What is conformity, and why do people conform?
Contrast and compare studies on conformity with studies on obedience
Conformity has been defined as a form of social influence in which a person yields to group pressure in the absence of any explicit order or request from another person to comply[1].
The first significant study of conformity was conducted by Sherif (1935), utilising what is known as the autokinetic effect[2]. He put subjects in a room which would soon be darkened. He told them that a light would appear in front of them for an instant, and then be extinguished then another light would appear and also be extinguished. He asked them to tell him how far the light has moved. The light had not moved at all, but because the subjects had been asked the specific question “how far…?” they assumed that it had, and gave a distance.
Sherif (1935) then replicated the same study with the whole group of subjects in the room, and asked each in turn the distance they thought the light had moved. He revealed that whatever answers the first person provided, the rest would all be very close, in spite of their individual assessment the first time round.
There are three main limitations with Sherif’s (1935) research. First, it lacked ecological validity; it is not clear how relevant his findings are for most everyday situations. Second, there was no “correct” answer in his situation. Understandably, it is commonplace that individuals rely on the judgements of others when they have no clear way of settling on what judgements to make. Third, conformity effects can be assessed more directly by orchestrating for all but one of the participants in an experiment to give the same judgement, and then considering what effects this has on the remaining participant. For example, Jacobs and Campbell (1961) did just this using the autokinetic effect, strong evidence of conformity was found.
Asch (1951, 1956) enhanced the work of Sherif (1935). He studied a group of six participants, projecting a straight line onto a screen, then a group of three lines of differing lengths: A, B and C, where B was exactly the same size as the original line, A and C were very obviously different lengths. He then asked which line was nearer to the first in length.
Only one of the group of six was a real participants, the other five being confederates of the experimenter. The real participant was second to last to be asked, and the four preceding gave false answers (e.g. “A”). The participant would generally go along with the answers the other “participants” had given, even if obviously incorrect.
Although this did not happen every time, 74% however went along with what the group said at least once, producing a level of 32% conformity. When debriefing the actual participants, they said they knew the answer they were giving was wrong, but still went along with the group.
Asch (1956) manipulated a number of aspects of the situation in order to understand in more detail the factors fundamental to conformity behaviour. For example, he established that the conformity effect increased as the number of confederates when up from one to three, but there was no increase between three and sixteen confederates. However, other researchers have often discovered that there is a small increase in conformity as the number of confederates goes up above three.
Also, it is important to hypothesise whether the genuine participant has a supporter in the form of a confederate who gave the correct answer on all trials, and who gave the correct answer on all trials, and who gave his or her answers before the genuine participant. Asch (1956) discovered that the presence of such a supporter produced a significant drop in conformity to only 5% of the trials.
Asch’s work, without question gives rise to a variety of ethical issues. For the effectiveness of his study, participants were mislead about key features of the experimental procedures, therefore did not provide fully informed consent. Also, the fact that they were put in a difficult and embarrassing position should be noted. Based on evidence obtained by Bogdonoff, Klein, Shaw, and Back (1961), it was found that the participants in an ‘Asch-type’ study had significantly increased levels of autonomic arousal. This conclusion also suggests that the participants were in a conflict situation, finding it difficult to decide whether to report what they observed or to conform to the opinions of others.
Social psychologists hold the general belief that there are two processes of social influence chiefly responsible for conformity: informational influence and normative influence. (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Kelley, 1952). Informational influence is characterised as an influence to accept information from another person as evidence about reality. It almost goes without saying that people have a need to feel confident that their perceptions, beliefs and feelings are correct. Informational influence comes into effect when people are uncertain, either because stimuli are essentially indefinite or because there is social disagreement. Under these kind of circumstances, people primarily make objective analysis against reality, however if this is not possible social comparisons are made (Festinger, 1950, 1954). Effective informational influence causes accurate cognitive modification.
It is most certainly probable that informational influence was partially accountable for the results found by Sherif (1935) in his autokinetic studies. I.e. Reality was uncertain, and the participants used other people’s guesstimates as information to eliminate uncertainty and settle subjective uncertainty.
Normative influence is an influence to conform to the positive expectations of others. Similar to informational influence, people have a need for social approval and acceptance, which causes them to ‘go along with’ the group for active reasons aiming to encourage approval and acceptance, avoid criticism, or accomplish specific goals. Normative influence comes into effect when the group is perceived to have the strength and capability to mediate rewards and punishment reliant on our behaviour. An important requirement is that ‘one is under observation’ by the group. Effective normative influence creates surface compliance as opposed to accurate cognitive modification. For example, the major cause of conformity in Asch’s studies.
Kelman (1958) proposed that there are three central reasons why one behaves in a conforming way: compliance; identification; and internalisation.
Compliance involves conforming to the majority despite not really being in agreement with them. As the conformity is only superficial, compliance ceases when there are no group pressures in which to conform to. Identification takes place when one conforms to the demands of a given role in society. The conformity usually develops over several aspects of behaviour. Internalisation takes place when one conforms for the simple reason that they really are in agreement with the views, beliefs and or opinions of those who are seeking to influence them. This type of conformity behaviour is internalised and therefore operates even when there is no external pressure to conform to.
Moscovici’s (1976, 1980) argument differed; claiming that Asch and other placed too much emphasis on the view that the majority in a group has a large influence on the minority. Furthermore, it is also achievable for a minority to influence the majority, creating a distinction between compliance[3] and conversion[4]. Compliance is instrumental when a majority influences a minority, and habitually requires public agreement with the majority but not private agreement. Conversion explains how a minority can influence a majority. Conversion requires convincing the majority that the minority’s views are correct, and frequently generates more private than public agreement with the minority.
There are many important ‘real-life’ examples of a minority influencing a majority, civil rights movements to mention but one.
This evidence suggests that Moscovici (1976, 1980) was accurate; minorities are able to influence majorities, and vice versa. Support for his view that different processes are implicated in these two types of influence, more specifically, majorities frequently influence minorities by generating public agreement or compliance, whereas minorities tend to influence majorities by generating private agreement. Experts disagree to which different processes are involved and their extent (van Avermaet, 1988).
Wood et al. (1994b) examined various studies relevant to Moscovici’s theory, arguing that that there are in fact three types of conformity effects: public influence, in which the individual’s behaviour in front of the group changes; direct private influence, in which there is a change in the individuals private opinions, views and or beliefs about the issue discussed by the group; and indirect private influence, in which the individual’s private opinions, views and or beliefs about related issues change. Their evaluation notes that majorities have a greater impact than minorities on both public and direct conformity, whereas minorities tend to have a greater impact than majorities on indirect private conformity, more so when their opinions, views and or beliefs are consistent over time.
Countless people tend to succumb to group pressures, notably in unambiguous circumstances in which the correct answer is somewhat obvious (Sherif, 1935). Conformity can take place because an individual considers others to be more ‘well-informed’ or simply because he or she wants to be liked by others. And lastly, a minority can influence the majority under the condition that puts forward a clear position and holds firmly to it.
References
Kelman, H.C. (1958). Compliance, identification and internalisation: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.
Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27, No. 187
Jacobs, K.C., & Campbell, D.T. (1961). The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 649 – 658
Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgements. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie.
Asch, S.E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychology Monographs, 70 (Whole no. 416)
Bogdonoff, M.D., Klein, E.J., Shaw, D.M., & Back, K.W. (1961). The modifying effect of conforming behaviour upon lipi responses accompanying CNS arousal. Clinical Research 9, 135
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H.B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629 – 36
Kelley, H.H. (1952). Two functions of reference groups. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley (eds), Readings in social psychology (2nd edn, pp. 410 – 14). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271 – 82
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison process. Human Relations, 7, 117 – 40
Kelman, H.C. (1958). Compliance, identification and internalisation: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press
Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behaviour. In L. Berkowitz (ed.)., Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 13. New York: Academic Press
van Avermaet, E. (1988). Social influence in small groups. In Hewstone, W. Stroebe, J.-P. Codol, & G.M. Stephenson (Eds.), Introduction to social psychology: A European perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J.A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994b). Minority influence: A metaanalytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323 – 345
[2] The autokinetic effect is a phenomenon of human visual perception in which a stationary, small point of light in an otherwise dark or featureless environment appears to move.
[3] Compliance: the influence of a majority on a minority, based on its power; this influence is on public behaviour more than private beliefs.
[4] Conversion: the influence of a minority on a majority, based on convincing the majority that its views are correct; this influence is on private beliefs more than public behaviour.
