Types and explanations of conformity

Compliance

Going along with it

Identification

Wanting to belong

Internalisation

Actually agreeing (permanent decision)

Compliance (example)

Picking on someone in a group but not privately feeling that way

Identification (example)

Smoking to be cool

Internalisation (example)

New religion

Why do people conform?

Deutsch/Gerard 1955

The need to be right (ISI)

The need to be liked (NSI)

Informational

Internalisation (more permanent)

Normative Social

Compliance or Identification

Informational (example)

Seeking guidance from a group (person in an unclear situation)

Normative Social (example)

1. Yielding to group pressure

2. Scared of being rejected by a group

Evaluation (acronym)

G - generalisation

R - reliability

A - applications

V - validity

E - ethics

Compliance Vs. Internalisation

Internalised —————> Compliant

Research Support - Normative Influence

Saying “less people smoke”, manifests that

Normative

Going along with it, because the group is watching

Informational

Looking to be right changes public and private viewpoints

AO3

1. Difficult to distinguish between compliance/internalisation

2. NSI support (smoking less, hotel towels)

3. ISI support (negative info about African Americans)

AO3: Difficult to distinguish between compliance/internalisation

1. Difficult = hard knowing when each is taking place

2. eg. assumed person agreeing in public then changing view in private = compliance rather than internalistion

3. But possible acceptance of group views later dissipates in private

4. Forgotten or received new info = shows difficulty

AO3: NSI research support

1. Linkenbach/Perkin (2003) found adolescents exposed to simple message that majority of peers not smoke; less likely to smoke

2. Schultz (2008) found hotel guests exposed to normative message that 75% guests reused towels each day, reduced own towel use by 25%

3. Support claim people shape behaviour to fit in with reference group, power of NSI

AO3: ISI research support

1. Wittenbrink/Henley (96’) found p’s exposed to negative info about African Americans (lead to believe view of majority), later reported more negative attitudes towards Black individuals

2. Info produced large shifts in judgments, power of ISI