Normative influence – the need to be liked/accepted by others - prompts an individual to behave consistently with group norms. When Asch (1955) varied his line study conditions so that the subject wrote their responses privately, the rate of conformity decreased. This showed that, even though the subject’s personal opinion had not changed, they were simply conforming publicly (complying) with the group norm. Although 12% continued to comply with the erroneous group norm.
When Asch (1955) included a confederate who diverged from the majority opinion, the subject also conformed less. The dissenter might have served as a model for independence and provided the subject with alternative information sources. However, the ally did not need to be competent, indeed could be practically blind (Allen & Levine, 1971, cited in Hayes, 1993), and could provide an even more inaccurate answer than the majority. The ally’s effects were thus shown not to be due to the value of their information but to their contribution in reducing normative social pressure.
Influencing Factors
Various group, individual and situational factors will affect the extent to which a majority influences an individual.
1 Group Factors
-
Group size. Asch (1955) experimented with different sizes of majority (from 1 to 15) and found a ceiling effect with a majority of three. One possible reason, suggested by Wilder () (cited in Baron and Byrne, ) is that the subjects begin to suspect collusion amongst the group members once the group goes beyond that number. Milgram et al’s (1969) study of varying sized groups (1 – 15 people) looking up at a window showed that the larger the group the more likelihood of influencing a passing individual to conform, i.e. stop and look up as well (4% with 1 person – 40% with 15 people).
- Unanimity/Consistency. As shown by Asch (1955), “disturbance of the majority’s unanimity has a striking effect”. An ally’s dissent increased the subject’s independence and moderated their errors. The direction of dissent (whether the ally was a moderate or an extremist dissenter) affected the subject’s responses. The moderate dissenter reduced the subject’s errors by 33%. The extremist dissenter reduced the subject’s errors to 9%. Moscovici et al (1969) note that a group of three unanimous persons is more influential than a dissenting group of eight. It is the inter-personal consistency of, rather than the amount/strength of, social pressure that determines the level of influence.
-
Attractiveness/Similarity of group. Violations of group norms may result in personally negative outcomes, e.g. rejection, while adherence to group norms may be rewarded in the form of praise, promotion, etc. Schachter's (1951) analysis of group rejection of a non-conformist shows that a non-conformist is liked less by other group members and that group communication with a persistent deviant eventually diminishes. The reward/punishment impact will increase with the social desirability of the group. The more attraction/similarity an individual feels toward the group, the greater the likelihood of conformity. In Asch’s (1955) study, the confederates and subjects were relatively homogenous psychology students. The subject may have perceived the group as a reference group, thus increasing the group’s normative influence.
Group dynamics. The relationship between group members affects majority influence. Wilder varied Asch’s study with combinations of 4 confederates, presented to the subject as 4 individuals, 2 groups of 2, or 1 group of 4 people. The more perceived independence between the group’s members the greater the subject’s conformity. This may be due to the individual perceiving the dependent group’s unanimity as contaminated by normative influences, whereas agreement among a group of 4 independent confederates was perceived as genuine (informational) consensus.
2 Individual Characteristics
Expertise. If the individual is confident of their personal knowledge/expertise, they will be less likely to seek reassurance from and comply with group norms. Conversely, if the individual perceives the group to have greater expertise, the likelihood of conformity is increased. Some of Asch’s (1955) persistent non-conformists reported staunch confidence in their own judgement.
- Gender. Women conform more than men in face-to-face groups. Eagly (1987) identifies a number of factors that create this difference, including that women use conformity to increase group harmony, whereas men use non-conformity to create the impression of independence.
Cultural predisposition/Personality. Individuals may be culturally predisposed towards individualism or collectivism. Smith & Bond (1996) (cited in Baron & Byrne 2002) showed low rates of conformity in North America and Western Europe. Crutchfield (1955) (Cited in Baron & Byrne, 2002) suggests a correlation between high intelligence and other personality traits and low conformity.
3 Situational Variables
-
Ambiguity/Amount of information/Difficulty of decision. Baron, Vandello & Brunsman (1996) (Cited in Baron & Byrne, 2002) showed that the more difficult the decision (brief exposure to information and important decision), the greater the conformity to heuristic informational influence. However, Asch (1955) manipulated the discrepancy between lines to an unambiguous 7” and still found subjects who yielded to the majority’s error under normative influence.
- Importance/Urgency. Baron et al’s (1996) study showed the increase in conformity when making important decisions and the motivation to be accurate was high. Some of the conformists in Asch’s (1955) study reported their yielding to a group decision in order “not to spoil the results”. They recognised the (ir)relevance of their decision within an experimental context.
Non-conformity
Asch (1955) concluded that conformity is more prevalent than the two basic forms of nonconformity:
- Independence (the individual does what she would do in the absence of group pressure)
- Counter-conformity (an individual deliberately does the opposite of group expectations)
Asch’s (1955) non-conformists were described as having “a capacity to recover from doubt and to re-establish equilibrium” or “continuing their dissent on the simple ground that it was their obligation to call the play as they saw it”. Despite cognizance of the prevailing majority influence, they retained their personal Weltanschauung.
References
Allen, VL. & Levine, JM. (1971). Social Pressure and Personal Influence. In Hayes, N. (1993). Principles of Social Psychology. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Asch, SE. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure. In Aronson, E. (Ed.) (1992). Readings about the Social Animal. (pp 13-22). New York: WH Freeman & Co.
Baron, RA. & Byrne, D. (2002) Social Psychology (10th Ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Bond, R.A. & Smith, P.B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952, 1956) line judgement task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, (pp 111-137).
Crutchfield, RA. (1955). Conformity and Character. American Psychologist, 10. (pp 191-198).
Eagly, AH. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Moscovici, S., Lage, E. & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a colour perception task. In Hewstone, M., Manstead, ASR. & Stroebe, W. (Eds.) (2001). In The Blackwell Reader in Social Psychology. (pp 527 – 543). Oxford: Blackwell.
Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, O. (1969). Note on the Drawing Power of Crowds of Different Size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13. (pp 79-82).
Schachter, S. (1959). Deviation, Rejection and Communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46. (pp 190-207)
Sherif, M. (1936). The Psychology of Social Norms. New York: Harper
