2. Conformity Types

• Define internalisation

  When a person genuinely accepts a groups norms and results in private and public changes of behaviour. It is usually a permanent change as attitudes have been internalised. Changes persist even in the absence of group members
• Define identification

  Conforming to opinions/behaviours of a group as there is something we value. We identify with them and want to be a part of it. This means we may publicly change our opinions/behaviour to be accepted by the group even if we don't agree what they stand for privately.
• Define compliance

  'Going along' with others in public, but privately not changing personal opinions. Results in only a superficial change. It also means a particular behaviour stops when group pressure stops.
• Who developed explanations for conformity?

  Deutsch and Gerard developed a two process theory

  • The need to be right
  • The need to be liked
• Define informational social influence

  It is a cognitive process and leads to permanent change in opinion/behaviour. (Internalisation) It is the need to be right.

  Occurs in:

  • New situations
  • Ambiguity
  • Crisis situations
• Define normative social influence

  An emotional process that leads to temporary change in opinion/behaviour (compliance). People do not like to appear foolish as this is the need to be liked by following social norms.

  Occurs in:

  • Situations w/ strangers
  • Social approval amongst friends
  • Stressful situations
• Outline one strength of ISI

  One strength of the ISI explanation is that there is research evidence that supports it as an explanation of conformity.

  Lucas et al. found that pps conformed more often to incorrect answers when the maths problems were difficult. Therefore, when the problems were easy the pps ‘knew their own minds’ but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous, consequently the pps did not want to be wrong and so they relied on the answers they were given. This suggests that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would predict.
• Counterpoint

  However, it is often unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work in research studies (or real life). For example, Asch found that conformity is reduced in the presence of dissenter - the dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (provide social support) or ISI (provide alternative source of information). Both interpretations are possible and so consequently, it is hard to separate ISI and NSI, as both processes probably operate together in most real-world conformity situations, rendering the distinction between the two explanations as useless.
• Outline one strength of NSI

  One strength of the NSI explanation is that there is research evidence that supports it as an explanation of conformity.

  Asch (51) interviewed his pps and some said they conformed because the felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and were afraid of disapproval. This supports NSI as an emotional process as this explanation predicts that people conform to gain social approval.
• Furthermore, when pps wrote their answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%, as giving answers privately significantly reduced the likelihood of normative group pressure. 

  Therefore, this indicates that at least some conformity is due to NSI, that is, a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them and instead seeking their approval by conforming and providing the wrong answer.
• Outline one limitation of NSI

  However, both explanations may not predict conformity in every case as the role of individual differences may have been overlooked.

  Some people are very concerned with being liked by others and are called nAffiliators as they have a strong need for ‘affiliation’ (i.e. they want to relate to other people). McGhee & Teevan (67) found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. This shows that normative social influence underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others.
• Outline one limitation of ISI

  With regards to informational social influence, Asch (55) found that students were less conformist than other pps. Additionally, in a replication of Asch’s research with engineering students, Perrin & Spencer (80) found much lower rates of conformity compared to Asch. Both these studies indicate that people who are knowledgeable and/or more confident are less influenced by the apparently ‘right’ view of a majority. Therefore, supporting the idea that there are individual differences in how individual respond to informational social influence.