Conformity: Types and explanations

• What are the 3 types of conformity?

  Internalisation = a deep type of conformity, when you take up the majority views because you believe they are correct. Leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour.
• What are the 3 types of conformity?

  2) Identification = a moderate type of conformity, where you act in the same way as the group because you value it and want to be part of it. But you don't necessarily agree with everything the group says.
• What are the 3 types of conformity?


  3) Compliance = a temporary type of compliance, where you outwardly agree with the group majority view but privately disagree with it That change only lasts as long as the group is monitoring you.
• What is Informational social influence (ISI)?

  when you agree with the opinion/behaviour of the majority because you feel they are more likely to be right than you are. This can lead to a permanent change in behaviour which can lead to internalisation This is a cognitive process.
• What is Normative social influence (NSI)?

  when you agree with he opinion/behaviour of the majority in fear of being rejected and wanting to gain social approval. This means complying to social norms which leads to a temporary change . This is an emotional process and can lead to compliance.
• A03: Research support for NSI

  One strength of NSI as an explanation for conformity is that there is research support.

  When Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote their answers, conformity fell to 12.5% (no normative group pressure.) This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them, which increases the credibility of NSI as an explanation of conformity. 
• A03: Research support for ISI

  One strength of ISI is that there is research support from Lucas et al. Lucas et al found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult. This is because when the problems were ‘easy’ the participants ‘knew their own minds’ but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous (unclear). The participants didn’t want to be wrong, so they relied on the answers they were given. This shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would predict.
• A03: Counterpoint

  However, it is often unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work. For example, Asch found that conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant. The dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because they provide social support) or they may reduce the power of ISI (because they provide an alternative source of social support). Both interpretations are possible. Therefore, it is hard to separate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate together in most real world conformity situations.
• A03: Individual differences in NSI

  One limitation of NSI as an explanation of conformity is that it doesn't predict conformity in every case. nAffiliators are people who are greatly concerned with being liked by others. McGhee and Teevan found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. This shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others. There are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures. Therefore the credibility of NSI as an explanation of conformity decreases.