Social Influence - Conformity : Types and Explanations Flashcards
AO1
- Internalisation – a deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view because 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 as the group because we value it and want to be part of it. But we don’t necessarily agree with everything the group/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.
- 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
- Normative Social Influence (NSI) – An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance
AO3
- A strength of Informative Social Influence is that there is research evidence to support it
- For example, Lucas et al found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the math problems were difficult
- This is a strength because it shows that when the problems were hard, the situation became unclear leading to the participants relying on the answers they were given because they didn’t want to be wrong
- However, some may argue that the research cannot apply to everyone as it is we do not know what is a difficult maths question quantifies as, as we are not aware how high the IQ of the participants were or whether the difficult math problems are easy for people in the real world compared to the participants, thus reducing the generalisability of the research
- Despite this, Informative Social Influence is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what Informative Social Influence would predict, increasing its reliability as research support
- Thus increasing the validity of Informative Social Influence as research support for Conformity
- A weakness of explanations of conformity is that it is reductionist
- For example, the explanations of conformity focus on the cognitive aspect of conformity in the way you think as both explanations lead to a change in opinion or behaviour, but it does not take into account other factors like biological factors
- This is a weakness because it doesn’t cover every aspect of conformity and only looks at specific aspects whilst ignoring others, therefore reducing the reliability
- However, it can be argued that the explanations of conformity do not ignore the complexity of conformity and reductionism can help to increase the amount of detail about the cognitive aspect for conformity
- Despite this, the explanations of conformity could be more useful if they included other aspects behind conformity other than cognition
- Thus reducing the validity of the explanations of conformity
- A weakness of conformity is whether it is NSI at work in real life
- For example, Asch found that conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant
- This is a weakness because it shows that the dissenter may reduce the power of NSI because they provide social support.
- However, it can be argued that NSI can be applied to real-life as researchers found they were able to change the behaviour of hotel guests by using printed messages encouraging them to save energy. The messages that suggested other guests were using fewer bath towels was the most successful showing how other people conform in situation with strangers by doing what is considered most normal to everyone.
- Despite this, NSI it has limited use as it cannot fully explain conformity in real life
- Thus reducing the external validity of NSI as an explanation of conformity
who suggested three different types of conformity
Kelman
what are the three different types of conformity
compliance
identification
internalisation
compliance
This is the most superficial type of conformity. It occurs when an individual wants to achieve
a favourable reaction from the other group members. A person will adopt this behaviour to gain specific
rewards or avoid punishment and disapproval. With this type of conformity, it is likely that the person does
not necessarily agree with the group, and will stop conforming when there are no group pressures to do so.
Thus he or she conforms at a public level but not a private level. This type of conformity usually results
from normative social influence
identification
This is where the individual adapts their behaviour and or opinions because they value
membership of a particular group. It is a deeper level of conformity than compliance, because the individual
maintains the group behaviour/option, even when they are not with the group. However, it is still likely to
lead to a temporary change as when the individual leaves the group they are likely to revert back to their old
behaviour/attitudes. Identification was demonstrated in Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment
internalisation
This is the deepest level of conformity and is sometimes referred to as ‘true conformity’. It
refers to when an individual accepts the influence of the group because the ideas and actions are rewarding
and consistent with his or her own value system. A person will show conformity to a group because he or
she genuinely agrees with their views (they have been ‘internalised’). This means it leads to a change in
behaviour/attitudes both in public and in private which is permanent. This type of conformity usually
results from informational social influence
which type of conformity usually results from NSI
compliance
which type of conformity usually results from ISI
internalisation
evaluation of types of conformity
Evaluation point 1
P Asch’s study of conformity gives support for the existence of compliance.
E When Asch interviewed his participants post-procedure to try to determine why they had conformed to
an obviously wrong answer, although a few reported that their judgement had been distorted by the
majority, most said that they had conformed to avoid rejection and that they were aware that they were
giving the wrong answer,
E supporting the view that they had changed their answer temporarily to avoid the disapproval of the group,
rather than their behaviour being subject to a more permanent change.
L This supports the view that normative social influence tends to lead to compliance, a short-term change.
Evaluation point 2
The research into types of conformity has some practical applications. For example, it alerts us to the fact
that if the majority are attempting to effect a permanent change in behaviour, it is important that they truly
persuade the minority away from their existing view or behaviour. Failure to do so may result in little more
than a superficial, temporary change in behaviour. For example, those attempting to change the behaviour of
heavy drinkers or smokers, may achieve agreement in a group setting through compliance, but a permanent
change in behaviour will only be achieved if the message is strong and persuasive enough to result in
internalisation of the anti-drinking/smoking values
Asch study aim
To see if participants would feel pressured into conforming to an obviously wrong answer
Asch study procedure
Participants were asked to match one standard line with three possibilities
- In a control study of 36 participants
taking part in 20 trials each, only
three mistakes were made over a
total of 720 trials. - Participants in the experimental
condition (n=50, male college
students) were tested in groups of
7, 8 or 9. All the other members of the group were confederates of the experimenter. - The confederates were instructed beforehand to give the same wrong answers on certain critical
trials. - The naïve participant was always the last or second to last to answer.
- The confederates gave the same wrong answer on 12 of the 18 trials. These were referred to as
‘critical trials’.
asch study findings
- 26% of participants did not conform on any critical trials.
- 5% of participants conformed on every critical trial
- 74% of participants conformed at least once
- 32% was the basic conformity rate (total number of trials)
After the experiment, the participants were asked why they had conformed:
Some wanted to please the experimenter, and they thought that conforming was what the experimenter
wanted; a few genuinely doubted their own eyesight; others reported that they did not want to appear
different or be made to look a fool.
Asch study conclusions
This research is a demonstration of normative social influence. The finding that many did not want to
appear different means that they did not internalise the answer, and would have returned to their original
belief, so this is an example of compliance.
evaluation of aschs study
The research has useful applications which can potentially benefit society. For example, members of a
jury may feel pressured to conform through normative influence, which could lead to a miscarriage of justice
if a minority feel pressured to agree with a majority verdict. This knowledge can be used by the courts to
make jurors aware of the importance of being able to cast their vote
privately, and not say it publicly, which should reduce the pressure
each jury member feels to conform. This should result in a fairer
verdict, one which truly reflects the opinions of the jury members.
However, we also have to bear in mind that research such as Asch’s
can also be used in a less positive way. For example, advertisers
may seek to increase revenue for their clients by using the principles
of normative social influence to make customers want to buy their
products, for example, if a group of people are shown wearing a
certain brand of clothing. Some would consider this to be ethically unsound as it means that social influence
research is being used to manipulate the general public for financial gain.
Evaluation point 2
There is evidence that suggests a cultural bias in Asch’s research. For example, Smith & Bond (1996)
analysed over 100 studies using an Asch type procedure and
found that collectivist cultures conform more than
individualist cultures. Perrin & Spencer (1980) replicated
Asch’s study on engineering students and did not find
support for the conformity effect. These results may be
explained by cultural differences. Asch’s research was
carried out in an individualist culture, so we would expect
less conformity due to the value placed on independence
and autonomy in such a culture. However, in a collectivist
culture, we would expect more conformity due to the
importance placed on inter-dependence and being part of a
group. This means that Asch’s results may not generalise to non-western cultures, or collectivist sub-cultures within western society. In addition, the Perrin & Spencer finding may reflect a lack of temporal
validity, as it was carried out nearly thirty after Asch’s original study. Therefore, we might conclude that
conformity within our own society has diminished over that time.
Evaluation point 3
Asch’s study lacks mundane realism due to the artificiality of the task and its trivial nature. It is unlikely
that participants would have felt strongly about the task, because judging the length of a line is not an
emotive issue. However, in a real-life situation, conforming
may involve compromise of the person’s values, for example,
being with a group of people who laugh at a racist joke. This
may mean that someone is less likely to conform due to
normative pressures in an everyday situation, and therefore,
Asch may have over-estimated conformity as his results are
not necessarily generalisable. In addition, the artificiality of
the situation means that conformity is studied outside of its
true social context, which makes conforming behaviour look
odd or negative, when in fact, we might consider it to be
essential for social cohesion
