Conformity
Why do People Conform?
Conformity describes the tendency to align one's beliefs or behaviors with the norms of a group. This social influence can result from a desire for acceptance, fear of rejection, or the belief that the group is better informed.
The Basic Idea
Your best friends invite you to a music festival with their favorite artists. After looking through the lineup, you realize you are not familiar with the artists playing. You decide to listen to their songs in the hope that you might like them, but can’t help but notice you aren’t a fan of this genre of music. Despite your differing tastes, you convince yourself it’s not bad. In fact, you tell yourself, “It’s pretty good!” At the end of the day, you don’t want to be left out. Ultimately, you temporarily conform to your friends' music tastes, buy a ticket and join them at the festival.
Conformity refers to an individual aligning their behavior, perception, or opinion with those of another person or group.1 An individual may consciously or unconsciously act in a certain way due to influence from others. We naturally tend to unconsciously mirror the behaviors of those we interact with, such as language, gestures, and talking speed.2 We typically use descriptive norms, or perceptions of what most people do in a given situation, to guide our behaviors and actions. If you've ever been in a new or unfamiliar situation, you may have taken cues from other people to understand what proper behavior is in that context. Researchers say that mimicking individuals can subconsciously increase our connection to those we interact with, allowing interactions to flow more effortlessly.3
There are two main explanations provided by social psychology for conformity1:
- Informational conformity refers to an individual aligning with the view of others as a result of an assumption that others hold knowledge about a situation or topic.
- Normative conformity refers to an individual giving in to the expectations or opinions of others, such as friends or co-workers, in an effort to be liked or accepted.
Part of the prevalence of conformity in human behavior can be explained by reinforcement learning.1 Being liked or accepted by a certain group is, in itself, a reward.
Key Terms
Descriptive norm: Beliefs we hold about what others do that drive a behavior or practice. We engage in particular behaviors because we think that others in the community do the same.
Bystander Effect: A psychological phenomenon where individuals are less likely to help someone in need or intervene in an emergency situation when other people are present. A person's likelihood of taking action decreases as the number of bystanders increases.
Groupthink: A concept which describes how the desire for harmony and consensus within a group can lead to poor decision-making. More specifically, group cohesion is prioritized over critical thinking.
Reinforcement Learning: In machine learning, this is when an AI algorithm learns to make decisions by interacting with an environment to maximize cumulative rewards. This type of learning can be analogized with how humans and animals learn through trial and error.
Collectivism: A philosophy or cultural value that emphasizes the importance of group cohesion, cooperation, and the prioritization of group goals and well-being over the needs or desires of the individual. Individuals from collectivist cultures have been found to exhibit higher degrees of conformity.22
Individualism: The opposite of collectivism, individualism emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy, self-expression, and personal achievement.
History
Muzafer Sherif, a Turkish-American social psychologist, was an early contributor to the idea of conformity. Sherif designed an experiment which involved participants being placed in a dark room, where they would stare at a dot of light. Despite the dot never moving, due to an illusion known as the autokinetic effect it would appear to shift. Participants were asked to estimate the amount the light moved. They shared their estimates out loud. Repeated trials found that each group of three participants converged towards an estimate.4 Sherif’s results, published in 1935, highlighted the way that different groups converged towards their respective estimates, which occurred naturally without any discussion or prompts.
When the groups returned one week later to perform the same test individually, they repeated their groups’ converged estimates. Sherif concluded the participants had adopted their respective groups’ way of thinking.4 This experiment provided early evidence on the social effects of individuals’ perceptions.
Building on the significance of Sherif’s 1935 study, Solomon Asch designed a modified version of Sherif’s experiment. Asch, a Polish-American social psychologist, argued Sherif’s experiment had a key problem: researchers could not be absolutely sure the participants had conformed, especially when there was no correct answer to Sherif’s ambiguous experiment.5
The line judgment task in Solomon Asch’s 1951 experiment.
Asch proceeded to design his now-famous line experiment. Participants were shown a target line, and then asked to choose one of three lines which most closely resembled the target. When participants performed the task individually, they chose the correct answer almost all the time. However, when placed in a room of actors, who were told beforehand to choose an incorrect answer, roughly 75% of participants conformed at least once by choosing a clearly incorrect answer. Only an approximate 25% of participants never conformed.6
When asked, most participants who conformed said that even though they did not believe they were selecting the correct response, they did so out of fear of being ridiculed. Some conforming participants believed they were choosing the correct response.6
Following these experiments, a 1958 publication by Harvard Professor of Social Ethics, Herbert Kelman, formally described three main types of conformity:7
- Compliance: A type of public conformity which involves keeping one’s initial beliefs, but not disclosing them to others due to the fear of rejection or the pursuit for approval.
- Identification: Involves conforming to an individual one looks up to, such as a family member or a celebrity. This can be a result of attraction, and Kelman describes identification as a deeper version of conformity than compliance.
- Internalization: Adopting beliefs and perceptions publicly and privately. This is the deepest type of conformity and has long term effects.
Kelman’s articulation of three distinct types of conformity were highly influential in social psychology. Social psychology research today has streamlined Kelman’s ideas with Deutsch and Gerard's findings to establish the two types of conformity, informational and normative, explained above.
People
Muzafer Sherif
A Turkish-American social psychologist whose work was important in developing modern social psychology. Sherif was an early contributor to the idea of conformity with his 1935 publication,A Study of Some Social Factors in Perception, involving an autokinetic experiment which provided evidence for the behavior of conformity in humans.4
Solomon Asch
Born in Warsaw, the Polish-American social psychologist contributed to literature on conformity by developing a renowned experiment involving a line judgement task. Based on Muzafer Sherif’s 1935 publication, Asch was able to further provide evidence for the effects of conformity on human behavior.6
Herbert Kelman
An American Professor of Social Ethics at Harvard University. Kelman is renowned for his work on international and intercommunal conflict resolution, specifically on the subject of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.8 Kelman influenced the modern interpretation of conformity by formally articulating three types of conformity in his 1958 publication,Compliance, Identification, and Internalization Three Processes of Attitude Change.
Cass Sunstein
American Legal Scholar and author of bestselling books including Nudges: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness and Conformity: The Power of Social Influences, Cass Sunstein is a leading figure in the field of behavioral economics. Sunstein is currently a professor at Harvard Law School.
behavior change 101
Start your behavior change journey at the right place
Consequences
In his book Conformity: The Power of Social Influences, Cass Sunstein argues that conformity can be both good and bad for society and decision-making.18 In one example, Sunstein explains how conformity can influence adherence to public health initiatives. When public smoking bans were enacted in three cities in California, compliance with the new rule was very high. Contrary to what you might think, Sunstein doesn’t believe that the threat of state enforcement was what led to this adherence to the ban, but rather because a law suggests that most people believe it is wrong to smoke in a public place. If people believe that the general consensus is that it is wrong to do something, they are less likely to break the law.
On the other hand, conformity can lead to something called social cascades, which are large-scale social movements in which many people end up thinking something or doing something because of what a few early movers either said or did.21 Social cascades build even more quickly now thanks to the popularity of social media on which new ideas can snowball rapidly. Social cascades can have positive and negative consequences, depending on your perspective, from a new novel going viral to peaceful protests that spiral into violence.
Marketing managers can apply knowledge of conformity to design effective promotions and advertisement campaigns. Themes of normative conformity can be used to better target a young audience, who tend to display a desire to be accepted. A promotion targeting this group may use referrals to induce normative conformity.9 Similarly, knowledge of conformity can be applied to choosing the appropriate advertising message source. If marketing managers desire an informational conformity response, they can design a promotion to ensure the message is delivered by a source that the target audience perceives to be credible.9
Conformity can also have negative consequences, especially if social influence clouds individual judgment, undermines people’s ability to make decisions that are right for their personal circumstances, or forces them to take actions that go against what’s right ethically. Perhaps one of the most startling examples of human beings ignoring their own consciences to conform is Stanley Milgram’s infamous obedience experiment. Participants were told to deliver a series of (fake) electric shocks to what they believed was another participant (in fact, it was an actor) when they responded incorrectly, with each shock increasing in intensity each time. The participant administering the shock could clearly hear the screams of the other person, and if at any point they refused to shock the other person, the experimenter would sternly suggest that they continue. Specifically, by saying the “experiment requires that you continue.”17 All participants were willing to administer a shock of 300 volts, while two-thirds went up to the highest voltage possible.
Although Milgram’s experiment primarily offered insights into obedience in the face of authority, it also demonstrates our tendency to conform to what is expected by other people, particularly when we misperceive how a normal person may act in that situation. From the perspective of informational conformity, the participants may have believed that the experimenter had certain information about the task that they were unaware of, leading them to continue following the instructions. You could argue that blind obedience is social conformity gone very wrong in this context.
There are more common day-to-day examples of the downsides of conformity for individuals and society as a whole. For example, research has found a correlation between illicit drug and alcohol consumption among teenagers and conformity.20 Peer pressure plays a significant role in adolescent behavior, including substance use. In this context, conformity typically arises from the desire to gain social acceptance, avoid social rejection, or emulate perceived norms within a peer group.
Controversies
Some individuals may say conformity is undesirable, as it prevents individuals from expressing themselves. However, conformity is not inherently positive or negative. Returning your shopping cart, not picking your nose in public, and acting respectful at a funeral can all be considered acts of conformity. On the road, respecting lane etiquette is an act of conformity that contributes to a society with fewer driving accidents.
Nevertheless, conformity to social pressure in a group setting can also have adverse effects which lead to groupthink. When people prioritize cohesion and agreement in a group, decisions may be reached without critical evaluation of the consequences. Though there are many other factors that contribute to groupthink, normative conformity can cause groupthink if individuals are afraid their ideas would be rejected. Informational conformity can also cause groupthink when individuals who falsely perceive group members to be more intelligent and thus conform to their ideas without the necessary critical evaluation.13 Conformity is also believed to influence the bystander effect, another phenomenon in which people’s ability to make independent decisions is undermined. Seeing other people not taking action can discourage us from intervening in a situation when maybe we should. 19
Another point of controversy around conformity is whether its prevalence is that much more common than the prevalence of deviance. Some researchers argue deviance is as prevalent as conformity and suggest the appearance of deviance appearance is minimized.10 Though Solomon Asch’s line judgement task is considered as a classic piece of evidence supporting conformity, an often overlooked finding is the frequency in which a lone participant continued telling the truth in the midst of incorrect responses by the research actors. Researchers argue Asch’s publication, considered a classic example of evidence that supports conformity, should also be used to support the idea that individuals often do not conform.11
There are important factors which can influence an individual’s desire to not give in to social pressures. Though oversimplified, cultural patterns can explain why some individuals prefer not to conform. Individualistic cultures tend to prefer being different from the group. This culture values independence and self-sufficiency, prioritizing the needs of themselves over those of the group. In contrast, collectivist cultures are generally more likely to conform as this culture prioritizes the needs of family and friends before their own.12
Case Study
Conforming to a government’s COVID-19 recommendations.
At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals were overwhelmed with information from public health officials, politicians, news outlets, and social media. During this time, we could see that the public could be influenced by informational conformity. Trusted and popular politicians, in addition to credible public health services, were constantly updating recommendations and restrictions. At the same time, the public could also be influenced by normative conformity, with pressure from their family and friends to respect or defy certain behaviors, such as downplaying the dangers of the virus.14
Some individuals perceived differences between the guidance of government officials and the opinions of their social group. When individuals notice that a significant number of people are not respecting certain regulations, it can negatively affect the level of trust in government officials and other credible sources. This can result in the dangerous undermining of critical institutions’ validity.14
Conformity in children
When do we start conforming to those around us? Is this something that only happens to teenagers and adults, or does it start occurring during childhood?
Various researchers have explored these questions with each one coming to a different conclusion. In a conformity experiment conducted by Imogen Large and her colleagues, 155 children aged between 6 to 14 years played a computer game that involved moving an object around that was twisting one way or the other. To put the child’s own perceptions in conflict with the social influence of another person, each child was given an advisor who, from time to time, fed the child with incorrect information about which way the object was twisting, despite the fact that the child could see the direction clearly themself.
The children under the age of 12 believed their own eyes and dismissed the misinformation given to them by the advisor. In contrast, those over the age of 12 were more easily swayed by what they were being told. The researchers concluded that social influence bias begins at around 12 years of age but only in neurotypical children; the same bias does not appear to develop in autistic adolescents, providing a possible explanation for some of their difficulties in social interactions.15
Other research suggests that social conformity may affect children as young as six years old. In an experiment conducted by Sai Sun and Rongjun Yu, 41 children aged five to six years old were asked to rate the attractiveness of 90 faces presented to them one after another.16 They were then shown a group rating in the absence of their peers. 30 minutes later, the children were asked to rate the faces again. The results of the study showed that 6-year-old children tended to conform to their peers when the group rating differed from their own rating, a finding that was not observed in the younger children. To see how long the effect of social conformity lasted, the researchers repeated the judgment task a day later and found that the conformity effect still influenced the children’s decisions.
Adolescents, however, appear to be the most common victims of social conformity. Research by Laurence Steinberg and Kathryn Monahan shows that conformity to peers peaks at around age 14 and starts to decline thereafter.23
Related TDL Content
Social Norms
Why do we follow the behavior of others? Social norms can range from general rules to specific customs, such as the Western custom of shaking hands with somebody when you meet them for the first time. This TDL piece explores the way social norms can influence our behavior around others.
Three Thought Patterns That Let Advertisers Influence You on Social Media
This piece explores how modern advertising uses informational and normative conformity to influence our behavior and provides tips on how we can resist these “mind games.”
Social Proof
How “smart” or how “casual” is the smart casual dress code for tonight’s company dinner? Do you ever ask your closest colleagues what they will be wearing to an event? Attempting to conform to the behavior we believe fits the situation is a phenomenon known as social proof. Read this article to learn more about the power of this phenomenon and how it can be applied in public health responses and e-commerce.
Sources
- Stallen, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2015). The neuroscience of social conformity: implications for fundamental and applied research. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00337
- Burger, J. (2019, June 28). 3 conformity and obedience – Introduction to psychology. OPENPRESS.USASK.CA. https://openpress.usask.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/conformity-and-obedience/
- Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893-910. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893
- Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology (Columbia University), 187,
- Mcleod, S. (2018, December 28). Asch conformity experiment. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html
- Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men; research in human relations (pp. 177–190). Carnegie Press.
- Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200275800200106
- Herbert C. Kelman. (n.d.). Scholars at Harvard. https://scholar.harvard.edu/hckelman/home
- Lascu, D., & Zinkhan, G. (1999). Consumer conformity: Review and applications for marketing theory and practice. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.1999.11501836
- Hodges, B. H. (2014). Rethinking conformity and imitation: divergence, convergence, and social understanding. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 726–726. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00726
- Hodges, B. H., & Geyer, A. L. (2006). A nonconformist account of the Asch experiments: Values, pragmatics, and moral dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 2-19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_1
- Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences : comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
- Group behavior. (n.d.). Lumen Learning. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-psychology/chapter/conformity-compliance-and-obedience/#:~:text=Conformity%20to%20group%20pressures%20can,inhibiting%20performance%20on%20difficult%20tasks
- Packer, D. J., Ungson, N. D., & Marsh, J. K. (2021). Conformity and reactions to deviance in the time of COVID-19. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(2), 311-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220981419
About the Author
Joshua Loo
Joshua was a former content creator with a passion for behavioral science. He previously created content for The Decision Lab, and his insights continue to be valuable to our readers.