Social Influence

What is conformity?

Change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.

What are the 2 types of conformity

Internalisation and Compliance

What is internalisation?

Occurs when a person genuinely accepts group norms
- public AND private change
- permanent change even in absence of group members

What is compliance?

Occurs when a person goes along with others in order to fit in
- just a public change, personal behaviour/opinions don't change
- temporary change so stops when group pressure stops

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) - Two Process Theory

Two main reasons why people conform:
Need to be right (ISI)
Need to be liked (NSI)

Informational Social Influence (ISI)

Agree with opinion of majority as we believe they are correct --> internalisation

• Cognitive process

• Most likely when in: new/ambiguous situation, when decisions need to be made fast, or when there's a perceived expert in the group

Normative Social Influence (NSI)

Agree with the opinion of majority as we want to be accepted, gain social approval, be liked, and not appear foolish--> compliance

• Emotional process

• Most likely when: with strangers and don't want to be rejected, or high levels of stress so social support needed, or social approval from friends wanted

[AO1] Conformity: Types of conformity

• Conformity = change in person's behaviour due to pressure from person/group

• Internalisation = genuinely accepts norms - Private, permanent

• Compliance = changes to fit in - Public only, temporary, stops when group pressure stops

• Deutsch and Gerard (1955) - Two Process Theory

• ISI - agree w/ majority as we think they're correct. - internalisation - cognitive - most likely in new/ambiguous situation, quick decisions, or with perceived expert

• NSI - agree w/ majority as want to be accepted and not look foolish. - compliance - emotional - most likely w/ strangers, or when stressed for social support

Strength of NSI as explanation of conformity

Supported by Research Evidence

Linkenbach and Perkins (2003)

• Adolescents exposed to info that most people their age don’t smoke = less likely to smoke

• Supports majority impacting behaviour of individuals as they’re likely to copy behaviours to fit in

In addition Schultz et al (2008)

• Hotel guests told that 75% guests reuse their towels reduced their own usage by 25%

• :. suggests people shape behaviour to fit with reference group

Strength of ISI as explanation for conformity

Supported by Research Evidence

Lucas et al (2006)

• Pps conformed more to copying incorrect answers from fake students when maths problems were harder

• Supports individuals relying on knowledge of majority when situation = ambiguous

HOWEVER Asch (1955)

• When dissenting pps were added to trials, we can’t be sure the lower conformity rates weren’t due to ISI (new info source) or NSI (social support)

Limitation of NSI as explanation for conformity

Doesn’t account for individual differences

• Some people are nAffiliators (greatly concerned about being liked by others)

• Problem as: :. NSI causes conformity in some people more than others, so can’t be accepted as general theory

In addition McGhee and Teevan (1967)

• Found nAffiliators are more likely to conform

• :. effects of NSI vary between individuals :. explanation can’t be generalised as standard cognitive process

Asch (1951) - Procedure

• 123 American males (told it was study about visual perception)

• Naive pp second to last around a table with 6-8 confederates

• Each trial = pp shown 3 lines and judged which was same length as the standard line

• Confederates gave same incorrect answer in 12/18 trials (the critical trials)

• Conformity was measured based on whether pp gave correct answer or conformed (in the critical trials)

Asch (1951) - Findings

• Pps gave incorrect answer in 36.8% of critical trials

• 25% pps didn’t conform on any (critical trial). Which means 75% conformed on at least one.

• In a control condition (no confederates), less than 1% answers were incorrect

Asch Variations (1955) - Group Size

• Number of confederates became 1-15 (instead of 6-8)

• Findings

  • Curvilinear relationship

  • 1 confederate = 2.5% conformity rate

  • 2 = 14%

  • 3 = 31.8%

  • 4+ = Little difference, levelled off

• Conclusion: While a small majority has little influence on conformity, no need for more than 3 for influence to be exerted. People = sensitive to views of just ½ others

Asch Variations (1955) - Unanimity

• Add dissenting confederate.

• 1 variation = they gave the correct answer, and in 1 they gave a different incorrect answer to majority

• Findings:

  • Conformity reduced to 25% regardless of answer right or wrong

• Conclusion: Non-conformity more likely when cracks perceived in group unanimity

Asch Variations (1955) - Task Difficulty