Conformity: Types & Explanations

• Compliance

  - Simply going along with others in public but not changing personal beliefs and opinions.

  - Compliance leads to a superficial change where the behaviour ends as soon as the group pressure is lifted.
• Identification

  - Occurs when we conform with a group as there is something that we value.

  - Leads to a public change in behaviour, although it isn't always a private change also.
• Internalisation

  - The deepest level of conformity which leads to a public and private change in beliefs/opinions when the person genuinely accepts group norms.

  - The change is usually permanent since attitudes are internalised - they become a part of the person's belief system.

  - The change in opinions persists even in the absence of other group members.
• Informational social influence (ISI)

  - Deutsch and Gerard (1955) developed a two-process theory. The first part is about the need to be right - ISI.

  - ISI occurs in ambiguous situations; we look to others who we believe to have more information than us and conform to the majority.

  - ISI is a cognitive process which leads to a permanent change in opinion/behaviour - internalisation.
• Normative social influence (NSI)


  - The second part of Deutsch and Gerard's two-process theory is NSI.

  - This is based on the idea of the need to be liked. NSI is about following the norms of a social group - norms regulate the behaviour of groups and individuals.

  - People conform and follow these norms as they want social approval rather than be rejected, making NSI an emotional process.

  - NSI leads to compliance. It is likely to occur in situations with strangers where we do not want to appear foolish, or with friends where we seek social approval.
• Evaluating explanations of conformity: Research support for NSI

  - NSI is supported by Asch's (1951) study. When he interviewed the participants after the experiment, some said that they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer as they were afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote their answers rather than give them verbally, conformity dropped to 12.5% since there was no normative group pressure.

  - This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire to not be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them.
• Evaluating explanations of conformity: Research support for ISI (with counterpoint)

  - Lucas et al. (2006) found participants looked to others for guidance on harder maths question as it was an ambiguous situation. They didn't want to be wrong so they relied on the answers they were given.

  - This shows that ISI is a valid explanation for conformity as the results of Lucas et al.'s study was what ISI would predict.

  
  

  - Counterpoint: It is often difficult to distinguish between ISI and NSI.

  - For example, Asch (1955) found that the presence of one dissenter largely reduced the effects of conformity. The dissenter may provide social support, therefore reducing the power of NSI, or they may give an alternative source of information and reduce ISI in this way; both of these interpretations are valid.

  - Therefore, it is hard to separate NSI and ISI and both processes most likely operate together in real-life situations.
• Evaluating explanations of conformity: Individual differences in NSI

  - nAffiliators are those who are concerned with their social image to a greater extent than others. McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform.

  - This shows that NSI underlies conformity in other people more so than others. There are individual differences in conformity which cannot all explained fully by one theory.
• Evaluating explanations of conformity: Is the NSI/ISI distinction useful?

  - Lucas et al.'s (2006) findings could be due to NSI, ISI or both; it is impossible to distinguish which one is occurring.

  - However, Asch's research clearly demonstrates that ISI and NSI are both valid explanations of conformity.

  - For example, in terms of unanimity, a unanimous group is a strong source of disapproval. The possibility of rejection could lead to conformity (NSI), but, it also conveys the expression that everyone is in the know (ISI).