Conformity – Types and explanations (Herbert Kelman (1958))
Internalisation Identification Compliance
= a deep type of conformity = a moderate type of conformity = where we outwardly go along
where we take on the majority where we act in the same way with the majority view but
view as we accept it as correct. with the group as we value it and privately disagree with it.
want to be part of it.
à leads to permanent change of à only stops when pressure
behaviour even when the group is à don’t necessarily agree with stops.
absent. everything the majority believes
in.
Normative Social influence (NSI) (Deustch and Gerard came up with the two-process model!)
= an explanation for conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be
accepted and gain social approval and to be liked.
à LEADS TO COMPLIANCE
Informative social Influence (ISI)
= an explanation for conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is
correct. We accept it as we want to be correct as well.
à LEADS TO INTERNALISATION
EVALUATION
Research support – ISI Individual differences – NSI ISI and NSI work together
• Lucas et. At (2006) • NSI doesn’t affect • Both processes are involved
• Gave students everyone in the same way • E.g. Asch’s experiment
mathematical problems. • Some people don’t have a • Dissenting participant
• Greater conformity for desire to be likes as much reduced the effect of NSI but
questions that were as others. increased the effect of ISI.
harder. • People who don’t crave • SO… this means we can’t tell
• Most true for students this social acceptance are is NSI or ISI is at work.
who rated maths as poor. called nAffilliators
• McGhee and Teevan –
found that students that
had high affiliation were
likely to conform.
, Conformity – Asch’s Research
Procedure Findings
• Solomon Asch (1951,1955) • Naïve participant gave wrong answer 36.8%
• Showed participants two large white cards at of the time
a time. • 25% of participants didn’t conform on any
• One card = standard line trials.
• One card = comparison lines • 75% conformed at least once.
• Participant asked to say which one matched • Participants conformed even when the task
• 123 male undergraduates was unambiguous.
• Each naïve participant tested in a group of 6-8 • When interviewed afterwards it was found
confederates. they conformed due to NSI.
• One first trials the confederates gave the
right answers.
• Started to make errors
• All confederates instructed to give the same
incorrect answer.
• 18 trials altogether.
• Confederates gave wrong answer in 12.
Group size Unanimity Task Difficulty
• As the number of • Presence of another non- • Increased task difficulty
confederates increased, conforming person meant that conformity
so did the level of • Reduced conformity increased.
conformity. because the dissenter • Due to ISI.
• Up to a point in which it allowed the participant to
levelled off. think more independently.
EVALUATION
A child of its time Artificial situation and Task Limited Application of findings
• Perrin and Spencer (1980) • Participants knew they • Only men!
• Repeated experiment on were in a study • Women might be more
engineering students • Demand characteristics worried about social
• Only one student • Didn’t resemble groups relationships
conformed on 396 trials. that we are part of in • Neto (1995)
• In the 1950’s in USA it was everyday life.
more conformist. • So, we can’t generalise
• Limitation as it means that this to real life situations • Bond and Smith (1996)
the Asch Effect is not • US = individualist
consistent across all • Concerned about
situations. themselves rather than
the group.
• Collectivist = Conf. Higher.
• Asch didn’t take gender
and culture into account
Internalisation Identification Compliance
= a deep type of conformity = a moderate type of conformity = where we outwardly go along
where we take on the majority where we act in the same way with the majority view but
view as we accept it as correct. with the group as we value it and privately disagree with it.
want to be part of it.
à leads to permanent change of à only stops when pressure
behaviour even when the group is à don’t necessarily agree with stops.
absent. everything the majority believes
in.
Normative Social influence (NSI) (Deustch and Gerard came up with the two-process model!)
= an explanation for conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be
accepted and gain social approval and to be liked.
à LEADS TO COMPLIANCE
Informative social Influence (ISI)
= an explanation for conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is
correct. We accept it as we want to be correct as well.
à LEADS TO INTERNALISATION
EVALUATION
Research support – ISI Individual differences – NSI ISI and NSI work together
• Lucas et. At (2006) • NSI doesn’t affect • Both processes are involved
• Gave students everyone in the same way • E.g. Asch’s experiment
mathematical problems. • Some people don’t have a • Dissenting participant
• Greater conformity for desire to be likes as much reduced the effect of NSI but
questions that were as others. increased the effect of ISI.
harder. • People who don’t crave • SO… this means we can’t tell
• Most true for students this social acceptance are is NSI or ISI is at work.
who rated maths as poor. called nAffilliators
• McGhee and Teevan –
found that students that
had high affiliation were
likely to conform.
, Conformity – Asch’s Research
Procedure Findings
• Solomon Asch (1951,1955) • Naïve participant gave wrong answer 36.8%
• Showed participants two large white cards at of the time
a time. • 25% of participants didn’t conform on any
• One card = standard line trials.
• One card = comparison lines • 75% conformed at least once.
• Participant asked to say which one matched • Participants conformed even when the task
• 123 male undergraduates was unambiguous.
• Each naïve participant tested in a group of 6-8 • When interviewed afterwards it was found
confederates. they conformed due to NSI.
• One first trials the confederates gave the
right answers.
• Started to make errors
• All confederates instructed to give the same
incorrect answer.
• 18 trials altogether.
• Confederates gave wrong answer in 12.
Group size Unanimity Task Difficulty
• As the number of • Presence of another non- • Increased task difficulty
confederates increased, conforming person meant that conformity
so did the level of • Reduced conformity increased.
conformity. because the dissenter • Due to ISI.
• Up to a point in which it allowed the participant to
levelled off. think more independently.
EVALUATION
A child of its time Artificial situation and Task Limited Application of findings
• Perrin and Spencer (1980) • Participants knew they • Only men!
• Repeated experiment on were in a study • Women might be more
engineering students • Demand characteristics worried about social
• Only one student • Didn’t resemble groups relationships
conformed on 396 trials. that we are part of in • Neto (1995)
• In the 1950’s in USA it was everyday life.
more conformist. • So, we can’t generalise
• Limitation as it means that this to real life situations • Bond and Smith (1996)
the Asch Effect is not • US = individualist
consistent across all • Concerned about
situations. themselves rather than
the group.
• Collectivist = Conf. Higher.
• Asch didn’t take gender
and culture into account
