Social psychology topic of conformity

1. Conformity
Special Topics In Social Psychology Chapter 3

2. • Conformity: When an individual changes their behaviour or beliefs to
fit in with those of a group, due to group pressure.
• Compliance: When an individual changes their public, but not private,
behaviour or views to match those of a group-this is a superficial type
of conformity. This is a short-term change and will only last as long as
the individual in in that situation.

3. Sherif (1935) - the auto kinetic effect
• Sherif placed groups of three participants into a darkened room and
projected a small stationary point of light onto a screen. In the auto
kinetic effect, a stationary dot of light in a darkened room appears to
move slightly and Sherif asked his participants to estimate how far the
point of light was moving.
• Sherif found that when participants gave their initial estimates they
were very different from one another, however when participants
were told what other participants had estimated then the estimates
became more similar over successive trials.

5. • Sherif concluded that people have an in-built tendency to conform to
the group opinion rather than remain individual in their opinions. In
other words when they are unsure about the correct answer, they will
look to others as they may know more or be more skilled.
• This is especially the case when people do not have the information
necessary to make their own opinions, but they still have the desire to
be right. The participants had conformed due to informational social
influence.

6. • In another study conducted by Sherif, instead of individually bringing the
participants into the experiment, he directly placed them into the group. These
participants, who had not previously established a standard on their own,
formed a common norm within the group much more quickly and easily.
• Sherif's third finding was that the standard established within the group
continued to be used by the participants afterwards. The influence of the
standard created within the group was so strong that even when the participants
were brought back into the experiment individually a year later, they continued
to adhere to this common standard (Rohrer, Baron, Hoffman, and Schwander,
1954).
• Conclusion: In situations where physical reality is uncertain, individuals seek to
determine the situation and grasp onto something, and for this purpose, they
create a reality. This reality is created by the individual if they are alone, and if
they are with others, it is created by the group through interaction, and
everyone adheres to this standard together.

7. Asch’s Experiment
• Individuals given a card with a vertical line printed on it
• Participants asked to then look at another card with three lines on it:
two did not match, one did
• Task: select line that matched the length of the line on the original
card; correct answer was clear- Individuals often chose a clearly
wrong option if confederates first chose a wrong option
• By the end of the experiment, most people agree with the group
(even though its very easy to see that the answer is wrong).• The
pressure to conform (agree) to what other people say (do) must be
verystrong, because the correct answer is so easy to see.

9. What are the similarities and differences
between Asch and Sherrif?

10. • Indeed, we can say that the fundamental phenomena examined in these
two experiments are different from each other. In Sherif's experiment, the
formation of a group norm out of nothing is investigated, whereas in Asch's
experiment, conformity to an existing, established group norm is studied.
• In logical terms, Sherif examines the occurrence of norm formation within
the group process, which is an event that happens beforehand, while Asch
focuses on conformity to a norm that occurs later.
• Despite these significant differences, it is also observed that these two
laboratory experiments are conceptually very close to each other. Both
studies provide valuable insights into social norms, social influence, and
conformity behavior.

11. Types of Social Influence
• Normative social influence: This means that individuals tend to adopt the
behaviours of the majority of a group because they do not want to be left out.
Individuals do not believe the majority, they simply comply in order to be
accepted. An example might be a person who openly agrees with the racist views
of his or her new work colleagues, but is not themself racist and does not believe
racism is right.
• Informational social influence
• When the situation is ambiguous, people have a tendency to conform to the
majority because it is a source of information. In other words, if an individual is
unsure as to the correct answer or behaviour then they tend to believe the
majority opinion and behave accordingly. Individuals internalise the majority
opinion because they want to be right. An example might be someone who
cannot decide which way to vote in a general election who, after finding out how
everyone else in their group is voting, starts to believe the opinion of the group
and votes the same way.

12. External Factors Affecting Conformity Behaviour
• The effect of group size is significant in influencing conformity behavior, as
demonstrated by Solomon Asch's research. Asch conducted his
experiments by varying the size of the group. In two-person groups where
another person intentionally gave incorrect answers, the participant
showed almost no conformity behavior.
• In groups where there were only two other people besides the participant,
conformity behavior was observed at a rate of 13%. However, when the
number of people giving incorrect answers increased to three, the
participant's conformity behavior suddenly jumped to 33%.
• However, when the number of individuals giving incorrect answers
increased further, as in groups of four or more, there wasn't a significant
increase in conformity behavior. Based on these findings, Asch proposed
that the maximum conformity behavior occurs when influenced by a group
of 3-4 people (the majority).

13. • However, later experiments, such as the one conducted by Gerard,
Wilhelmy, and Connolley in 1968, did not fully support Asch's
interpretation. They found that conformity behavior continued to
increase in parallel with the increasing number of group members.
• Therefore, while Asch initially suggested that the maximum
conformity occurred with a group size of 3-4, subsequent research
showed that conformity behavior could continue to increase with
larger groups as well.

14. • The Effect of Group Consensus
• In Asch's study, participants who remained under the influence of a
consensus-agreed majority of three individuals showed conformity
behavior at a rate of almost 35%. In contrast, when even one person
besides the participant dissented from the majority, conformity
behavior decreased by a quarter.
• Thus, it is evident that a minority of two individuals can exert more
resistance against the opinion of the majority than a single individual.
This finding underscores the importance of the minority.

15. • The presence of another individual who does not conform to social
influence or even coercion has been observed to increase an
individual's resistance, as seen in Milgram's obedience experiment. In a
variation of this experiment, a second person was introduced in the
role of the teacher, who was actually the researcher's assistant. When
this teacher refused to continue the experiment by refusing to
administer shocks in the middle of the study, 90% of the participants
also displayed refusal behavior.
• This percentage is much higher than the resistance shown by
participants acting alone as teachers (35%) in the study, highlighting
how the resistance to social influence is much stronger with two
individuals compared to one.

16. • The Effect of Group Cohesion
• Group cohesion refers to all the positive or negative factors
associated with an individual's commitment to the group. Liking the
group members, believing in the significance of the group's goals,
observing the harmony among group members, the benefits gained
from being a member of the group, and so on, can be considered
positive factors promoting group cohesion.

17. • The Effect of Commitment to Future Interaction
• If individuals anticipate continuous or prolonged interaction with the
group they are part of in the future, their conformity to group norms
increases. Lewis, Langan, and Hollander's (1972) study involved
participants being divided into five-person groups and discussing
various topics.
• Later, some participants were convinced that they would meet again
with the same group in the future to discuss the same topics.
Individuals who believed they would meet with the group again
showed greater conformity to the majority's opinion.

18. • The Effect of Minority Influence
• The effectiveness of a minority group in influencing the larger group depends on
certain conditions. One of these conditions is that members of the minority group
must be consistent in opposing the majority group's opinions and must have
confidence in presenting their ideas.
• Occasionally, the perception that the minority group's views are shifting towards
the majority's views increases the likelihood of its influence diminishing.
Moscovici and colleagues (1969) conducted an experiment to demonstrate the
importance of consistency. In this experiment, participants were shown a green
slide and asked whether the color they saw was blue or green. Each group
consisted of 4 participants and 2 research assistants.

19. • In the inconsistent minority group, the 2 assistants sometimes said it
was green and sometimes blue, whereas in the consistent minority
group, they consistently said it was green. Looking at the results, it is
observed that the inconsistent minority had almost no influence on
the group's decision, while the consistent minority could influence all
group members in 8% of the experiments.

20. Miligram’s Obedience Study
• In a specially prepared section at Yale University, an experiment took place where participants were
recruited through a newspaper advertisement. No specific criteria were sought in participants; they were
ordinary individuals aged between 20 and 50. Only in the initial experiment, all participants were selected as
males.
• Participants were told that the experiment was about the "effects of punishment on learning," and the true
purpose was revealed only after the experiment was completed. Before the experiment began, it was
explained that there would be another participant, and through a lottery, one 'teacher' and one 'learner'
would be chosen. The selection would be made by drawing lots between two pieces of paper, each marked
with either 'teacher' or 'learner.' However, the second participant was actually part of the experimental
group, and both pieces of paper said 'teacher.' Consequently, it was inevitable that the real participant
would assume the role of the teacher. The 'learner' and 'teacher' were placed in different rooms where they
could hear each other's voices but could not see each other. Throughout the experiment, an observer,
representing an authoritative figure, especially stern and disciplined in appearance, remained with the
participant (teacher).
• Before the experiment began, the participant was subjected to a 45-volt electroshock to anticipate the pain
the learner would experience.

21. • PUNISHMENT: ELECTRIC SHOCK
• Throughout the experiment, the teacher (participant) was instructing the learner (confederate) to memorize a list of words and
checking whether the learner had learned them, administering an increasing amount of electric shock through the machine attached
to the learner with each incorrect answer. In reality, no shocks were being delivered. When the accomplice confederate left the real
participant alone, a sound recording device integrated with the shock machine in the adjacent room would play a prerecorded scream
corresponding to each shock level after the voltage was raised several times (typically to 150 volts), the actor would begin to pound on
the wall separating him from the participant in the adjacent room.
• CONTINUATION ORDERS
• At any point when the participant expressed a desire to stop the experiment, they were verbally prompted by the stern observer with
the following sequence:
• Please continue.
• You must continue the experiment.
• Continuing is absolutely essential.
• You have no other choice, you must continue.
• Even after these four prompts, if the participant still wished to stop, the experiment would be halted; otherwise, the experiment
would only stop after the participant administered the highest shock level of 450 volts three times in a row.

22. • Result: In Milgram's initial series of experiments, it was observed that 65%
of the participants (26 out of 40 participants) administered the highest
voltage of 450 volts, despite feeling considerable discomfort. All of them
paused at some point during the experiment to question it, and some even
stated that they would return the money they were paid. None of the
participants hesitated to stop administering shocks before reaching the
300-volt level. Later on, this experiment was replicated with various
modifications to explore different factors.
• BUT… Participants showed signs of extreme tension in experiment (biting
fingernails, sweating, trembling, stuttering, and groaning: three
participants actually had full blown seizures)During debriefing the
participants completed a follow up questionnaire. 84% of them felt glad
that they participated, 74% learnt something of personal importance

23. • Profound ethical questions:
• Under what conditions can you cause someone to believe that they
have behaved in this way?
• Is it ethical to do this to someone? (Self-knowledge, stress, etc.)
• Does the gain from doing the experiment outweigh the distress
caused to the participants (the teachers)

24. • Honor Theory: It is a theory related to an individual and the group to
which they belong. If the individual is not competent and skilled in
decision-making, they will defer decision-making to the group and
hierarchical order. The group will become the behavioral model for the
individual.
• Intermediary State Theory: The main element of submission is the
individual's lack of responsibility for their actions because they fulfill
the wishes of others. If someone adopts this view, all the requirements
of submission will have been fulfilled.

25. External Factors
• The Influence of Status and Prestige
• The perceived status of the source of social influence, i.e., the person or
group causing social conformity behavior, should result in more conformity
behavior in individuals the higher the perceived status.
• Milgram conducted the same study in an old building instead of Yale
University. In this variation of the experiment, participants were informed
that the research was conducted by a private firm working for industry
rather than by Yale University. As a result, when the scientific prestige of
Yale University was eliminated, the obedience behavior that was observed
among participants in the original study, which was 65%, dropped to 48%.

26. • Perceived Legitimacy of Authority: The perceived legitimacy of the
authority figure, represented by the experimenter in the white lab coat,
could have influenced participants to obey commands, as they believed
they were following orders from a credible source.
• Experimental Setting: The physical environment of the experiment,
typically a well-equipped laboratory, might have contributed to the
perceived seriousness and legitimacy of the study, influencing participants
to comply with the demands.
• Peer Pressure: Participants may have felt pressure to conform to the
behavior of others, especially when they observed fellow participants
continuing with the experiment despite ethical concerns or signs of distress
from the "learner."

27. • The Effect of Face-to-Face Interaction
• In another variation of the Milgram experiment, the teacher and learner
were placed in a face-to-face social relationship. In this case, the learner
was not in a separate room but sat next to the participant acting as the
teacher. The learner's hand was not attached to the shock generator, and to
deliver a shock, the teacher had to physically place the learner's hand on
the shock plate. As a condition of the experiment, if the learner withdrew
their hand, the teacher had to hold it and press it onto the shock plate.
• This close face-to-face interaction, even involving physical touch, as
expected, reduced the obedience of the participants in the teacher role to
the researcher. The obedience rate dropped from 60% to 30%, and the
average shock voltage administered decreased from 400 volts to 260 volts.
The more personal and immediate nature of the relationship seemingly had
a significant impact on participants' willingness to obey authority figures.

28. Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo)
• In this experiment, 24 normal, healthy individuals were randomly
assigned the roles of either prisoners or guards.
• Those assigned the role of prisoners were picked up from their homes
by police cars, subjected to realistic police procedures, and then
brought blindfolded to the Stanford laboratory, which was
transformed to resemble a real prison environment.

29. • Neither the individuals assigned the role of prisoners nor those assigned
the role of guards were given any instructions on how to behave. However,
it was observed that the behaviors required by the roles and the norms
dictated by the environment emerged during the experiment.
• The experiment took place in a makeshift prison set up in the basement of
the Stanford University psychology building. In order to induce a sense of
vulnerability and to encourage the quick adoption of their roles, individuals
assigned the role of prisoners were provided with only a white smock to
wear and were made to cover their heads with stockings to prevent their
personalities from being shown.

30. • Findings:
• The Power of Role Playing: The experiment demonstrated that people tend
to conform to a given role when assigned to it. Participants truly embraced
the roles assigned to them (guard or prisoner) and exhibited behaviors
consistent with the requirements of those roles.
• Abuse by the Guards: The experiment revealed that participants assigned to
the role of guards tended to abuse the prisoners. Guards abused their
power, humiliated the prisoners, and engaged in acts of bullying.
• Passivity and Psychological Effects on the Prisoners: Participants assigned to
the role of prisoners became passive under the pressure of the guards.
Over time, psychological effects were observed on the prisoners, including
symptoms such as stress, anxiety, and depression.

31. • Rapid and Unexpected Impact of the Experiment: The experiment
illustrated that participants quickly adapted to their roles, and serious
issues arose by the fifth day of the experiment. Zimbardo terminated the
experiment prematurely, providing a striking example of how people can
change rapidly and unexpectedly.
• Potent Institutional Influence: The experiment showcased how the
atmosphere of an institution (the prison) could significantly influence
human behavior. The prison environment appeared to shape participants'
behaviors and alter their social norms.
• Ethical Concerns and Lessons Learned: The experiment sparked ethical
debates and posed serious risks to the physical and psychological well-
being of human subjects. However, it also provided important lessons for
understanding human behavior and societal change.

32. Why Zimbardo’s experiment is important?

33. • Understanding Authority and Power Dynamics: The experiment illustrates
how authority figures (guards) can abuse their power and influence
individuals under their control (prisoners). This provides an important
observation to understand the complexity of authority and power
relationships and how human behavior can respond to these relationships.
• Impact of Social Roles: The experiment demonstrates people's tendency to
adopt and conform to social roles. Participants fully embraced the roles
assigned to them (guard or prisoner), highlighting the power of social roles
in human behavior.
• Confirmation and Development of Social Psychology Theories: The Stanford
Prison Experiment has been utilized as a crucial tool to test and refine
theories in social psychology. The experiment provides a model to better
understand fundamental concepts such as group dynamics, social norms,
social interactions, and social conformity.

34. • Lessons on Ethics and Human Rights: The experiment highlighted the
consequences of unethical practices conducted by researchers on
human subjects. The ethical issues of the experiment have provided
important lessons regarding the protection of human subjects and
research ethics.
• Call for Social Change and Reform: The Stanford Prison Experiment
drew attention to the mistreatment and human rights violations
within prison systems. The results of the experiment have encouraged
efforts for societal change, including prison reform and human rights
advocacy.

35. • Deindividuation is the process of losing our own personal identity
when we are part of a crowd or group. When we lose our individual
identity we blend into a group and become anonymous – we do not
stand out in the crowd.
• As a result, we tend to act differently and feel less responsible for our
own actions. Think about a riot. The members of the riot may cause
damage to property or even harm another person as a result of their
loss of selfawareness. Such behaviour would not occur if they were
acting alone.

36. Personal Factors Affecting Conformity
• The Influence of Self:
• Relational self gains more significance within a group. The heightened
importance of relational self leads individuals to pay more attention to
what the group says, making social norms more relevant and consequently
increasing conformity behavior.
• Individuals who prioritize the individualistic aspects of self tend to value
their own personal thoughts and principles more and may not feel
compelled to conform to what the group says. This difference among
individuals seems like a personal characteristic, but fundamentally, it's an
effect created by culture on individuals' selves.

37. • The Influence of the Need for Individuality:
• Some individuals highly value their uniqueness and being distinctive. They are not pleased
with following what everyone else does, wears, or says, and they insist on maintaining
their unique identities.
• Maslach and her colleagues (1985, 1987) developed a test to identify individuals with a
high need for individuality. This test measures individuals' desires to engage in behaviors
that set them apart from others in a group. For example, questions like "giving a speech to
a large crowd," "presenting your own opinions on a controversial topic to a group of
strangers," or "expressing an opinion on something you're not sure about" help determine
the degree of individuals' need for individuality.
• In conformity studies conducted in laboratories, it has been observed that individuals with
a strong need for individuality show less conformity behavior, conform less to the
majority, and engage in creative dissent.

38. • The Influence of Desire for Personal Control:
• According to this theory, people resist and react against efforts to restrict their
behavioral freedoms because they desire certain behavioral liberties.
• For example, when Elif's mother tells her to wear a specific outfit, Elif may resist
her mother's instruction because she wants to maintain control over her own
behavior (being able to wear what she wants). In this case, nonconformity
behavior to social influence is observed. When resistance occurs, the behavior
prohibited by the mother can become more attractive.
• This theory suggests that individuals have an inherent desire for personal control
over their actions and choices, and they may react negatively when they feel
that this control is being threatened or restricted by external influences.

39. • In a study conducted by Jerry Burger (1987), participants' levels of personal control desire
were measured first. Then, they were asked to rate how funny they found certain
newspaper cartoons on a scale from 1 (not funny at all) to 100 (very funny).
• In one condition, participants evaluated the cartoons on their own. In another condition,
they evaluated them together with two research assistants. In the second condition, the
assistants rated the cartoons as quite funny (between 70 and 100), in a way that the
participants could hear.
• The results of the study showed the following: The level of personal control desire did not
influence participants' evaluations when they assessed the cartoons on their own.
However, in the condition where the evaluation was done with the research assistants,
participants with a strong desire for personal control were less likely to conform to the
assistants' opinions.
• These individuals were not entirely indifferent to social influence, but they showed more
resistance to social influence compared to individuals with low personal control desire.

40. • The Impact of Competence:
• When an individual's competence is lower compared to other members of
the group, their conformity to the group increases. If a person
demonstrates successful performance in a task that the group is working
on, they may resist group pressure because they perceive themselves as
more knowledgeable and competent.
• However, it's also observed that how competent an individual feels
personally is more important than their objective level of competence. If a
person perceives themselves as more competent than others, they are
less likely to trust the decisions of the group and resist conformity
behavior.

41. • The Influence of Gender:
• Early research on social influence suggested that women were more
inclined to conform than men, but recent studies have shown very little
gender difference in this regard. Situations where gender differences in
conformity behavior emerge are mostly when individuals express
disagreement in face-to-face interactions. Women who are aware of being
observed by others tend to exhibit more conformity behavior than men in
similar situations (Eagly and Chravala, 1986).
• This difference is explained more by social roles and social expectations
than by biological reasons. Social roles and expectations often expect
women to behave more "compliantly" than men.

42. • In addition to the personality traits mentioned above, Crutchfield (1955)
identified differences between conforming (dependent) and non-
conforming (independent) subjects: independent subjects were found to
have higher levels of "intellectual activity," "ego strength," "leadership
ability," and "maturity in social relationships," whereas dependent subjects
showed more "feelings of inferiority," "rigid and excessive self-control," and
"authoritarian attitudes."
• These consistent relationships among personality traits suggest the
existence of a personality type termed dependent personality or indicate
that conformity could be a personality trait. However, such a
conceptualization of "personality" assumes a consistency of behavior that
does not change from situation to situation. In other words, a person who
conforms to group judgment in an Asch-type experiment would exhibit
conformity behavior in other situations as well.

43. • However, this kind of "personality" conceptualization doesn't fully
align with research findings. Personality traits typically vary
depending on the situation and context. Conforming behavior by an
individual may be limited to a specific experiment or situation, and
they may exhibit different behaviors in other situations. Therefore, it's
important to recognize that personality traits do not guarantee
consistent behavior across different contexts.

44. • Some research indeed indicates that conformity behavior is a general
tendency for some individuals. For instance, Rosner (1957) found in a study
with nurses that some subjects exhibited conformity behavior in many
different situations. Abelson and Lesser (1959) observed that children who
conformed to the teacher's judgment also conformed to their mothers'
judgments. Back and Davis (1965) found that subjects who conformed to the
visual judgments of others also showed more conformity to peer group
norms and authority pressure.
• In some individuals, a general tendency toward conformity can translate into
conformity behavior in various contexts. Similarly, some individuals may
consistently exhibit a tendency to react oppositely in different situations.
However, it's important not to overemphasize typifications based on
personality traits because the same individual may conform in one situation
while resisting social influence in another. Moreover, some individuals may
display less consistent behavior than others across different situations.

45. • Determination of behavior involves two types of interactions. One is the
interaction among various personality traits themselves. Personality traits do
not act individually but rather influence behavior in interaction with each
other. For example, it has been found that authoritarian personality types
exhibit more conformity behavior when anxious than when not anxious
(Kogan and Wallach, 1964; Wrightsman, 1972).
• The second type of interaction is between personality traits and
environmental factors. For instance, an authoritarian personality structure
may manifest behavior in the presence of authority (e.g., a teacher) but may
not affect behavior in friendly relationships.
• As these examples illustrate, while identifying personality traits is important
for understanding conformity behavior, it is not sufficient.

46. Cultural Factors Affecting Conformity
• Asch and Milgram experiments are among the most replicated classic experiments in
cross-cultural research. Asch's conformity experiment (1951) has been replicated in at
least 13 different cultures. Examples of these studies include those conducted by Perrin
and Spencer (1981) in England, Frager (1970) in Japan, and Hatcher (1982) in Belgium.
These studies have shown that collectivist cultures tend to exhibit more conformity
behavior compared to individualistic cultures.
• Similarly, Milgram's obedience experiment (1974) has been replicated in many cultures as
well. For instance, studies such as those by Ancona and Pareyson (1968) in Italy, Mantell
(1971) in Germany, and Miranda et al. (1981) in Spain have replicated the obedience
experiment. Australians and British participants were found to be less obedient compared
to the original study conducted with Americans by Asch, while Spaniards, Germans,
Italians, and Dutch participants were found to be more obedient compared to Americans
(Smith and Bond, 1993).
• Overall, the results indicate that conformity behavior varies between individualistic and
collectivist cultures.

47. • In individualistic cultures, an individual's interests are considered more
important than group interests, whereas in collectivist cultures, group
interests guide individuals' thoughts and behaviors. Kağıtçıbaşı (1990,
1998) defines collectivist cultures as "relational" cultures and individualistic
cultures as "separational" cultures, and she examines the self and
interpersonal relationships in these different cultures.
• People in collectivist cultures tend to value gaining approval from their
groups more than those in individualistic cultures. An individual from an
individualistic culture may have a greater need for autonomy from the
group and a need for individuality.
• The conclusion drawn from these different cultural orientations is that
individuals from collectivist cultures are more likely to exhibit conformity
behavior compared to individuals from individualistic cultures.

48. • However, the expectation that individuals from collectivist cultures
will exhibit more conformity behavior does not mean that they will
unquestionably conform to all groups. The specific group in question
is important in determining the direction of conformity behavior.
• Groups can be categorized as ingroups and outgroups. Ingroups are
the groups to which individuals belong and hold importance and
meaning for them. Outgroups, on the other hand, are groups to which
individuals do not belong. In collectivist cultures, the distinction
between ingroups and outgroups is more pronounced. Boundaries are
more clearly defined, and behaviors towards ingroup members differ
from those towards outgroup members.

49. • Such differentiation requires discerning how conformity behavior will
manifest within each group. Research has shown that individuals
from collectivist cultures tend to adopt ingroup norms as their own
and base their behaviors on ingroup norms (Shweder and LeVine,
1984). However, the same individuals may not trust the norms of the
outgroup and may therefore resist social influence from the
outgroup.
• For example, Frager (1970) replicated Asch's experiment (visual
judgment involving line lengths) in Japan, a collectivist society, and
found that Japanese participants exhibited less conformity to the
group compared to the American participants in Asch's original study.

50. • According to Deutsch and Gerard (1955), there are two distinct
motivations underlying why people exhibit conformity behavior. These
motivations can be described as normative social influence and
informational social influence.
• Normative influence is based on conformity to rules and stems from the
desire of individuals to be accepted or liked by others. Informational
influence, on the other hand, arises from accepting evidence about reality
and is defined as the influence that provides information.
• Since norms reflect the value system of the group, they can encourage
individuals to engage in behaviors that will help achieve a specific goal and
deter them from behaviors that deviate from the group's purpose.
Another function of norms is to provide individuals with a reference
framework to understand and interpret their environment.

51. • Norms, especially in ambiguous situations, assist individuals in
distinguishing between right and wrong, important and unimportant,
and determine how to behave in a given situation. Another function of
norms is to define and develop the common identity of group
members. Norms have a greater impact on the identities of group
members, especially when they need to appear and behave differently
from others.
• Norms play a crucial role in guiding behavior and shaping group
dynamics, providing individuals with a sense of belonging and identity
within the group.

52. • Descriptive and injunctive social norms:
• The impact of norms on behavior
• The concept of social norms has two distinct meanings. The first one is
the behavior that is commonly seen and widespread in a society. Such
behavior is considered normal or ordinary in that society.
• This understanding of norms determines what is right and what is
wrong. The first type of social norm is called a descriptive norm. These
norms explain and provide information to individuals about what most
people do in a given situation. These norms influence our behavior by
providing information about what is generally considered normal in
that situation.

53. • For example, when walking down the street, seeing litter on the ground
provides us with a descriptive norm. By observing whether there is litter on
the ground or not, we can adjust our own littering behavior accordingly.
• The second type of social norm is called an injunctive norm. Injunctive
norms emphasize what should or should not be done in a given situation,
what is approved or disapproved.
• In other words, these norms establish rules. For instance, a sign indicating
that littering on the street is wrong illustrates the injunctive norm regarding
littering behavior. We can adjust our littering behavior according to the
injunctive norm as well. The Focus Theory of Normative Conduct (Cialdini,
Reno, and Kallgren, 1990) provides an answer to this question.
• According to this theory, for norms to influence behavior, they need to be
salient in that environment and situation, easily come to mind. Norms
influence behavior to the extent that they are salient.
• The impact of norms that are not salient is minimal or nonexistent.

54. • Situation norms are norms that guide our behavior in specific situations
and environments. Do we need to be aware of situational norms to
adhere to them? For example, when entering a museum or library, do you
automatically speak more softly without consciously realizing it?
• Recent research suggests that individuals do not need to be consciously
aware of situational norms to adhere to them. Norms influence our
behavior even if we do not consciously think about them.
• A study conducted by Aarts and Dijksterhuis (2003) provides a good
example of how norms can automatically influence our behavior.
Researchers first showed participants pictures of either a library or an
empty train station. Some participants were told they would later visit the
depicted location, while others were not given this information. Later,
participants were asked to read aloud a set of words.

55. • The researchers' expectations were as follows: Participants who were
told they would later visit the depicted location, the library, would
activate situational norms related to being quiet, and as a result, they
would read the words more softly.
• The same effects were not expected for those who were not told they
would visit the library and for those shown the empty train station. In
this study, the results aligned with the researchers' expectations.
• Ultimately, situational norms that dictate how we should behave in
specific situations and environments influence our behavior, and this
influence can develop through automatic processes that we may not
consciously perceive.

56. • Identification
• Social compliance behavior can also arise as a result of the process of
identification. Here, an individual conforms to the opinion of someone or a
group in order to resemble them. At the core of compliance behavior
induced by identification lies the attractiveness or value of the one being
emulated.
• As long as the value of the one being emulated is maintained in the eyes of
the one complying, the compliance behavior continues; if this value
diminishes, the compliance behavior will also cease.
• For example, Mehmet does not drive very fast because his beloved father is
against speeding. Mehmet's behavior aligns with that of his beloved and
respected father in order to resemble him. He drives slowly not because he
believes in the importance of it but simply because his father thinks so and
wants him to do so. However, if Mehmet becomes angry with his father or
no longer respects him, he may abandon driving slowly.

57. • Internalization
• Compliance behavior can also arise through a third mechanism, which we
call internalization. In this type of compliance behavior, an individual
conforms to a rule or opinion because they genuinely believe it to be
correct.
• Here, the idea being followed is a credible one for the individual
conforming; at the core of compliance behavior through internalization lies
the belief and acceptance of its correctness.
• Using the traffic example again, if Ali genuinely believes in the importance
of the speed limit, even if there is no police control and nobody else asks
him to slow down, he will do so simply because he has truly internalized
this traffic rule.
• Similarly, when an individual conforms to the opinion of a group because
they genuinely believe that opinion to be correct, it signifies compliance
behavior through internalization.

58. Bystander Intervention
• In 1964, a young woman called Kitty Genovese was brutally murdered
outside her New York apartment. Although there were many
witnesses to the event, none immediately stepped in to help her.
• Psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley explained this bystander
effect (sometimes called bystander apathy) as people’s reluctance to
help because they believe others will help instead. We also look to
others to see how to behave, so if no one else is helping, we will not
help either.

59. • Situational factors affecting bystander intervention
• Diffusion of responsibility
• One of the main reasons for the bystander effect is because we feel less
personally responsible when there are more people around to
potentially help.
• When we witness an emergency situation in a crowd, the larger the
crowd is, the less responsibility individuals feel to intervene because we
diffuse the responsibility onto others.
• We justify our inaction because there are plenty of others who can help
instead. In a smaller crowd, we may feel more inclined to intervene and
help because there are fewer people to share responsibility with. This
social influence on our behaviour is called diffusion of responsibility.

60. • Noticing the event
• In large crowds we tend to keep ourselves to ourselves and pay less
attention to what is going on around us. We are therefore less likely
to notice an emergency situation than when on our own. If you were
in a room and smoke started billowing under the door, you would
probably notice this and raise the alarm straight away.
• Latané and Darley (1969) conducted such an experiment where
participants were alone or in groups. They found that we take longer
to notice the smoke and are slower to react when in a group
compared to when we are alone in the room.

61. • Pluralistic ignorance
• Another reason for the bystander effect is because, when in situations,
we often look to others and react based on what other people are
doing. We look to others to help us interpret the situation. If we see a
large number of people not helping, we are likely to interpret the
situation as a nonemergency, even if that is not the case.
• However, if we witness other people helping, we are likely to offer
assistance as well. This social influence on our behaviour is known as
pluralistic ignorance (similar to informational social influence). In a
smaller crowd, we may feel more inclined to intervene and help
because there are fewer people to share the responsibility. In an
emergency, we are less likely to be influenced by the behaviour of
others.

62. • Cost of helping
• Sometimes we evaluate the situation as having too high a cost as it
risks harm to ourselves, so we choose not to help. If an emergency
situation is judged as dangerous, such as intervening in a fight, we tend
not to risk getting involved.
• Similarly, if we are in a rush and do not have time to stop, we are less
inclined to help as it is a cost to ourselves. However, if the cost of not
helping is great, such as a person experiencing a dangerous emergency,
then we are more likely to help because the cost for the victim is
greater than the cost to ourselves.
• This may appear to be a selfless act because we are placing ourselves
in harms way for another, but actually we may be selfishly trying to
avoid the guilt we would experience had we not helped.

63. Discussion Questions
• In which situations do people exhibit social conformity behavior?
• In which situations does social conformity hinder individuals' creativity and
innovation? In which situations does social conformity serve the good of
society?
• Does social conformity behavior vary culturally? How might social
conformity behavior differ across different cultures?
• What is the relationship between social conformity, leadership, and group
dynamics? How might leadership influence social conformity?
• With the influence of social media, how is social conformity behavior
changing? What kind of impact can social media have on social conformity?
• How can social conformity be encouraged or discouraged in society? What
is the role of the government and society?

64. In which situations do people exhibit social
conformity behavior?
• Group Pressure: When individuals feel the need to conform to the opinions, attitudes, or behaviors
of a group to avoid social rejection or gain social acceptance.
• Ambiguity: In situations where individuals are uncertain about the correct course of action or lack
information, they may conform to the behavior of others as a guide for appropriate behavior.
• Normative Influence: When individuals conform to social norms or expectations to fit in with the
majority or avoid disapproval.
• Authority Figures: People may conform to the expectations or directives of authority figures, such
as leaders, parents, teachers, or supervisors, out of respect for their position or fear of
consequences.
• Cultural Factors: Cultural norms, values, and traditions influence social conformity behavior, as
individuals often adhere to societal standards to maintain harmony within the cultural context.
• Fear of Deviance: Individuals may conform to avoid standing out or appearing deviant, particularly
in situations where nonconformity carries negative consequences.
• Desire for Information: In ambiguous or unfamiliar situations, individuals may conform to others'
behavior or opinions to gain valuable information or insight.
• Overall, social conformity behavior occurs in situations where individuals seek acceptance, avoid
conflict, or rely on others for guidance and validation.

65. In which situations does social conformity hinder individuals' creativity
and innovation? In which situations does social conformity serve the
good of society?
• Social conformity can hinder individuals' creativity and innovation in the following situations:
• Groupthink: When individuals prioritize group cohesion and harmony over critical thinking and
innovation, groupthink can stifle creativity and limit alternative viewpoints.
• Fear of Rejection: Individuals may suppress unconventional ideas or perspectives to avoid social
rejection or criticism from the group, leading to conformity at the expense of innovation.
• Normative Influence: Social norms and expectations may discourage deviation from established
standards or practices, discouraging individuals from exploring new ideas or approaches.
• Lack of Diversity: Homogeneous groups or environments may discourage diverse perspectives and
alternative viewpoints, limiting opportunities for creative thinking and innovation.
• Authoritarian Environments: In settings where authority figures enforce strict adherence to rules
or standards, individuals may feel reluctant to challenge the status quo or propose innovative
solutions.

66. • On the other hand, social conformity can serve the good of society in certain situations:
• Social Order: Conformity to societal norms and laws helps maintain social order and
stability, contributing to the smooth functioning of communities and institutions.
• Cultural Cohesion: Shared values, beliefs, and norms foster unity and solidarity within
communities, promoting cooperation and collective action for the common good.
• Socialization: Conformity to social expectations facilitates the socialization process,
helping individuals learn appropriate behavior and norms within their cultural context.
• Collective Action: Conformity to social norms can mobilize individuals to work together
towards common goals, such as community service, environmental conservation, or social
justice initiatives.
• Mutual Trust: Consistent adherence to shared norms and expectations builds trust and
cooperation among members of society, fostering social cohesion and reciprocity.

67. Does social conformity behavior vary culturally? How might
social conformity behavior differ across different cultures?
• Individualism vs. Collectivism: Cultures that prioritize individualism tend to
value independence, autonomy, and personal achievement. In such
cultures, individuals may be more inclined to express their unique opinions
and resist conformity to group norms. On the other hand, collectivist
cultures emphasize group harmony, cooperation, and interdependence. In
these cultures, individuals are more likely to conform to group expectations
and prioritize social cohesion over personal preferences.
• Power Distance: Cultures vary in their acceptance of hierarchical structures
and power differentials. In societies with high power distance, individuals
may be more inclined to conform to authority figures and defer to
hierarchical positions. Conversely, cultures with low power distance may
exhibit less conformity to authority and encourage more egalitarian
interactions.

68. • Uncertainty Avoidance: Cultures also differ in their tolerance for ambiguity and
uncertainty. In societies with high uncertainty avoidance, individuals may exhibit greater
conformity to established norms and traditions as a means of reducing uncertainty and
maintaining stability. Conversely, cultures with low uncertainty avoidance may be more
open to experimentation and innovation, leading to less conformity to social norms.
• Cultural Tightness vs. Looseness: Some cultures have strong norms and strict adherence to
social rules, known as cultural tightness. In these cultures, social conformity may be more
pronounced, and deviating from established norms may be met with greater social
disapproval. Conversely, cultures characterized by cultural looseness have more relaxed
norms and greater tolerance for diverse viewpoints, leading to lower levels of social
conformity.
• Cultural Values and Beliefs: Cultural values such as individualism, collectivism, respect for
authority, and adherence to tradition influence social conformity behavior. Cultural beliefs
about the importance of social harmony, reputation, and face-saving also shape
individuals' willingness to conform to group expectations.

69. What is the relationship between social conformity, leadership, and
group dynamics? How might leadership influence social conformity?
• Role Modeling: Leaders serve as role models whose behavior and attitudes
are observed and often emulated by group members. When leaders
demonstrate conformity to social norms and expectations, group members
are more likely to follow suit, leading to increased overall conformity within
the group.
• Norm Setting: Leaders have the power to establish and reinforce group
norms and standards of behavior. Through explicit communication, implicit
cues, and consistent actions, leaders can shape the norms that govern
group interactions. Group members may conform to these norms to gain
approval, avoid conflict, or align themselves with the leader's vision and
values.

70. • Social Influence: Leaders possess authority and influence within the group, which
can exert significant pressure on individual members to conform to group
expectations. The perceived legitimacy and credibility of the leader can amplify
the impact of social influence, leading to greater conformity among group
members.
• Group Cohesion: Effective leadership fosters a sense of cohesion and unity among
group members, promoting shared goals, values, and identities. In cohesive
groups, members are more likely to conform to group norms and adhere to
collective decisions to maintain group harmony and solidarity.
• Decision-Making Processes: Leaders play a crucial role in group decision-making
processes, influencing the extent to which group members engage in social
conformity. Authoritarian leaders may impose their preferences and expectations
on group members, leading to higher levels of conformity. In contrast, democratic
leaders may encourage open discussion, dissent, and critical thinking, potentially
reducing conformity pressure within the group.

71. With the influence of social media, how is social conformity behavior
changing? What kind of impact can social media have on social
conformity?
• Visibility of Norms: Social media amplifies the visibility and dissemination
of social norms and behaviors by providing a platform for individuals to
showcase their beliefs, preferences, and lifestyles. As users encounter
curated representations of social norms and trends, they may feel pressure
to conform to these standards to gain acceptance and validation from their
online communities.
• Peer Influence: Social media facilitates peer-to-peer influence and social
comparison, where individuals observe and emulate the behaviors of
others within their social networks. Users may conform to prevailing
trends, opinions, and behaviors exhibited by their online peers to fit in,
avoid social exclusion, or enhance their online reputation and popularity.

72. • Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: Social media algorithms often
personalize users' content feeds based on their past interactions and
preferences, creating filter bubbles and echo chambers that reinforce
existing beliefs and opinions. Within these digital environments, individuals
may experience heightened conformity to group norms and ideologies, as
dissenting perspectives are filtered out or marginalized.
• Viral Trends and Challenges: Social media platforms frequently host viral
trends, challenges, and memes that encourage widespread participation
and conformity among users. These phenomena can exert significant social
pressure on individuals to conform to popular trends, often driven by the
desire for social recognition, belonging, and engagement.

73. • Influencer Marketing: Influencers and celebrities wield considerable
influence on social media platforms, shaping consumer behavior,
lifestyle choices, and cultural trends. Individuals may conform to the
preferences and endorsements of influential figures, seeking to
emulate their perceived success, status, and lifestyle.
• Social Validation and FOMO: Social media platforms emphasize
metrics of social validation such as likes, shares, and followers, which
serve as indicators of acceptance and popularity within online
communities. The fear of missing out (FOMO) can drive individuals to
conform to social norms and behaviors in pursuit of social validation
and inclusion.

74. How can social conformity be encouraged or discouraged in society?
What is the role of the government and society?
• Education and Awareness: Educating individuals about the importance of
critical thinking, independent judgment, and self-expression can help foster
a culture that values diversity of thought and encourages individuals to
question prevailing norms and beliefs. Schools, universities, and
community organizations play a crucial role in promoting open-
mindedness, tolerance, and intellectual curiosity.
• Promoting Diversity and Inclusion: Embracing diversity and inclusivity
within society cultivates an environment where individuals feel
empowered to express their unique identities, perspectives, and
experiences without fear of judgment or discrimination. Celebrating
cultural, ethnic, and ideological diversity helps challenge conformity to
dominant social norms and promotes acceptance of alternative viewpoints.

75. • Protecting Civil Liberties: Governments have a responsibility to safeguard
civil liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, and association,
which are essential for fostering individual autonomy and resisting undue
social pressure to conform. Legal protections against censorship, coercion,
and discrimination help create an environment conducive to free
expression and dissent.
• Regulating Media and Advertising: Governments can enact regulations to
mitigate the influence of media and advertising on social conformity by
promoting transparency, accuracy, and ethical standards in content
dissemination. Limiting the dissemination of misleading or harmful
content, particularly to vulnerable populations, helps mitigate the negative
impact of media manipulation and commercial interests on social behavior.