NAME: AFREEN

ROLL NO. 2315211

SEMESTER: 2ND
SUBMISSION DATE : 20TH MAY 2024
SUBMITTED TO: HAFSA MA’AM

Conformity
Conformity as we know is a social influence that involves
influence exerted by a person or group of people that leads to
changing behaviours, attitude, beliefs, feelings of a person or
more than one person. There are many reasons for existence
of such social influence which can be group cohesion, social
unity, fear of exclusion, to exercise accurate behaviour etc.
Conformity differs from other social influences such as
obedience, persuasion, compliance or others. It is observed
through the spectrum of social pressure where a person
behaves, thinks, feels in a way that is viewed acceptable or
appropriate by a group or society thus rooted deeply in social
norms. A simple example of this would be; Stopping the
vehicle when traffic light gets Red, Indian women applying
Mehandi ( Henna ) on weddings or Voting for NC in the
elections. The above mentioned examples are very simple
illustration of how we conform to social norms (rules that
indicate what ought or should be done by members of society)
and also pressure of doing what everyone is doing. In these
situations people can behave differently but due to social
pressure their predictability to behave like majority gets high.
Thus, this behaviour refers to conformity. Conformity isn’t all
bad, although mediocrity and restrictions on personal freedom
is what it can lead to but it has it’s positives as well. Imagine
what a life of social chaos we would live if we didn’t follow
societal norms. Take an example of adhering to traffic lights
here. People also conform “to look good” or to fit in the
society. Like drinking branded whisky, or going to a popular
restaurant, wearing branded clothes or buying Apple smart
phones even though they can’t afford it. The negative impacts
of conformity causes social issues such as bullying, slavery,
drug abuse, cussing etc. Children who don’t give in to
conformity will become targets of bullying. A Japanese
expression translating to “the nail that sticks out gets
hammered down” is what explains the situation best, in the
history of slavery where black folks in fear of being shunned
conformed to slavery. Conformity isn’t always situational; it
does not only change the outward behaviour but sometimes
also alters the internal beliefs, attitudes, and even identities
due to group influence. It occurs involuntarily thus escapes
our introspection. The impact of conformity can vary
depending on factors such as cultural background, age,
gender, individual personality and more. Group conformity is
a universally recognized and powerful influence on human
behaviour.
Experiments on Conformity:
 Muzafer Sheriff
A Turkish-American social psychologist whose work
was important in developing modern social psychology.
Sheriff was an early contributor to the idea of
conformity with his 1935 publication, “Autokinetic
Effect”. He conducted this experiment with a small
group of participants: Participants were placed in a dark
room individually and asked to stare at a stationary
point of light (dot) projected onto a wall. This stationary
light appears to move slightly due to small involuntary
eye movements. Initially, participants estimated how
much the light appeared to move. After several trials,
participants were then tested in groups where they had
to give their estimates aloud. As a result he found out,
when individuals were tested alone, their estimates of
the light’s movement varied widely. However, when
tested in groups, participants’ estimates began to
converge over time, suggesting they were influencing
each other’s perceptions. This convergence showed the
emergence of a group norm or consensus on how much
the light was moving, even though it was actually
stationary. This autokinetic effect is a perceptual
phenomenon that is highly susceptible to social
influence. In the absence of clear external reference
points, individuals tend to rely on others to define
reality. Building on the significance of Sheriff’s 1935
study, Solomon Asch designed a modified version of his
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.
 The Line Judgement Task in Solomon Asch’s
1951 experiment.
Asch designed 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.
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. His conformity
experiment is a classic demonstration of how social
context can override individual judgment, influencing
behaviour and decision-making in group settings.
 Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1973)
Zimbardo (1973) conducted an extremely controversial
study on conformity to social roles, called the Stanford
Prison Experiment. His aim was to examine whether
people would conform to the social roles of a prison
guard or prisoner, when placed in a mock prison
environment. His sample consisted of 21 male students
who volunteered. The participants were selected on the
basis of their physical and mental stability and were
paid for that. The participants were randomly assigned
to one of two social roles, prisoners or guards. He
wanted to make it realistic, the ‘prisoners’ were arrested
by real local police and fingerprinted, stripped and
given a numbered smocked to wear, with chains placed
around their ankles. The guards were given uniforms,
dark reflective sunglasses, handcuffs and a truncheon.
The guards were instructed to run the prison without
using physical violence. The experiment was set to run
for two weeks. He found that both the prisoners and
guards quickly identified with their social roles. Within
days the prisoners rebelled, but this was quickly
crushed by the guards, who then grew increasingly
abusive towards the prisoners. The guards dehumanised
the prisoners and they became increasingly submissive,
identifying further with their subordinate role. Thus,
Zimbardo concluded that people quickly conform to
social roles, even when the role goes against their moral
principles.
 Experiments by Latané and Darley (1968):
Smoke filled Room and Seizure Experiment
“The Bystander Effect ”
The Bystander Effect refers to the phenomenon where individuals are less likely
to offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present.

EXPT 1: Participants were placed in a room filling with

smoke, either alone or with others who were
confederates instructed to ignore the smoke. When
alone, participants typically reported the smoke and
took action promptly. In the presence of confederates
who did not react, participants were less likely to report
the smoke and take action, due to diffusion of
responsibility.
EXPT 2: Participants were led to believe they were in a
discussion via intercom. They heard a fellow
(confederate) apparently suffer a seizure and call for
help. The number of bystanders present influenced the
likelihood and speed of response, with fewer bystanders
leading to quicker and more frequent help. In
conclusion the experiments demonstrated that the
presence of others can inhibit individual decision-
making and action in emergencies. This is attributed to
diffusion of responsibility, where each bystander feels
less personal responsibility to intervene when others are
present, assuming that someone else will take action.
These studies have had a significant impact on
understanding bystander behaviour.
Herbert Kelman is indeed a prominent figure in social
psychology, particularly known for his contributions to
understanding conformity and his work on conflict
resolution, especially regarding the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Here’s an overview of his work on conformity:

Herbert Kelman and Types of

Conformity
In 1958, Herbert Kelman published a seminal paper
titled “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization:
Three Processes of Attitude Change,” in which he
articulated three distinct types of conformity:
1) Compliance:- referring to the type of conformity
where people change their behaviour in response to
direct social pressure, despite privately disagreeing
 with the group’s opinion. Like, going along with
the majority opinion in a group discussion or
conforming to social norms to avoid conflict or
gain rewards.
2) Identification:- It happens when individuals
conform to the expectations of a social role or
group with which they identify. Like, adopting the
beliefs and behaviours of a specific group or
community because of a desire to be accepted or to
maintain a positive social identity.
3) Internalization: - It is the deepest form of
conformity, where individuals accept a belief or
behaviour and make it their own, integrating it into
their core values and identity. Like, embracing
certain cultural or moral values and principles
because one genuinely believes they are right or
true.
Herbert Kelman’s framework has been influential in
understanding how and why people conform in
various social contexts. His work extended the
understanding beyond Asch’s initial focus on
informational and normative conformity by exploring
the underlying reasons for conformity.
Theories of Conformity
1) Informational Conformity: A type of conformity
in which an individual conforms to others
perspectives, beliefs, actions because we see others as
a source of correct information that guides our
behaviour. It happens when in an ambiguous situation
or a crisis we believe other’s action more accurate
than ours. Simple example of this would be social
media influencers advertising particular products
online, an individual looking to acquire correct
information perceives them as experts or
knowledgeable hence their behaviours and opinions
will start to align with them since they actually
believe in the authenticity of what they say or do. Or,
saying Good Morning, or Assalamualikum or wearing
Black on Christian funerals. Informational
Conformity often leads to Internalization or private
acceptance. Informative conformity often occurs in
situations in which there is high uncertainty and
ambiguity. In an unfamiliar situation, we are likely to
shape our behaviour to match that of others. The
actions of others inform us of the customs and
accepted practices in a situation. Others inform us of
what is right to do, how to behave in new situations.
2) Normative Conformity: A type of conformity
where an individual aligns their perspective and
behaviour with others in order to be accepted,
 potentially due to a fear of rejection. This occurs
when people conform to the group’s social norms in
order to fit in. Usually leading to public compliance
and not internalization. Example; A girl started
listening to Lana Del Rey to be like “The Cool Girls”
in her friend group and create an impression, A guy
started smoking because of peer pressure. Etc
According to Social Impact Theory (Latane and Wolf
1981)
Conformity to normative influences is directly
proportional to the following:
1) Strength: How important the group is to the
person.
2)Immediacy: Closeness to the group in physical
space and time.
3)Number: Number of people in the group.
In the above-mentioned experiments; Sheriff’s
Autokinetic Effect, Solomon Asch’s experiment
on conformity or Zimbardo's experiment we can
observe both Informational and Normative
conformity: Participants conformed due to a
desire to be accurate and to avoid being seen as
different or deviant. This conformity is driven by
the need to be right. In every experiment we
 observe conformity because subjects see others
as correct source of information denying their
own sense-perceptions in a group setting leading
to internalisation which is the deepest level of
conformity. Here a person changes both their
public behaviour (the way they act) and their
private beliefs. Some participants conformed to
the group's opinion in order to fit in and follow
the given societal norms and roles, to avoid
rejection and social disapproval. Also to be liked
and accepted by others thus the unanimity and
group size increased conformity rates.
Reporting Conversations:
In retrospection, I remembered a conversation with
a closest friend who had clearly conformed due to
normative influences. She changed her “sexual
orientation” because she wanted to fit in and not
be an imposter. I am well aware of the fact that
sexual orientation can be unpredictable but taking
in account the dynamics of the group that
influenced her and her personal preferences before
meeting them. I can say it was an act to feel
belonged. The group consists of female athletes
most of whom are lesbians or bisexuals but
because of the familiarity and devaluation of the
concept in the group it has become more of a trend
now. The girl prior to entering the team was madly
infatuated by her boyfriend-still is- and I didn’t see
any traces of her being gay, she was clearly not
into it. Here I don’t deny other sexual identities, I
rather emphasize on the trend. The group
dynamics of the team is close knitted around such
relationships, I sensed it to be a way for them to
deal with game pressure and not feel isolated. I
don’t argue all of them are conforming but I must
say my friend as I mentioned is clearly under
influence of social norms of the team rather than
her own sexuality. In a conversation I asked her
what has changed why she chose it for herself and
she replied “isme kya hai sb ka jo chal rha hai”
This statement clearly led me to the conclusion
that the change in behaviour was out of conformity
than change in sexual preference maybe she might
have rediscovered her sexuality but it was more of
an influence. Thus, I assume this to be a case of
Normative Conformity. But If her behaviour lasts
longer and internalizes I assume it to be
Informational.
One more instance, recently In my sister’s class
quiz students were proposed with a question with a
very obvious answer. While discussing, the class
topper (my sister) unfortunately gave the wrong
answer. Although whole class was right about it
but changed their answers to that of her. This is a
classical incident of Informational Conformity.

Thank you,
Regards.