Types of Conformity

There are three main ways people conform, and they're not all the same. Compliance is the most superficial - you go along with the group publicly but privately keep your own opinions. Think of laughing at a joke you don't find funny just to fit in. It's temporary and only happens when the group's watching.

Identification happens when you want to belong to a particular group you value. You might change your behaviour to be like them, even if you don't privately agree with everything. Like becoming vegetarian around your veggie flatmates but secretly craving a burger when you're alone.

Internalisation is the deepest type of conformity. Here, you genuinely accept the group's beliefs as your own, changing both your public and private views permanently. Converting to Buddhism after being influenced by Buddhist friends and continuing to practise even without them around is a perfect example.

💡 Quick Tip: Most of your daily conformity is probably compliance - surface-level changes to avoid standing out. That's completely normal!

Why We Conform: Two Key Explanations

Normative Social Influence (NSI) is all about wanting to be liked. You conform to avoid looking foolish, gain approval, or dodge rejection. This usually leads to compliance - you change your behaviour publicly but keep your private opinions. Smoking because your friends do or dressing like your mates to avoid bullying are classic examples.

Informational Social Influence (ISI) happens when you genuinely want to be right. In new or unclear situations, you look to others for guidance because you assume they know better. This often results in internalisation - you actually change your beliefs.

ISI kicks in most when situations are ambiguous, during crises, or when others seem like experts. Think about watching others in a posh restaurant to see which cutlery to use, or putting your car lights on when everyone else starts doing it.

Both explanations have solid research backing them up, like Asch's line studies showing people conform to avoid disapproval, and Lucas's maths study proving we conform more when tasks get difficult.

💡 Remember: You're not weak for conforming - it's a natural human behaviour that often helps us navigate social situations successfully.

Problems with Conformity Theory

Not everyone conforms the same way. Individual differences play a huge role in both NSI and ISI. People who really care about being liked (called nAffiliators) are much more affected by NSI. Meanwhile, confident, knowledgeable people - like the engineering students in various studies - conform way less because they trust their own judgement.

The 'two process' theory is probably oversimplified. NSI and ISI don't work independently - they often work together. When Asch introduced a dissenting partner in his studies, conformity dropped because this person provided both social support (reducing NSI) and alternative information (reducing ISI).

Cultural and gender factors matter too. Collectivist cultures show higher conformity rates than individualist ones, and some research suggests women might conform more than men due to different social priorities.

The reality is that conformity varies massively depending on the situation, your personality, your cultural background, and whether you're with friends or strangers.

💡 Think About It: Understanding your own conformity patterns helps you make more deliberate choices about when to follow the crowd and when to stand your ground.

Asch's Famous Line Study

Solomon Asch's 1951 experiment is psychology's most famous conformity study. He got 123 American male students to judge which of three lines matched a standard line - a dead easy task. The catch? Seven other 'participants' were actually confederates who deliberately gave wrong answers on 12 out of 18 trials.

The results were shocking: participants went along with obviously wrong answers 37% of the time. Three-quarters conformed at least once, even though the correct answer was blindingly obvious. When interviewed afterwards, most said they conformed to avoid rejection - classic NSI in action.

Asch then tested three key factors. Group size mattered up to a point - conformity jumped from 3% with one confederate to 32% with three, but didn't increase much after that. Unanimity was crucial - introducing just one dissenter dropped conformity from 37% to 5.5%. Task difficulty also played a role - harder tasks led to more conformity as people looked to others for guidance.

These findings show that conformity isn't just about weak-willed people - even intelligent students will doubt themselves when faced with a unanimous majority.

💡 Key Insight: Having just one ally who disagrees with the majority massively reduces pressure to conform - solidarity matters!

Problems with Asch's Research

Asch's study has some serious limitations you need to know about. Historical validity is questionable - the 1950s was an era of McCarthyism when conformity was much more socially expected. When researchers repeated the study in 1980s Britain, only one student conformed out of 396 trials.

The method was pretty artificial. Judging line lengths in a lab isn't exactly a real-world situation, and participants probably knew something was up. The task was also trivial - people might be willing to conform over something meaningless but stand firm on important issues.

Sample bias is another major issue. Asch only used American males, but research shows women might conform more (possibly due to valuing social relationships), and collectivist cultures definitely show higher conformity rates than individualist ones.

The study also only applies to specific situations - answering out loud in front of strangers creates particular pressures that might not exist in other contexts. Interestingly, some studies found even higher conformity rates among friends rather than strangers.

Ethical concerns include deception and the psychological distress participants felt when they conformed against their better judgement.

💡 Critical Thinking: Always consider when and where research was conducted - social behaviour changes over time and across cultures.

Zimbardo's Prison Experiment

Philip Zimbardo's 1973 Stanford Prison Experiment explored how social roles affect behaviour. He created a mock prison and randomly assigned 24 emotionally stable male students to be either guards or prisoners. To make it realistic, 'prisoners' were actually arrested at home, blindfolded, stripped, and given uniforms with numbers instead of names.

The results were terrifying. Within days, guards became brutal and sadistic, whilst prisoners became passive, depressed, and anxious. The prisoners rebelled after two days, leading guards to become even more aggressive. Three prisoners had to be released early due to psychological disturbance.

The study was meant to last 14 days but had to be stopped after just six days. Zimbardo concluded that situational factors - not personality - largely determined the participants' behaviour. Normal, healthy students transformed into cruel guards or broken prisoners simply because of their assigned roles.

This demonstrates the incredible power of social roles and situational factors in shaping behaviour. None of these participants had shown such extreme behaviours before - the situation itself created the problem.

💡 Real-World Relevance: This explains how ordinary people can become involved in terrible things when placed in certain roles or situations - it's not just about 'bad people'.