What Is Conformity? Definition, Types, Psychology Research

Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in belief or behavior in order to fit in with a group.

Types of Conformity

Herbert Kelman established a seminal framework for understanding why individuals yield to group pressure.

He identified three distinct levels of conformity that vary in depth and duration.

These levels depend on the individual’s motivation for aligning with the majority. Understanding these distinctions helps psychologists predict how long a behavior change will persist.

1. Compliance (or group acceptance)

Compliance represents the most shallow level of conformity.

It involves a person publicly agreeing with the group while privately maintaining their original dissenting views.

The primary motivation is the desire to gain specific rewards or avoid social punishment.

• Behavioral Duration: This change is strictly temporary. The behavior ceases immediately once the group pressure is removed.

• Psychological Mechanism: It is driven by normative social influence; this is the pressure to be liked by others.

• Empirical Link: This was the primary type of conformity observed in the Asch (1951) line studies. Participants knew the correct answer but gave the wrong one to avoid looking foolish.

2. Identification (or group membership)

Identification occurs when an individual adopts the behaviors of a group to establish a satisfying relationship.

The person values their membership in the group and wants to be associated with its identity.

While this involves both public and private acceptance, it is often tied to the specific social role.

• Behavioral Duration: This change generally lasts only as long as the person remains a member of that group.

• Psychological Mechanism: The individual adopts the group’s norms to bolster their own self-image.

• Empirical Link: The Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971) serves as a classic example. Participants adopted the aggressive or submissive traits associated with their roles as “guards” or “prisoners.”

3. Internalization (genuine acceptance of group norms)

Ingratiational

Leon Mann (1969) later identified a fourth type known as ingratiational conformity.

This is motivated by a proactive desire to gain favor or impress others rather than a reactive fear of rejection.

• Motivation: The individual seeks social rewards or “status points” through agreement.

• Distinction: It differs from standard compliance because group pressure is not the primary catalyst. The individual chooses to conform as a strategic social maneuver.

Key Differences in Conformity Types

Feature	Compliance	Identification	Internalisation
Public Agreement	Yes	Yes	Yes
Private Agreement	No	Yes (Temporary)	Yes (Permanent)
Main Motivation	Reward/Punishment	Membership/Role	Desire to be correct
Impact Duration	Short-term	Medium-term	Long-term

Why Do People Conform?

Deutsch and Gerrard (1955) identified two reasons why people conform:

1. Normative Social Influence (NSI)

Normative social influence occurs when an individual conforms to satisfy the human requirement for social acceptance.

This motivation stems from the fear of being marginalized or rejected by the collective.

Because social groups often punish deviance, individuals align their behavior with group norms to remain “in favor.”

• Conformity Type: This process typically leads to compliance; it is a superficial change where the individual adopts the group’s actions while privately disagreeing.

• Psychological Trigger: NSI is strongest when the group is important to the person or when the group size increases.

• Empirical Evidence: The Asch (1951) line studies provide the clearest example of NSI. Participants gave incorrect answers they knew were wrong simply to avoid the discomfort of standing out.

2. Informational Social Influence (ISI)

Informational social influence is driven by the desire to be accurate and the need for cognitive certainty.

In situations where the “correct” response is unclear, people look to others as a valid source of information.

This behavior is based on the assumption that the group possesses better knowledge or more experience than the individual.

• Conformity Type: This process usually results in internalisation; it is a deep and permanent shift where the individual truly believes the group’s perspective.

• Psychological Trigger: ISI occurs most frequently in ambiguous situations, during a crisis, or when an expert is present.

• Empirical Evidence: The Sherif (1935) autokinetic study demonstrates ISI. Participants lacked a physical frame of reference and used the group’s estimates to create a stable reality.

Referent Informational Influence

Beyond the dual-process model, Social Identity Theory introduces the concept of referent informational influence.

This perspective suggests that people conform because they categorize themselves as members of a specific “in-group.”

The individual views the group’s norms as a defining feature of their own identity.

• Motivation: Conformity here is not about fearing rejection or seeking truth. Instead, it is about maintaining a sense of self that is tied to the group’s values.

• Distinction: Individuals conform to “their” group even if no one is watching, as the group norm has become a personal standard.

Factors Affecting Conformity

The propensity to conform is not fixed but fluctuates based on environmental and personal conditions.

Psychologists categorize these influences into situational variables, which relate to the external environment, and dispositional characteristics, which relate to internal personality traits.

These factors interact to determine the intensity of the pressure felt by the individual.

Situational Factors

Situational factors represent the external dynamics of a group setting. These variables often dictate the level of normative or informational pressure applied to a person.

Group Size

Conformity rates generally rise as the number of people in the majority increases.

Research suggests that a majority of three to five people creates a peak level of normative pressure.

Beyond this point, adding more members results in diminishing returns; the presence of ten people does not exert significantly more pressure than five.

Unanimity and Social Support

Complete consensus within a group creates immense pressure to comply.

However, the presence of a single dissenter; this is someone who breaks the group’s unanimous front, dramatically reduces conformity.

Even if the dissenter provides a different wrong answer, their presence provides social support. This presence validates the individual’s right to disagree and frees them from the fear of being the sole deviant.

Task Difficulty and Ambiguity

As a task increases in difficulty, the correct answer becomes less obvious.

Individuals subsequently lose confidence in their own perceptions and look to the group for clarity.

This shift represents a transition from normative influence to informational influence.

When uncertainty is high, the group is viewed as a necessary tool for accuracy.

Anonymity

The fear of public ridicule is a primary driver of conformity.

When individuals provide their responses privately or anonymously, conformity rates drop significantly.

Removing the “public eye” eliminates the threat of social rejection; this allows the individual to act according to their private beliefs.

Dispositional Characteristics

Dispositional factors refer to the internal traits and psychological makeup of the individual. These characteristics determine how a person perceives and processes group pressure.

Personality and Locus of Control

Individuals with low self-esteem or high anxiety conform more frequently to seek validation.

Conversely, those with an internal locus of control; this is the belief that one is responsible for their own life events, show greater resistance.

High intelligence and expertise also buffer against pressure by increasing self-confidence in one’s own judgment.

Cultural Context

Culture plays a defining role in social behavior.

Collectivistic cultures, such as those in East Asia, value social harmony and cooperation over individual expression.

In these societies, conformity is often viewed as a positive trait that strengthens group bonds.

Individualistic cultures, like the USA, prioritize personal autonomy, leading to lower average conformity rates.

Gender and Socialization

Some studies indicate that females may conform more than males in public settings.

This trend is often attributed to gender socialization; this is the process of learning societal roles that prioritize interpersonal harmony.

However, these differences often disappear when the task is gender-neutral or when participants feel expert in the subject matter.

Mood and Emotional State

The emotional state of an individual can alter their susceptibility to influence.

People are generally more amenable to group pressure when they are in a positive mood.

Similarly, the relief experienced after a fearful event makes a person more likely to comply with requests or group norms.

Conformity Experiments

Jenness (1932): Ambiguity and Conformity

Arthur Jenness conducted the first systematic study of conformity using an ambiguous task. He sought to understand how social interaction influences individual judgment when the “correct” answer is unclear.

• Aim: To investigate whether individual estimates of a quantity would converge toward a group mean in an uncertain situation.

• Procedure: Participants were asked to individually estimate the number of beans in a glass bottle. They were then placed in a room to discuss the total and provide a collective group estimate. Finally, participants were asked to provide a second individual estimate to see if they would stick to their original guess.

• Findings: Almost all participants changed their original guesses to align more closely with the group’s consensus.

• Conclusions: Social influence significantly impacts individual judgment. When reality is unclear, people rely on the collective opinion of others to establish a sense of accuracy.

Sherif (1935) Autokinetic Effect Experiment

Muzafer Sherif conducted a pivotal laboratory experiment to explore how group norms emerge in unstable environments. He utilized a visual illusion to create an objective sense of uncertainty.

• Aim: Sherif intended to demonstrate that individuals conform to collective standards when placed in an ambiguous situation.

• Procedure: Participants were placed in a completely dark room and viewed a stationary point of light. Due to the autokinetic effect, the light appears to move despite remaining still. Researchers first recorded individual estimates of the perceived movement. Later, participants were placed in groups of three to state their estimates aloud. Sherif specifically grouped two people with similar initial estimates with one person who had a very different view.

• Findings: The group estimates converged toward a central mean over repeated trials. The outlier participant, whose original view differed significantly, shifted their judgment to match the other two. Each group eventually established its own unique and consistent “norm” for the perceived distance.

• Conclusions: When situational cues are unclear, individuals look to others for guidance. This process provides the necessary information to resolve personal doubt. This experiment serves as the foundational evidence for informational conformity; it proves that the need for certainty drives group consensus.

Examples of Conformity

• Fashion, Trends, and Fads: We often adopt the clothing, hairstyles, and music tastes of those around us to avoid standing out or facing criticism. Even a simple choice, such as deciding to wear a hat to a wedding because everyone else is doing it, demonstrates a desire to conform to the majority and avoid ridicule.
• Social Media Challenges: The viral spread of online trends is a powerful modern example of conformity. During the summer of 2014, the “Ice Bucket Challenge” saw millions of people conforming to the social expectation to dump freezing water on themselves and donate to ALS research, fueled by the participation of friends and celebrities. 
• Consumer Behavior and the “Bandwagon Effect”: Advertisers heavily rely on conformity to drive sales. People often buy specific products, such as a particular brand of smartphone, because their peers recommend it and they feel that owning it will grant them acceptance into a desirable social group.
• Health and Lifestyle Choices: Our decisions regarding healthy or unhealthy habits are heavily influenced by those around us. For example, teenagers often begin smoking or engaging in binge drinking because they are exposed to peers who engage in these behaviors, establishing them as a social norm.
• Social Roles and Environments: Behavior is frequently dictated by the specific social norms of a given setting. For instance, college students conform to the social role of a “student” by walking into a classroom, sitting quietly at a desk, and taking notes, because that is the culturally shared expectation. 
• Ambiguous: When people do not know how to act, they observe others and conform to their behavior. If you are at a fancy restaurant and do not know which cutlery to use, you will likely watch other diners and copy them. 

References

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburg, PA: Carnegie Press.

Crutchfield, R. (1955). Conformity and Character. American Psychologist, 10, 191-198.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 51(3), 629.

Jenness, A. (1932). The role of discussion in changing opinion regarding a matter of fact.  The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 279-296.

Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.

Mann, L (1969). Social Psychology. New York: Wiley.

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27(187) .

Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Social Psychology Across Cultures: Analysis and Perspectives. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.