Types of Conformity & Explanations

Conformity is a form of social influence that involves a change in belief or behaviour in order to fit in with a group. It is sometimes called majority influence because it results from pressure — real or imagined — from the majority of a group. Understanding the different types of conformity and the explanations for why people conform is essential for AQA A-Level Psychology Paper 1.

Key Definition: Conformity is a change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.

Kelman's Three Types of Conformity (1958)

Herbert Kelman (1958) identified three distinct levels of conformity, which differ in how deeply the change is internalised.

Type	Definition	Depth of Change	Example
Compliance	Going along with the group publicly while privately disagreeing	Shallowest — behaviour changes but opinion does not	Laughing at a joke you do not find funny because everyone else is laughing
Identification	Conforming to the opinions or behaviours of a group because you value membership of that group	Moderate — you adopt the group's views while you are a member, but may revert when you leave	A new employee adopting the dress code and attitudes of their workplace
Internalisation	Genuinely accepting the group's views because you have examined them and find them convincing	Deepest — both public behaviour and private opinion change permanently	A person who converts to a new religion after studying its teachings and genuinely believing them

Exam Tip: In the exam, you may be given a scenario and asked to identify which type of conformity is being demonstrated. The key distinction is whether the change is public only (compliance), tied to group membership (identification), or genuinely believed (internalisation).

Linking Types to Explanations

It is important to connect Kelman's types of conformity to the explanations for conformity (NSI and ISI):

Compliance is typically the result of NSI — we go along publicly because we want to be accepted, but we do not privately agree.
Internalisation is typically the result of ISI — we genuinely change our mind because we believe others have more knowledge or better judgement.
Identification may involve elements of both NSI and ISI — we value group membership (NSI) but may also begin to accept the group's views (ISI).

Deutsch & Gerard's Two-Process Model (1955)

Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard (1955) proposed two explanations for why people conform, which have become central to the AQA specification.

Normative Social Influence (NSI)

Key Definition: Normative Social Influence (NSI) is conforming to the expectations of others in order to gain approval or avoid rejection. It is about the desire to be liked and accepted.

NSI is driven by the fundamental human need to belong and be part of a group.
It typically results in compliance — you change your behaviour publicly but not your private opinion.
NSI is more likely when people are with others they know, when the group can observe their behaviour, and when the individual fears rejection.

Informational Social Influence (ISI)

Key Definition: Informational Social Influence (ISI) is conforming because you believe others have better information or knowledge than you. It is about the desire to be right.

ISI is driven by the need to reduce uncertainty — when we are unsure of the correct response, we look to others who we assume know better.
ISI typically results in internalisation — we genuinely accept the information as correct and change both our behaviour and private opinion.
ISI is more likely in ambiguous or unfamiliar situations, in crisis situations, and when others are perceived as experts.

Asch's Line Study (1951, 1956)

Solomon Asch (1951) conducted one of the most famous studies in social psychology to investigate conformity to an unambiguous task.

Procedure

123 male American undergraduate students participated.
Each participant was placed in a group with 6–8 confederates (people who were secretly working with the researcher).
The group was shown a standard line and three comparison lines and asked to state which comparison line matched the standard. The correct answer was always obvious.
On 12 out of 18 trials (called critical trials), the confederates unanimously gave the same wrong answer.
The real participant answered second-to-last or last.

Findings

Finding	Detail
Overall conformity rate	37% of responses on critical trials were conforming (incorrect)
Participants conforming at least once	75% of participants conformed on at least one critical trial
Never conformed	25% of participants never conformed on any trial
Control group	Error rate was less than 1%, confirming the task was genuinely easy

Asch's Variations (1956)

Asch conducted further experiments varying the conditions to identify factors that affect conformity.

Variation	Change Made	Result	Explanation
Group size	Varied from 1–15 confederates	Conformity rose up to 3 confederates then levelled off	A small unanimous majority is sufficient; adding more has diminishing returns
Unanimity	One confederate gave the right answer	Conformity dropped to 5.5%	Having a dissenter provides social support and breaks the power of the majority
Task difficulty	Lines made more similar in length	Conformity increased	When the task is more ambiguous, ISI increases
Private response	Participants wrote answers rather than speaking aloud	Conformity decreased significantly	NSI was reduced because the group could not observe the response

Evaluation of Asch's Research (AO3)

Strengths

High internal validity — the task was clear and unambiguous, so any conformity must have been due to the group pressure rather than genuine uncertainty about the correct answer.
Controlled conditions — the use of confederates and standardised procedures means the study is replicable, and the variations allow cause-and-effect conclusions about specific factors.

Limitations

Low ecological validity — matching line lengths is an artificial task. Conformity in real life involves more complex and personally important decisions, so the findings may not generalise.
Cultural and temporal bias — the study was conducted with American male students in the 1950s, a period characterised by McCarthyism and strong conformity pressures. Perrin & Spencer (1980) replicated the study with UK engineering students and found very low conformity, suggesting the results were a "child of their time."
Ethical issues — participants were deceived about the purpose of the study and the true identity of the confederates. However, most participants reported they were not distressed.
Individual differences — 25% of participants never conformed at all, suggesting personality factors play a role that the two-process model does not fully explain.
Sample bias — all participants were male American undergraduates, limiting the generalisability of findings to other populations (women, older adults, non-Western cultures). Subsequent cross-cultural research has shown that conformity rates vary: collectivist cultures (e.g., Japan) tend to show higher conformity, while individualist cultures (e.g., the UK) show lower conformity (Bond & Smith, 1996).

Exam Tip: When evaluating Asch, always link your evaluation points back to the two-process model. For example: "Asch's variations demonstrate that reducing NSI (by allowing private answers) or providing ISI (an ambiguous task) changes conformity rates, which supports Deutsch and Gerard's explanations."

Distinguishing NSI and ISI in Practice

Although the two-process model is widely used, it is important to recognise that NSI and ISI often operate together in real-world situations. For example:

A student revising in a study group may change their answer both because they want to fit in (NSI) and because they believe others know more (ISI).
In ambiguous exam questions, a student may look at how others are answering (ISI) while also feeling pressure not to be the only person answering differently (NSI).

The distinction is therefore theoretical and analytical rather than absolute. Examiners will reward answers that acknowledge this interaction rather than treating NSI and ISI as entirely separate.

Conformity Across Cultures

Research has shown that conformity rates differ across cultures:

Study	Culture	Findings
Bond & Smith (1996)	Meta-analysis of 133 Asch-type studies across 17 countries	Collectivist cultures showed higher conformity than individualist cultures
Smith & Bond (1993)	Various non-Western cultures	Conformity ranged from 14% (Belgian students) to 58% (Indian teachers in Fiji)

This cross-cultural variation suggests that conformity is not a fixed human trait but is influenced by cultural norms about the importance of group harmony vs. individual autonomy.

Key Researchers & Dates

Researcher	Date	Contribution
Kelman	1958	Three types of conformity: compliance, identification, internalisation
Deutsch & Gerard	1955	Two-process model: NSI and ISI
Asch	1951, 1956	Line study and variations
Perrin & Spencer	1980	Replication with UK students — very low conformity
Bond & Smith	1996	Meta-analysis of cross-cultural conformity differences

Summary

Conformity occurs at different levels: compliance (shallowest), identification, and internalisation (deepest).
People conform due to NSI (desire to be liked/fit in) and ISI (desire to be right).
Asch demonstrated that people conform even on obviously easy tasks, with 37% conformity on critical trials.
Key factors affecting conformity include group size, unanimity, and task difficulty.
NSI and ISI often operate together in real-world situations rather than acting in isolation.
Cross-cultural research shows conformity rates vary between collectivist and individualist cultures.
Evaluation must consider ecological validity, cultural/temporal context, sample bias, and individual differences.