The concept and types of conformity

Conformity refers to the tendency of individuals or small groups to adjust their behaviour or beliefs to align with those of a larger or more dominant group. This change often occurs due to social influence, where people adapt their actions to fit the expectations of a situation or the people around them.

Different forms of conformity

• Internalisation - This occurs when individuals genuinely accept and adopt the majority's views as their own. It often happens in unfamiliar situations where people look to others for guidance on how to behave, driven by informational social influence, which is the desire to be correct.
• Compliance - This involves going along with the majority's behaviour or opinions publicly, even if privately disagreeing. It is motivated by normative social influence, which stems from the fear of rejection or the desire to appear 'normal' and avoid exclusion.
• Identification - This type of conformity involves changing behaviour to meet the expectations of a specific social role or to emulate a role model. It reflects a desire to fit into a particular position in society, such as adopting the characteristics expected of a teacher or nurse.

Sherif's study on informational social influence (1935)

Sherif conducted a pioneering experiment to explore how individuals are influenced by others when faced with ambiguous tasks, where the correct response is unclear.

Method of Sherif's experiment

• Setup - A laboratory experiment using the autokinetic effect, an optical illusion where a stationary light in a dark room appears to move. Participants were misled to believe the light was being moved by the experimenter.
• Procedure - Initially, participants estimated the light's movement individually over multiple trials. They were then grouped into sets of three, making estimates aloud in the presence of others. Finally, they were tested individually again.
• Design - The study used a repeated measures design, ensuring consistency in participant variables across conditions.

Results of Sherif's experiment

• Individual phase - When alone, participants established personal estimates that varied significantly between individuals.
• Group phase - In groups, their estimates converged, becoming more similar to each other.
• Final individual phase - When retested alone, participants' estimates aligned more closely with the group consensus than their original personal guesses.

Conclusions from Sherif's experiment

• Group norm development - A shared group norm emerged as participants relied on others' estimates for guidance in the ambiguous situation.
• Informational influence - This demonstrated informational social influence, as individuals used others' input to form their judgments in the absence of clear information.

Evaluation of Sherif's experiment

• Strengths - The controlled laboratory setting allowed precise management of variables, reducing the likelihood of external factors affecting results and supporting cause-and-effect conclusions. The repeated measures design minimised participant variability.
• Limitations - The task was highly artificial, as judging a non-moving light's movement is not a common real-world scenario, leading to criticism for lacking ecological validity. The sample was also limited to males, restricting the generalisation of findings.
• Ethical issues - Deception was used, as participants were misled about the light's movement, raising concerns about informed consent.

Asch's study on normative social influence (1951)

Asch investigated whether individuals would conform to a majority's incorrect opinion even when the task was unambiguous, with an obvious correct answer.

Method of Asch's experiment

• Setup - A laboratory experiment involving groups of eight participants, where only one was a real participant; the others were confederates working with the experimenter.
• Task - Participants judged the length of lines, identifying which of three comparison lines matched a standard line. The real participant answered last or second-to-last, after hearing the confederates' responses.
• Procedure - Over 18 trials, 12 were critical trials where confederates deliberately gave the same incorrect answer. A control group performed the task individually for comparison.
• Design - The study used an independent groups design for the main experiment, with a separate control condition.

Results of Asch's experiment

• Control condition - Participants in isolation made errors only 0.7% of the time, showing the task was straightforward.
• Critical trials - In the group setting, real participants conformed to the majority's wrong answer 37% of the time. About 75% conformed at least once.
• Post-experiment feedback - Many participants admitted they didn't believe their conforming answers but felt pressured to avoid standing out.

Conclusions from Asch's experiment

• Normative influence - The high conformity rate on critical trials, despite the obvious correct answer, demonstrated normative social influence, where individuals yielded to group pressure to avoid appearing different.
• Task simplicity - The control condition confirmed the task's ease, highlighting that conformity was due to social pressure rather than uncertainty.

Evaluation of Asch's experiment

• Strengths - The laboratory environment ensured tight control over variables, minimising external influences and allowing replication to verify results.
• Limitations - The artificial setting lacked ecological validity, as the task had no real-life consequences, potentially reducing conformity compared to meaningful situations.
• Ethical concerns - Participants were deceived about the nature of the group and might have felt embarrassed upon learning the truth, raising ethical questions.

Situational factors affecting conformity

Conformity is not solely dependent on the type of influence but is also shaped by external circumstances. Asch explored several situational factors that impact the likelihood of conforming to group pressure.

Influences of the social environment on conformity

• Group size - Asch varied the number of confederates in his experiments. With just two confederates, conformity was low at 14% on critical trials. With three, it jumped to 32%, but larger groups showed little additional increase. This suggests small majorities are easier to resist, but influence plateaus beyond a certain size.
• Unanimity and social support - When Asch introduced a confederate who agreed with the real participant, breaking the group's unanimous opinion, conformity dropped to 5.5%. Having an ally reduces pressure and makes resistance easier.
• Task difficulty - By making the line lengths more similar, Asch increased task difficulty, leading to higher conformity rates. Uncertainty or lack of confidence makes individuals more likely to follow the majority.

Individual factors influencing conformity

Beyond situational aspects, personal characteristics and societal roles also play a significant role in determining whether someone conforms or resists group pressure.

Personal and social factors impacting conformity

• Confidence and expertise - Asch noted participants who resisted conformity were often confident in their judgments.
  • Research by Wiesenthal et al. (1976) supported this, finding lower conformity among those who felt competent.
  • Similarly, Perrin and Spencer (1980) replicated Asch's study with engineering students, who showed reduced conformity, likely due to their confidence in precise observations.
• Gender differences - Early views suggested females conform more than males.
  • However, Eagly and Carli's meta-analysis (1981) found inconsistent differences. Their clearest finding was in studies like Asch's, where group pressure was public.
  • Eagly (1987) proposed that social roles explain variations, with women often prioritising group harmony and men valuing independence and assertiveness, influencing their conformity behaviours.