Welcome to Social Influence: Conformity

Have you ever found yourself laughing at a joke you didn’t understand, just because everyone else was laughing? Or maybe you started wearing a specific brand of shoes because "everyone" has them? That is conformity. In this chapter, we explore why we change our behavior to fit in with the people around us, the different ways we do it, and the famous (and slightly uncomfortable) experiments by Solomon Asch.

Quick Note: This chapter focuses on majority influence. We will look at how the many influence the few. For minority influence (how one person can change a whole group), see the chapter on Moscovici (1969).


1. What is Conformity?

Conformity is a type of social influence where an individual changes their beliefs or behaviors to fit in with a group. This change is usually a response to real or imagined group pressure.

Three Types of Conformity

Psychologists suggest there are different "levels" of conformity. Think of these as a ladder, moving from a shallow change to a very deep, permanent change:

  • Compliance: This is the shallowest level. You go along with the group in public to avoid conflict, but privately, you don’t change your mind. Example: Voting for a movie you actually hate just because your friends want to see it.

  • Identification: This is a middle level. You conform to the group because there is something about them you value. You want to be part of that group, so you adopt their behavior. Example: Joining a sports team and starting to dress and speak like your teammates.

  • Internalisation: This is the deepest level. You genuinely accept the group’s norms. The change is permanent and stays with you even when the group isn't there. Example: Moving in with roommates who are vegans, and after hearing their reasons, you decide to become a vegan for life.

2. Why Do We Conform? (Explanations)

Psychologists Deutsch and Gerard suggested two main reasons why people feel the pressure to "fit in":

A. Normative Social Influence (NSI) — "The Desire to be Liked"

We conform to be accepted and to avoid being left out or mocked. This usually leads to compliance. We do it because we want to follow the "social norms" (the unwritten rules of a group).

Analogy: Wearing a suit to a wedding even if you prefer tracksuits, just because you don't want people to stare.

B. Informational Social Influence (ISI) — "The Desire to be Right"

When we are in an uncertain situation or the task is difficult, we look to others for information. We assume the majority knows something we don’t. This often leads to internalisation.

Analogy: You are at a fancy dinner and don't know which fork to use, so you watch the person next to you and copy them because you think they know the right way.


3. Classic Research: Asch \( (1951) \)

Solomon Asch wanted to see if people would conform to a group even when the group was clearly wrong. This is often called the "Line Study."

The Procedure

  • Participants: \( 123 \) male American undergraduates.
  • The Setup: Each participant was placed in a group with \( 6 \) to \( 8 \) "confederates" (people who were in on the experiment, though the participant thought they were real students).
  • The Task: They were shown two cards. One had a "standard line" and the other had three "comparison lines" (\( A \), \( B \), and \( C \)). They had to say out loud which comparison line matched the standard line.
  • The Twist: On \( 12 \) "critical trials" (out of \( 18 \)), the confederates all gave the same wrong answer. The real participant always sat near the end of the row, so they heard everyone else give the wrong answer before it was their turn.

The Findings

  • The real participants gave the wrong answer \( 36.8\% \) of the time.
  • \( 75\% \) of participants conformed at least once.
  • \( 25\% \) never conformed (remained independent).
  • When interviewed afterward, most participants said they conformed to avoid looking foolish (Normative Social Influence).

4. Asch's Variation Studies \( (1952, 1956) \)

Asch didn't stop there. He changed the "ingredients" of the experiment to see what made conformity go up or down:

1. Group Size: With only one confederate, conformity was very low. With two confederates, it rose to \( 13.6\% \). With three confederates, it jumped to \( 31.8\% \). After three, adding more people made very little difference. Key takeaway: You only need a small majority to create pressure!

2. Unanimity (Having an Ally): Asch introduced a confederate who gave the correct answer (breaking the group's "unanimous" front). Conformity dropped to only \( 5.5\% \). Key takeaway: It is much easier to resist pressure if you have just one person agreeing with you.

3. Task Difficulty: Asch made the lines much more similar in length, making the "right" answer harder to see. Conformity increased. Key takeaway: When we are unsure, we look to others for the answer (Informational Social Influence).


5. Factors Affecting Conformity

Why do some people conform more than others? We look at three areas:

Individual Differences (Personality)

People with low self-esteem or a high need for social approval are more likely to conform. Those who are more confident in their own judgment (high self-efficacy) tend to remain independent.

The Situation

As we saw in Asch’s variations, the size of the group and the difficulty of the task change how much pressure we feel. Also, if we have to say our answer in private, conformity drops significantly because the fear of being judged is gone.

Culture

Psychologists look at two types of cultures:

  • Individualist Cultures: (e.g., UK, USA) People value independence and personal goals. Conformity rates tend to be lower.
  • Collectivist Cultures: (e.g., China, Korea) People value the needs of the family and social group over themselves. Conformity rates tend to be higher because it is seen as a way of keeping the group happy.

6. Evaluating Asch’s Research

When studying for your exam, you need to be able to "critically analyse" these studies using specific keywords:

  • Reliability: Asch’s study is highly reliable. It used a standardized procedure (the same lines, the same instructions), meaning it can be easily repeated to see if the results are the same.

  • Internal Validity: The study had good control over variables (like where the participant sat). However, participants might have guessed what was happening (demand characteristics), which would lower the validity.

  • Ecological Validity: This is a weakness. Comparing line lengths is an artificial task. It doesn't reflect how we conform in real life (e.g., deciding whether to smoke or how to vote). Therefore, the credibility of applying this to real-world behavior is limited.

  • Generalisability: The study only used male students from the USA. This is a "gender-biased" and "culture-biased" sample. We cannot be sure if women or people from other cultures would act the same way.

  • Ethics: Participants were deceived because they thought the confederates were real students. They may also have felt subjective stress or embarrassment when they realized they had been tricked.

Quick Review: Key Takeaways

1. Types: Compliance (shallow), Identification (middle), Internalisation (deep).

2. Explanations: NSI (to be liked) and ISI (to be right).

3. Asch \( (1951) \): Found \( 75\% \) of people conformed to a wrong answer at least once due to group pressure.

4. Variations: Conformity increases with group size (up to \( 3 \)) and task difficulty, but decreases if you have an ally.

5. Evaluation: The study is reliable and controlled but lacks ecological validity and generalisability.

Don't worry if the names and dates seem like a lot to remember! Just keep linking them back to the simple idea: Asch showed that the "power of the group" is often stronger than our own eyes.