SOCIAL INFLUENCE:Conformity

Kelman (1958): Suggested that there are three ways in which people conform.

Internalisation: A deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view as we accept it as correct. It leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour, even when the group is absent.

Identification: A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way with the group because we value it and want to be a part of it. But we don't necessarily agree with everything the majority believes.

Compliance: A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view but privately disagree with it. The change in our behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us.

Sherif (1936)

• • Autokinetic effect = in a dark room without any external frame of reference, a stationary point of light appears to move. 
  • Participants asked to estimate how far the light had moved.First, they were asked alone and then asked again as part of a group. 
• Findings:
  • Individuals established a personal norm guiding their judgements- had own estimate based on personal experience.
  • The group came to their own estimate, unique to the group and different from individual judgements. Over time the group agreed on how far the light had moved, despite the fact it didn't move at all.

Rohrer et al (1954)

• Used Sherif's method and found that the group answers formed in the study, still appeared in individuals up to a year later, even though the group no longer existed.

Deutsch and Gerard (1955): Developed two-process theory (two main reasons people conform) called the Duel Process Dependency Model, based on two central human needs.

• Informational social influence (ISI)
  • An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well. This may lead to internalisation (Sherif's Study).
  • A cognitive process that is driven by our human need to be right. 
  • E.g. Occurs in a new situation or when someone in the group is seen as an expert e.t.c
• Normative social influence (NSI)
  • An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance.
  • An emotional process that is driven by our human need to be liked.
  • E.g. Occurs when scared of rejection or in need of social support e.t.c

CRITICISM

• P- Suggests NSI and ISI are entirely separate when in fact they work together
• E- Insko et al (1983): Completed study similar to Asch: Higher conformity when judgements made publicly (regardless of correct answers being determined) and higher conformity when correct answers could be determined (regardless of public or private response)
• E- Suggest both NSI and ISI are consistent with the general tendency of people to (want to) think well of themselves.
• L- Can't always be sure which is at work or to what degree each is at work. E.g. In Asch's work: Dissenting partner = Reduce NSI power due to social support. Reduce ISI power due to another source of information. 

• P- Individuals differences can mean both NSI and ISI don't affect everybody in the same way
• E- McGhee & Teevan (1967): Students high in need of affiliation (nAffiliators) more likely to conform. || Asch study- Students has almost 10% lower conformity -> Perrin and Spencer (1980): Study involving science and engineering students= very little conformity.
• E- Suggests individual personalities and experiences can intervene with the role of NSI/ISI.
• L- Show's NSI and ISI are more complex within individuals and more difficult to predict.

Support

• P- Supports ISI
• E- Lucas et al (2006): Asked students maths questions (varying difficulty): higher conformity to incorrect answers on difficult questions (especially those who rated ability as poor)
• E- Shows conformity to situations where we do not know the answer
• L- Results as predicted in ISI

• P- Supports NSI
• E- Asch (1951): Found many participants went along with a clearly incorrect answer- when asked why said the felt self-conscious & afraid of disapproval. Repeated study writing answer= conformity fell to 12.5%
• E- Proves more worried about disapproval and appearing foolish
• L- Results as predicted in NSI

Asch (1951)

• About:
  • 123 male students
  • Shown 2 cards with lines on: asked to match line on card 1 with lines A, B or C on card 2 (there was an obvious answer).
  • 18 trials (12/18 used confederates)
  • The naive participant sat second to last around the table.
• Results:
  • Gave same incorrect answer of group in 37% of trials
  • Large variations: 5% conformed every time, 25% remained independent despite pressure
• Findings: 
  • Non-unanimous majority: 1 other person gave correct answer= conformity: 5%
  • Size of the majority: 2 people majority: 12.8% conformity. 3+ majority: 32% conformity
  • Losing a partner: Partner giving the same answer, halfway through conformed: 28.5%
  • Gaining a partner: Confederate switched to correct answer halfway through: 8.7%