conformity

• Conformity


  When someone changes their usual behaviour to fit in with the behaviour of the group
• Examples of conformity


  • Someone feels that they will be rejected by the group if they do not align their behaviour with the group's behaviour
  • Someone may express opinions that align with those of the group even if they do not (secretly) agree with those opinions
  • Someone may feel a sense of group pressure which leads to them going along with the group (even if such pressure is only in their imagination)
• All of the above examples of conformity are examples of majority influence i.e. the few are influenced by the many
• Types of conformity


  • Compliance
  • Identification
  • Internalisation
• Compliance


  Agreeing with/behaving like the group on the outside/publicly but disagreeing with/having different opinions to the group on the inside/privately
• Compliance


  • Eating only vegetarian food and claiming to be vegetarian with a particular group of friends, but still eating meat when not with that group
  • Laughing at a joke which someone does not find funny (and may in fact find offensive) because everyone else is laughing
• Identification


  Temporarily adopting the behaviour of a role model or group if they value the group and wish to be included in it
• Identification


  • Dressing in the same style as a group of people at college as they admire them and would like to be part of that group
  • A teacher believes that detentions are a waste of time but they still issue detentions on a daily basis as this is school policy
• Internalisation


  Accepting and agreeing with the group publicly and privately i.e. they have internalised the group's norms
• Internalisation


  • Becoming wholly involved in the attitudes, ideals and behaviours of an extreme political group, renouncing all of their former beliefs and possibly cutting ties with people from their past
  • Moving to a new school and changing the way they dress, their hobbies, their attitudes etc. to align with classmates from the new school
• When discussing conformity, it is important to be clear about which type of conformity you are referring to and how it is evident in behaviour
• Conformity can be explained via two different motivations: The need to know what to do (fear of social disapproval/humiliation) - this is informational social influence (ISI), and The need to be liked/accepted by others (the fear of rejection) - this normative social influence (NSI)
• Informational social influence (ISI)


  Takes place when the individual is unsure and lacks knowledge about a situation (which is usually new) and so looks to the group for guidance
• Informational social influence (ISI)


  • On the first day of a new job an individual follows the group at lunchtime as their assumption is that the group knows where the canteen is
  • Someone collapses in the street but no-one stops to help so the individual assumes that it's not serious (after all, if it was a serious emergency then someone would stop to help, wouldn't they?)
• Normative social influence (NSI)

  Takes place when the individual wishes to be accepted by a group (possibly a new/unfamiliar group though not always)
• Normative social influence (NSI)

  • Agreeing with the group that the new Star Wars film is rubbish while secretly having enjoyed it
  • 'Ghosting' a schoolfriend because this is what everyone else in the group is doing but feeling bad about it and believing that this is cruel and wrong
• Lucas et al (2006) found participants showed higher rates of conformity when confronted with difficult maths questions compared to when the questions were easier, thus demonstrating informational social influence
• Asch (1951) found participants who gave the wrong answer to an unambiguous line-length task were likely succumbing to normative social influence as giving a different answer would have risked rejection by the group
• Strengths of the explanations for conformity

  • There is good research support for both ISI and NSI
  • NSI has good application to global/historical events e.g. the behaviour of normal German people involved in the Holocaust
• Weaknesses of the explanations for conformity

  • It is often difficult sometimes to differentiate between NSI and ISI
  • Both explanations cannot explain why some people refuse to or resist conformity
• Asch wanted to investigate whether people would conform to the majority in situations where an answer was obvious
• Asch's procedure


  1. Participants were tested in groups of 6 to 8

  2. Each group was presented with a standard line and three comparison lines

  3. Participants had to say aloud which comparison line matched the standard line in length

  4. In each group there was only one genuine (naive) participant the remaining were confederates

  5. The genuine participant was seated second to last and did not know the other participants were fake participants

  6. The fake confederate participants all gave the same incorrect answer

  7. Confederates were told to give the incorrect answer on 12 out of 18 trails
• On average, the genuine participants agreed with the confederates' incorrect answers 36.8% of the time
• Findings from Asch's study

  • Genuine participants conformed a third of the time
  • 75% of the sample conformed to the majority on at least one trial
  • 25% of participants never gave a wrong answer, which shows there were individual differences
• Limitations of Asch's study

  • Artificial situation and task
  • Limited application
  • Ethical issues
• Artificial situation and task

  The task was trivial and did not impact the participants in their 'real life', which means there was no reason not to conform
• Limited application


  Participants were all men from the USA, so findings may not generalise to women or those from other cultures
• Ethical issues


  The genuine (naive) participants were deceived as they thought the confederates were also participants
• Lucas et al (2006) found that conformity is more complex than suggested by Asch, as they found individual-level factors can influence conformity and those who were confident in their maths skills were less likely to conform
• Zimbardo wanted to investigate how readily people would conform to the assigned social roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life
• Zimbardo's procedure


  1. Zimbardo et al (1973) converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison

  2. They advertised for students to play the roles of prisoners and guards for a two-week study; 21 male student volunteers who were tested and found to be 'emotionally stable' were selected as participants

  3. Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard

  4. Prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform to their social roles both through instructions and the uniforms they wore
• Prisoner uniforms


  Prisoners were given a loose smock to wear and a cap to cover their hair and were identified by an assigned number only
• Guard uniforms


  Guards were given their own khaki uniform, wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades to make eye contact with prisoners' difficult
• Both these uniforms created a loss of the individual's personal identity (de-individuation), meaning they would be more likely to conform to their perceived social role
• Both guards and prisoners settled into their new roles very quickly
• The guards adopted their social role quickly, easily and with enthusiasm
• Within hours of beginning the experiment some guards began to harass prisoners and treat them harshly
• Within two days the prisoners rebelled; they ripped their uniforms and shouted and swore at guards
• The guards used fire extinguishers to retaliate, using 'divide-and-rule' tactics, playing the prisoners off against each other and completing headcounts, sometimes at night
• The prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behaviour too e.g. they became subdued; they 'snitched' to the guards about other prisoners; they took prison rules seriously; they increasingly became docile and obedient