Conformity

Refers to the process where individuals change their beliefs, values, and attitudes to match those of a larger group. This is known as majority influence because the pressure comes from the majority influencing the minority.

It promotes social harmony and cooperation, it can also suppress individual thinking and leads to harmful group behaviours.

Kelman (1958) identified two distinct types of conformity that vary in there depth and permanence.

Occurs when people publicly agree with a group's behaviour or opinion whilst privately maintaining their own different views. It is the most superficial form of conformity.
Involves only public acceptance, not private belief change
Temporary and weakest form of conformity
Only occurs when the group is present
Motivated by desire to fit in and seek approval

Also called true conformity and represents the deepest level of conformity. Individuals genuinely adopt and accept the group's beliefs and behaviours as their own.
Includes both public and private acceptance
Permanent change that continues without group's presence
Based on genuine belief that the group's views are correct

Deutsch & Gerard (1955) distinguished between two types of social influence, which helps us understand the underlying motivations for conformity.

Occurs when people conform because they want to be right and genuinely believe others have a better understanding of a situation of a situation. It is driven by our basic need to feel confident that our ideas and beliefs are correct.
It occurs in ambiguous situations with no clear right answer and we want to make the right decision.
The key aspect is that people tend to internalise and believe the opinions they adopt.

Occurs when people conform because they want to be liked, accepted and avoid rejection by others. It is driven by our fundamental need to belong and gain social approval.
It is driven by our desire to be accepted by others, avoid social rejection or ridicule and fit into social norms.
However, individuals may not genuinely agree with the group's opinion.

Real-life applications in understanding behaviours such as bullying. Garandeau and Cillissen (2006) found that children may conform to a bully in order to gain approval and avoid rejection.

This shows individuals may conform due to a desire for social acceptance rather than they believe the behaviour is correct.
Therefore, this supports NSI as a valid explanation of conformity and highlights its usefulness.

Supported by research evidence. Lucas et al. (2006) found Ppts were more likely to conform to incorrect answers in a maths test when questions were more difficult.

This suggests individuals are more likely to rely on others for information when they are uncertain and lack confidence in their own judgement.
Therefore, this supports ISI as a valid explanation of conformity.

Do not fully explain individual differences in conformity. Burger (2009) partially replicated Milgram’s obedience study and found some Ppts resisted social pressure and refused to continue, despite the authority figure encouraging them to do so.

This suggests that personal characteristics such as confidence and independence, influence whether individuals conform.
Therefore, ISI and NSI may provide an incomplete explanation because they focus on situational pressures and ignore individual differences.

Aim was to investigate whether people would conform to a majority group even when the group’s answer was clearly incorrect.
123 American male undergraduates arranged in groups of six with one naive participants and five confederates.
Ppts viewed sets of four lines - three comparison lines and one standard line. The task was deliberately straightforward with an obvious correct answer.The real ppt always answered last or second-to-last. Confederates gave identical incorrect answers on 12 out of 18 trials.

Participants conformed to the incorrect majority answer on 36.8% of critical trials.
75% of Ppts conformed at least once.
25% of Ppts never conformed

Conformity increases with group size, but only up to a certain point.
When confederates numbered fewer than three, conformity levels were relatively low. When they group size increased to three or more confederates, conformity rose by approximately 30%. Groups larger than four did not produce higher conformity rates.

Once a certain threshold is reached, additional group members provide diminishing returns in terms of social pressure

Breaking the group’s unanimity dramatically reduces conformity.

A dissenting participant who gave the correct answer, conformity dropped from 32% to 5.5%. Even when the dissenter gave a different incorrect answer, conformity from from 32% to 9%

Provides social support for the ppt and reduces normative pressure to conform.

Conformity increases when tasks become more difficult or ambiguous.
When Asch’s made the line-matching tasks more difficult by making the lines in similar in length, conformity rates increased substantially.

Supports ISI

Unanimity is supported by further research. Allen and Levine (1969) found that Ppts were less likely to conform when they hard social support from another who disagreed with the majority.

Suggests conformity is reduced when the majority is no longer unanimous, because individuals were more likely to be confidence in expressing their own views.
Therefore, supports Asch’s conclusion that unanimity is an important factor influencing conformity.

High internal validity - strict experimental control
Lab control - precise manipulation of variables eliminating confounding variables.
Supports NSI

Limited ecological validity
Population validity concerns
Temporal validity - Conducted in 1950s in the McCarthyist era.
Ethical considerations