Normative Social Influence – As mentioned above all social groups have norms which define appropriate behaviour for their members. Conforming to the groups’ norms brings acceptance and approval, whilst nonconformity can invite disapproval and even rejection. Humans are social beings, with the need to belong or feel part of a group. Because of this, social groups can place considerable pressure on individuals to conform to group norms. Sherif (1935) showed how group members came to conform to social norms. Using the autokinetic effect he presented three male subjects with a stationary pinpoint of light in a dark room. In this total black environment, there were no reference points, and the lights appeared to move. When one of the males was confident about the direction in which the light appeared to move, Sherif found that the group tended to agree with the subject who made the most confident judgement. However if a ‘subordinate’ member was initially against that judgement and held his perception, the confident male would give some ground and compromise slightly. His subordinate would compromise rather more until a norm was established. When the subjects were later separated, and made individual judgements, they tended to adhere to the established group norm.
Another experiment, which is more focused on testing normative social influence, is the classic study by Solomon Asch (1956). In Asch’s experiments a group of 7-9 students were asked to take part in a visual discrimination experiment. In fact only one of the subjects was a genuine subject, whilst the remainder were confederates of the experimenter. The group was shown a display of vertical lines of different lengths and were asked to say which of the lines on card B was the same length as another standard line on card A (See Appendix). In turn the members of the group announced their decision. The confederates had been instructed to give an incorrect response. The subject sat in the second to last seat so that all but one had given their obviously incorrect answer before the subject gave theirs. Even though the correct answer was always obvious, the average subject conformed to the group response on 32% of the trials and 74% of the subjects conformed at least once.
Informational Social Influence is based on the need to be right. When people are unsure of their own judgement, they often accept the judgement of others. When they are uncertain about what to do, they often accept the actions of others as a guide. Crutchfield (1958) found that conformity increased with the difficulty of the judgement being made. Crutchfield discovered that the group does not have to be visible to create an effect on their behaviour and that it is sufficient enough to know what everyone else is doing. Crutchfield thought that the level of conformity found in Asch’s face-to-face studies might be responsible for the level of conformity found. He conducted an experiment whereby the participants sat in booths, where they could not be seen by the other participants, but could see the stimulus cards. In front of the subjects were a series of switches and lights. They were required to press the switch that corresponded with their judgement when it came their time to answer, and were told that the lights displayed indicated the answers of the other participants. In reality, the experimenter controlled the lights, and each participant saw an identical display. Despite the absence of face-to-face group, there was 30% conformity when using Asch’s line comparison tasks, compared with 32% in Asch’s study.
Kelman (1958) produced a theoretically important analysis of the three types of conformity- Compliance, Identification and Internalisation. In his own words he distinguishes Compliance as, “when an individual accepts influence because he/she hopes to achieve a favourable reaction from another person or group”, Identification is, “when an individual accepts influence because he/she wants to establish or maintain a satisfying self-defining relationship to another person or group....the individual actually believes in the responses which he adopts through identification, but their specific content is more or less irrelevant”, and Internalisation is “when an individual accepts influence because the content of the induced behaviour....is congruent with his value system “. Through these forms of conformity we can see that humans’ can act in accordance with others for numerous reasons, positive as well as negative. However, the likelihood of conforming, is dependent and affected by several factors.
There are many factors that affect conformity. Firstly, if the subjects being tested can see the faces of the other people they are expected to conform with, they are more likely to conform. In experiments such as Asch’s it was proved that people are less likely to conform when they are in private compared with being in a room with others. Secondly, when the subjects were uncertain of something whilst the rest of the group was, the subjects were more likely to conform as they didn’t want to give the incorrect answer thus creating mocking and rejection from the group. This also applies to the complexity of question or task, when the chance of getting the question wrong is increased. The third main factor that influences the conformity rate is when the person that is being tested has low self-esteem or confidence. Personal qualities, such as the need to be liked, the perceived status of the group members and the extent to which an individual is attracted to the group – are also factors that influence conformity. The need to be liked is particularly apparent in individuals rated as having low self-esteem and therefore encourages them to conform moreso than individuals who possess a more confident personality.
Stanley Milgram (1961) took conformity to another level, he discovered that people from different cultures displayed different measures of conformity. He compared Norwegian and French people, testing them on a task that required them to judge which two sounds lasted longer. Milgram made the subjects wear headphones and hear two tones followed by the judgements of five confederates. The five confederates were in fact assistants of Milgrams and they were instructed to give incorrect answers. Milgram’s results showed that the conformity rate of the Norwegians was higher than that of the French. This reflected basic differences in their cultures. When Milgrams participants were allowed to record their results privately, rather than call them out, conformity dropped, however still remained 50% for the Norwegians and 34% for the French.
From the theories and studies shown we can see that there are several possible reasons why humans conform. Firstly, Deutsch and Gerard (1955) distinguish between normative and informational social influence. The former is demonstrated in Asch’s experiment, where subjects are in a face-to-face social situation and fear disapproval from others; they adopt the perceived group norm. The latter refers to the more anonymous situation of the Crutchfield’s study, where the subjects rely on information from a screen, rather the social pressure of others.
As well as taking into account Informational and Normative Social Influence, the two main forms of social influence, which encourage conformity, Kelman’s three theoretical types of conformity offered an explanation into the positive and negative types of conformity. Lastly, both personal and external factors display the ability to influence or effect human conformity, for example, low self-esteem and cultural differences.
However, in 1976, Moscovini, criticised the research of Asch, claiming that he had a bias view towards conformity. He conducted empirical studies on minority influence, showing that by adopting certain styles of behaviour, a minority may influence a majority. He suggested that it wasn’t the number of people holding the same view that mattered, their consistency matters too. Another factor, which may have affected the rate of conformity, was the cultural background of the 1950’s. Studies by Larsen (1974) and Perrin and Spencer (1981) failed to confirm Asch’s results. Since the 1950’s there has been a greater tendency, in both the UK and USA, to act independently. Smith and Bond (1993) reviewed 31 studies using Asch’s procedure in different countries and found that more collectivist societies tended to show higher rates of conformity than more individualistic societies. For example, the lowest rate of conformity reported was 14% in Belgium, and the highest was 58% among Indian teachers in Fiji. From this evidence it would seem that humans today are steering away from conformity and working towards establishing individualism.
