identification)
Case Study: Jenness 1932 (ISI)
Aim; to examine whether individuals will change their opinions in an ambiguous situation, in
response to group discussion
Method;
- Using a jar of jelly beans and seeing whether people conformed when they thought
others had more knowledge
- The individuals estimated how many jelly beans were in the jar and then they were
divided into three groups to have a discussion
- After, they were asked again to estimate the correct number
Findings;
- Nearly all individuals changed their original estimate
, - The range of the entire group went from 1875 to 474 (75% decrease)
Conclusion;
- Individuals changed their estimate due to informative social influence as they
believed group estimates to be more correct - and them wanting to be correct
- Women average change is greater - agree with group (for survival)
- Men average change is less - more independent (due to DNA from hunter/gatherer
times)
Case Study: Asch 1951 (NSI)
Aim:
- To examine the extent to which social pressure to conform from a unanimous
majority affects conformity in an unambiguous situation
Method:
- He used a sample of male undergrad students who thought they were taking part in a
vision test
- One naive participant was placed in a room with 6-8 confederates and was always
sat penultimately from the end
- The naive believed the confederates were real participants
- In turn each person had to say whether A, B or C was the correct answer
- Each participant completed 18 trials
Findings:
- On 12 of the trials the confederates all gave the same incorrect answer (called critical
trials)
- On average, naives conformed to incorrect answers on 32% of critical trials
- 74% of participants conformed on at least one critical trial
- 26% never conformed
- Without any confederates (control trial) less than 1% gave an incorrect answer
Conclusion:
- This shows NSI took place
- Most of the participants said they knew the answer was incorrect but they went along
with the group to fit in and not stand out, this confirms that participants conformed
due to normative social influence and the desire to fit in publically without changing
their personal views
Evaluation of NSI and ISI
Strengths
- Research support for ISI; e.g. for ISI Jenness 1932, individuals changed their
estimate for how many jelly beans were in the jar due to informative social influence
as they believed group estimates to be more correct. This was mostly true for
females which may be due to the innate idea of survival within the gender, whereas
men are more independent due to DNA from hunter/gatherer times. However, the
study still shows that people conform in situations where they feel that they don’t
know the answer, which is exactly the outcome predicted by the ISI explanation.
Therefore, this is a strength as there is proof that ISI is a reason why people conform.
- Research support for NSI; e.g. for Asch 1951, participants went along with the group
to fit in even though they knew answers were wrong. When Asch asked them why
they did this, they replied by saying they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer
, and that they were afraid of disapproval. Furthermore, when Asch repeated his study
but asked participants to write their answers instead, conformity rates fell to 12.5%.
This is a strength of research as it proves NSI is also a reason why people conform
Weaknesses
- Individual differences in NSI and ISI; for example, some people are less concerned
about being liked and therefore, are less affected by NSI. McGhee and Teevan 1967
found students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform whereas others
not so much. This shows that NSI does not work for everyone. Furthermore, there
are also individual differences in ISI; Asch 1951 found students were less conformist
(28%) than other participants (37%), this is a limitation as different results were
discovered, enhancing the idea that each individual is different and not everyone can
be generalised into a category of conforming.
- ISI and NSI often work together; more often than not, both approaches are involved.
For example, conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant in
the Asch experiment and therefore, this may reduce the power of NSI because a
dissenter provides social support. Furthermore, it can reduce the power of ISI
because it is an alternative source of information. This shows that it can’t be possible
to be sure whether NSI or ISI is at work. This casts serious doubt over the view of ISI
and NSI operating independently and so, one can’t be sure whether ISI and NSI are
individual explanations of conformity.
Evaluation of Asch’s research and his variations (below)
Strengths
- A strength of Asch’s study is that he used a laboratory experiment. There are many
advantages to this, for example, he controlled the conditions and this means he could
replicate the study if he wished to check for credibility and reliability again. He did this
by controlling the answers of the participants, controlling where the naive person sat,
he controlled how many people were in the room etc. This meant he could establish
cause and effect between his independent variable and the dependent variable. In
this case the independent was the group size and the dependent was the conformity
levels
- Real world application; another strength would be that this experiment can be used
as real world application. For example, a jury service writes down whether the
defendant is guilty or not guilty. This suggests normative social influence does affect
people, as a precautionary method is used to ensure the jury do not conform and
give a different verdict to what they personally believe.
Weaknesses
- Unethical; this is because participants were deceived as they thought it was a visual
perception test. Furthermore, the naive thought that the other people involved were
also genuine participants like himself. However, the deception was needed for the
test to work, and the benefits gained from Asch’s experiment outweigh the negatives.
Having said this, not only was it unethical, only men were tested by Asch. Asch didn’t
take gender and cultural differences into account. Other research suggests women
may be more conformist, possible due to being more concerned about social
relationships, this shows that Asch’s findings may be inaccurate
- Does the experiment actually test conformity or independence? Only 32% conformed
on critical trials meaning 68% were independent, meaning Asch's results may
actually measure independence. However, if you compare this to the control group
