Kelman, in 1958, identified 3 kinds of conformity: compliance, identification and internalisation.
compliance is 'going along with others' in public but not changing your views in private.
compliance is the shallowest form of conformity, and only temporary.
identification is a moderate form of conformity, and only temporary.
identification is conforming to a group because they have something we value and want to be a part of it, we change our views publicly even when in private we dont agree wholeheartedly.
internalisation is the deepest form of conformity, and is permanent change.
internalisation is the genuine acceptance of a groups norms and beliefs, changing both public and private views.
Deutsch & Gerard identified a two-process model for explaining why people conform:
Normative social influence (NSI)
Informational social influence (ISI)
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE (NSI):
for social approval.
an emotional process.
type of conformity associated: compliance - temporary change.
occurs when we are with people that may reject us.
occurs when we are in new situations, with ambiguity or crisis.
STRENGTH OF ISI:
Lucas et al (2006).
asked students to give answers to mathmatical problems, either easy or more difficult.
greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were more difficult questions.
most true for students who rated their maths ability as poor - didn't want to be wrong.
STRENGTH OF NSI:
Asch (1951).
when interviewing ppts after, some said they conformed because they were self-concious.
when they wrote down answers, conformity dropped to 12.5%.
LIMITATION: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN NSI AND ISI
research says NSI does not affect everyone's behaviour in the same way.
those less concerned with being liked are less affected than those who are concerned with being liked- called nAffiliators (greater need for affiliation and relations with others).
same can be said for the affect of ISI.
STRENGTH: ISI AND NSI WORK TOGETHER:
it isnt always possible to be sure whether NSI or ISI that has caused the conformity - seen in the study by Schultz (2006).
132 hotels - 794 hotel rooms - 1 week study.
guests randomly allocated to a condition:
control condition - door hanger about environmental benfits of reusing towels.
experimental condition - door hanger + told them 75% of guests chose to reuse each day.
findings : experimental reduced need for fresh towels by 25%.