Literature Review

Conformity

All humans possess a tendency of suppressing their opinions when they are part of a group. This

tendency of subduing the individual form of one self in order to maintain a collective form is

referred to as Conformity (TILLICH, 1957). However, this definition is ambiguous when it comes

to defining what a collective form actually is. Nahemow, on the other hand, defines conformity

as, “behavior enacted in accordance with the normative standards which have come to be set up

as the common culture” (Nahemow and Bennett, 1967)). Thus conformity can be stated as the act

of complying with social constructs when individual opinion is at odds with the majority

perspective.

Conformity occurs both willingly and unwillingly. Functional conformity occurs when

individuals try to re-enact the actions of existing members in order to fit better within the group

(Coultas and van Leeuwen, 2015)). This notion has been particularly useful in studying behavioral

patterns among non-human species such as chimpanzees (Coultas and van Leeuwen, 2015)). Fitting

in with the group consists of either acting like the group or behaving according to how the group

identifies an individual.

Historical Background

The first recorded study analyzing conformity took place in 1932 (“What is Conformity? | Simply

Psychology,” n.d.). Individuals were shown a bottle filled with beans and had to give an estimate

of how many beans the bottle contained. The individuals were then asked to sit in a group and

provide another estimate as a group. At the end each participant was asked individually if they
would change their estimates and it was found that most of the people changed their estimates

(“What is Conformity? | Simply Psychology,” n.d.)

The next most notable attempt at evaluating group conformity took place in 1935 when Sherif

designed an experiment to demonstrate how people changed their opinions when placed in

ambiguous situations. Individuals were asked to estimate the length moved by light spots which

only appeared to have moved. Once the individuals had recorded their estimates, they were

placed in groups of 3 with 2 people having similar estimates of lengths and one person having a

conflicting estimate. It was found that most of the people with conflicting estimates conformed

to the group estimate as they were suspicious of the information at their disposal (due to the

ambiguity) (Alexander et al., 1970).

Perhaps the most famous study pertinent to Conformity is the Asch experiment conducted in

1951 (Schulman, 1967). Here, individuals were asked to estimate which line from a combination

of comparison lines was equal to length with a target line. Individuals were seated alongside

planted confederates who would provide the wrong answer on 67% of the trials in order to see if

the individuals conformed (Schulman, 1967).

On average 32% of the participants conformed with almost 75% conforming at least once. This

shows that even in obvious situations, knowing the opinion or answers of others can cause

individuals to conform instead of trusting their own judgement (Schulman, 1967).

Types of Conformity

In order to understand how people conform it is vital to realize why they choose to do so.

Individuals can have different reasons for conforming. The most basic reason is to fit the profile
other individuals deem as likable. Zafar refers to this as conformity caused through social

influence and adds that this conformity is greater when individuals know they are being observed

(Zafar, 2009). Conformity also arises due to a lack of information on a decision makers part.

People are likely to give greater weight to opinions of others when they believe their information

to be insufficient (Zafar, 2009). Thus we can categorize conformity as being either normative or

informational.

In Normative Conformity people have a desire to meet the expectation of the majority. In this

case individuals comply as they fear being subjected to social sanctions or fear not living up to

already established expectations (Holzhausen and Dissertation, 1993). The aforementioned Asch

Experiment is an example of such conformity. As individual views remain unchanged, this can

be classified as compliance (Holzhausen and Dissertation, 1993).

In informational conformity individuals have a longing to be correct. Therefore, they look to

their immediate surroundings for a source of guidance and use what they obtain to fill their void

of knowledge. According to Zafar this type of conformity is more prevalent in situations where

the source of greatest utility is unclear. An example of this is Sherif’s experiment. Since the

individuals are likely to accept the obtained knowledge as truth, this form of conformity is an

example of internalization (“What is Conformity? | Simply Psychology,” n.d.).

Overtime, Asch’s experiment have been modified and repeated to discover the

relationship between conformity and various other factors.

Levels of Conformity

Compliance:
It is actually the changes happen in an individual’s behavior to fit in the group, although he is not

agreeing with the group. “Compliance can be said to occur when an individual accepts influence because

he hopes to achieve a favorable reaction from another person or group. He adopts the induced behavior

not because he believes in its content but because he expects to gain specific rewards or approval and

avoid specific punishments or disapproval by conforming” (Herbert C. Kelman, 1958).

Compliance is more about public conformity and behavior but still an individual keeps his independent

thoughts and beliefs. It occurs because of the motivation of recognition or rewards, and fear of rejection

or punishment. It is a short-term process and often an outcome of Normative social influence because an

individual conforms with group to fit in but independently may be, he does not stand with the group. It is

least effecting and enduring because of the rewards and punishments. Individual will perform and

conform with group in the presence of some incentives or punishments until he discovers some another

additional reasons to continue this behavior.

Identification:

Identification is a middle level conformity that is about feelings and emotions an individual has towards

someone with whom he is identifying or the one who influences him and he wants to keep a satisfying

relation with that person. The emotions are like sense of understanding, respect and love. “Identification

can be said to occur when an individual accepts influence because he wants to establish or maintain a

satisfying self-defining relationship to another person or a group” (Herbert C. Kelman, 1958).

In this scenario individual changes his private as well as public behavior for a short period of time until he

is with the group or someone he wants to conform. It is deeper type of conformity than compliance as an

individual attracted by the source (a group or an individual) itself. Like compliance, It is also remain for

short period and normally results of normative social influence (“What is Conformity? | Simply

Psychology,” n.d.). In identification, there is no need of punishment or approval but there is a need, a
desire to be like someone who is important for an individual. However, individual’s beliefs conform to

that person until he is important for him.

Internalization:

“This occurs 'when an individual accepts influence because the content of the induced behavior - the ideas

and actions of which it is composed - is intrinsically rewarding. He adopts the induced behavior because it

is congruent [consistent] with his value system' (Herbert C. Kelman, 1958).

An individual change his private as well as public behavior and beliefs not only in the presence of the

group but also in the absence of the group. It affects individual for long period of time and results of

informational social influence Internalization occurs when individual has a desire to be right and to be

right is the most powerful motivation (“What is Conformity? | Simply Psychology,” n.d.). That is why, in

internalisation whenever an individual gets information from a trustworthy and credible person, he

conforms with that person and absorbs that information in his beliefs system.

Social Pressure and Conformity

conformity was analyzed in a study held in three countries including Holland, Italy and Mexico.

The degree of conformity to family, religious and political authority were looked at. It was proven

that stress to social conformity leads to more field dependence and shows signs of less developed

differentiation. (Witkin et al., 1974).

This effect of social pressure and conformity was analyzed in a different angle by Aaron

C. Weinschenk and companions, who looked at the effects on voter mobilization and social

pressures. This study proved that social pressure does increase the level of conformity resulting in

increased voter turnout. (Weinschenk et al., 2018).

The effect of social conformity on collective voting behavior was also analyzed in another

study that stated that a social conformity theory assumes that people vote as members of a society,

taking collective interest. However, social conformity enters the analysis only when voting is

attributed explicitly to group or interpersonal pressure (Uhlaner 1986; Coleman 1990; Zuckerman

and Kotler-Berkowitz 1998) or when people vote because they believe it is their civic duty (Knack

1992; Knack and Kropf 1998; Blais 2000).

The bandwagon effect that exists in behaviors of voters is an explicit evidence of

conformity where voters take irrational decisions and go with the party most likely to win or switch

to the winner when their preferred candidates are not expected to win. Here the group pressure and

interpersonal conformity can also be said to have a much stronger effect on voting choice.

(Coleman, 2004).

Group Size and Conformity

The correlation of group size and conformity has been studied for a long time. Several

studies support the correlation between the two. Asch (1956) found that group size influenced
whether subjects conformed or not. The bigger the majority group (no of confederates), the more

people conformed. This was true only up to a certain point as the optimum conformity effects were

found with a majority of 3. Increasing the size of the majority beyond three did not increase the

levels of conformity found. Brown and Byrne (1997) also suggest that people might suspect

collusion if the majority rises beyond three or four. Similar results were found by Hogg & Vaughan

(1995), who state that when a group reaches its full extent with 3-5 person majority, additional

members have little effect towards conformity (“Group Size Effects on Conformity: The Journal

of Social Psychology: Vol 98, No 2,” n.d.), (“Group Size and Conformity - Rod Bond, 2005,”

n.d.). Methodological differences might account for previous failures in studies which aimed to

find this effect. (“Effects of Group Size and Stimulus Ambiguity on Conformity: The Journal of

Social Psychology: Vol 97, No 1,” n.d.)

Lack of Group Unanimity / Presence of an Ally and Conformity

As conformity drops off with five members or more, it may be that it’s the unanimity of

the group (the confederates all agree with each other) which is more important than the size of the

group. Asch broke up the unanimity (total agreement) of the group by introducing a dissenting

confederate. Asch (1956) found that even the presence of just one confederate that goes against

the majority choice can reduce conformity as much as 80%. For example, in the original

experiment, 32% of participants conformed on the critical trials, whereas when one confederate

gave the correct answer on all the critical trials conformity dropped to 5%.

This was supported in a study by Allen and Levine (1968). In their version of the

experiment, they introduced a dissenting (disagreeing) confederate wearing thick-rimmed glasses

– thus suggesting he was slightly visually impaired. Even with this seemingly incompetent

dissenter conformity dropped from 97% to 64%. Thereby, the presence of an ally decreases
conformity. The absence of group unanimity lowers overall conformity as participant feel a lesser

need for social approval of the group.

Personality and Conformity

When the personality is unable to function adequately in the social setting in which it lives,

social non-conformity occurs. Personality differences, at least partially, determine the social area

in which the person is unable to make a proper adjustment thereby impacting conformity. Vernon

Fox (1952) determined whether or not differences in measurable personality traits among criminals

are accompanied by differences in the areas of social nonconformity. Personality is not fixed, but

complex and dynamic, difficult to measure since no criminal personality type has been discovered.

However after the study was conducted, it was proven that there are areas of differential personality

development which influence to some degree the area of social nonconformity (Fox, 1952).

Small Group Cohesiveness and Conformity

Melvin M. Sakurai (1975) found that the influence exerted by others increases as

individuals enter into more intense and stable relationships. The foregoing considerations prompt

the following two hypotheses: (a) when cohesiveness is biased in terms of interpersonal attraction,

there will be little difference in conformity level regardless of whether conformity is perceived as

having pro-motive or detrimental consequences for group welfare; (b) when cohesiveness is biased

in terms of interdependence, there will be less detrimental as compared with pro-motive

conformity (Sakurai, 1975). Little work has been done to prove the hypothesis.

Morality and Conformity

compass that is unswayed by the actions of people around us. The Solomon Asch paradigm was

utilized to measure whether moral decision making is subject to conformity under social pressure

as other types of decision making have been demonstrated to be. Subjects made decisions about

moral dilemmas either alone or in a group of confederates posing as peers. Payel Kundu observed

that on a majority of trials, confederates rendered decisions that were contrary to judgments

typically elicited by the dilemmas. The outcomes indicated a pronounced effect of conformity:

compared to the control condition, permissible actions were considered less permissible when

confederates found them objectionable, and impermissible actions were judged more permissible

if confederates judged them so. (“Morality and conformity: The Asch paradigm applied to moral

decisions: Social Influence: Vol 8, No 4,” n.d.).

Status in the group and Conformity

Gary I. Schulman (1967) noticed that persons of middle status in a group give a higher rate

of conformity responses than high status persons. The interpretation has been that middle status

persons conform more to the group. However, the present data suggest an alternative

interpretation. Perhaps middle and high-status persons are equally influenced by concern with the

group's evaluation of them, but that high-status persons are more influenced than middle status

persons by concern with evaluations from authority figures (the experimenter). Given that the

experimenter's effect is to reduce conformity responses among males, it is possible that the high

status person gives few conformity responses in the Asch situation because the experimenter exerts

more (Schulman, 1967). The findings of this and other studies suggest that personality structure in

some instances may determine the social area in which conformity is most difficult.

Perceived Costs and Conformity

others even in situations where they can definitely determine that others are wrong/incorrect.

People might offer unreliable answers since they viewed answering incorrectly as being relatively

low cost.

In majority of the cases, people may elevate the cost of disagreement as higher than cost

of being incorrect. This tendency leads to group conformity in small groups. If the researchers

accentuate on the purpose of the study, and incentivize people to answer correctly, conformity may

markedly decrease. It’s observed that in some context, conformity resulted in reliability inducing

even when it’s counterproductive, and all methods for eliminating its effects are helpful. Under

conformity control, the level of reliability decreases (Zollman, 2010).

Gender

Women were found to be more influenceable than men in the early studies i.e. Knower’s

study in 1935. Since then, multiple investigations have been undertaken which found females to

be more conforming than men (Applezweig & Moeller, 1958; Beloff, 1958; Burt, 1920;

Crutchfield, 1955; Jenness, 1932; Kirkpatrick, 1936; Tuddenham, 1957; Tuddenham, MacBride,

& Zahn, 1958). In contrast, other studies have been unsuccessful in finding a sex difference in

conformity behavior or have found males to be more conforming than females (Christie &

Lindauer, 1963; Endler, 1965; Hilgard, Lauer, & Melei, 1965; Kahana & Coe, 1969; Mahler, 1962;

Phelps & Meyer, 1966). In 1972, Ronald Klein hypothesized that informational social influence is

greater upon the visual perceptual judgments of females than upon the visual perceptual judgments

of males. The results of the experiment showed that mean conformity scores were generally higher

for females; however, the main effect of sex was not significant at the .05 level of significance
(F=3.528; p<0.10) thereby, the hypothesis was not confirmed. The experiment did show an evident

trend illustrating that females did conform more than males. It is interesting to note that the great

majority of the studies that found females to be more conforming tested female Ss with female

confederates. Taking into consideration the results of the majority of the previous investigations,

this finding lends some support to Endler's (1965) view that female conform less to male

confederates than they do to female confederates (Klein, 1970).

It is important to note that sex difference in social behavior is based on how the sexes are

viewed culturally i.e. gender roles. Gender is a social and cultural construct and gender stereotypes

contents reflect perceivers’ observations of men’s and women’s daily life behaviors (“Eagly: Sex

differences in social behavior: A social-role... - Google Scholar,” n.d.). Consider the study aimed

at explaining sex differences in risk taking; it was discovered that injury-risk behavior increased

as a function masculinity for boys and girls. Sex differences in risk-taking do not arise from innate

temperamental differences between sexes. Instead, it is a function of gender (Granié, 2010).

Considering the theory on gender, further differences rise upon the question that which gender

conforms more easily than the other.

Further, among the genders, the males are found more likely to conform to gender

stereotypes. The article ‘The gender conformity conundrum: The effects of irrelevant gender norms

on public conformity’ studies effects of gender norms on gender-role conformity. It was found that

males conformed more to their gender-role sign than did females. This suggests that conformity to

certain gender and social norms has greater influence on males, and that these norms have a

substantial power over decisions in social settings. Also, some males conform to these norms to

avoid being represented or perceived as female and/or a lower-power member of society (Carter

et al., 2019)
 Focusing on more recent studies, several different views exist upon the question of whether

gender of a person impacts the way or degree of conformity. 75 male and 71 female undergraduates

met in groups containing 2 males and 2 females and received each other’s opinions, which were

represented as deviating from the opinions that Ss had given earlier. Ss then gave their opinions

with the other group members either having or not having surveillance over these opinions. In the

study, it was found that only with surveillance was males’ conformity significantly less than

females’ conformity. Males’ conformity with surveillance was also significantly less than males’

or females’ conformity without surveillance. No support was obtained for a hypothesized tendency

for women to be especially conforming because of their concern about harmony in interpersonal

relationships (Eagly et al., 1981).

Similarly, in the study by author Aaron C. Weinschenk and his companions it was found

that little to no evidence of gender differences in receptivity to social pressure cues in the context

of political participation (Weinschenk et al., 2018). Another study showed no differences in gender

conformity rates (Capra and Li, n.d.).

This point contradicts Eagly’s (1987) argument that females conform to group choices

more than males (Capra and Li, n.d.). Further, Cooper’s meta-analysis study showed that women

were more likely to conform than men (“Meta-Analysis With Complex Research Designs: Dealing

With Dependence From Multiple Measures and Multiple Group Comparisons on JSTOR,” n.d.)

Another study supports this view by stating that females conformed more than men in the

Hawthorne condition (where the participants were told their voting behavior would be monitored)

showing that females conform more than men in situations involving surveillance (Panagopoulos

et al., 2013).
 Since Asch experiment to study group conformity, numerous variations of that experiment

have been carried out to understand group conformity in relation to other factors. Because of the

continued discrepancy among the experimental findings as to the differences in conformity

between the genders, we will test some key conclusions that psychologists have previously reached

regarding conformity. Further, no such literature exists for Pakistan. We will study if there are

gender differences in conformity rates in Pakistan?

Alexander, C.N., Zucker, L.G., Brody, C.L., 1970. Experimental Expectations and Autokinetic

Experiences: Consistency Theories and Judgmental Convergence. Sociometry 33, 108–

122. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786275

Allen, V. L., & Levine, J. M. (1968). Social support, dissent and conformity. Sociometry, 138-

149.

Asch Conformity Experiment | Simply Psychology [WWW Document], n.d. URL

https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html (accessed 11.11.19).

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a

. unanimous majority. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 70(9), 1-70.

Carter, M.F., Franz, T.M., Gruschow, J.L., VanRyne, A.M., 2019. The gender conformity

conundrum: The effects of irrelevant gender norms on public conformity. The Journal of

Social Psychology 159, 761–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1586636

Capra, C.M., Li, L., n.d. Conformity in contribution games: gender and group effects 37.
Coleman, S., 2004. The Effect of Social Conformity on Collective Voting Behavior. Polit. Anal.

12, 76–96.

Coultas, J., van Leeuwen, E.J.C., 2015. Conformity: Definitions, Types, and Evolutionary

Grounding. pp. 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12697-5_15

Documents of Festalt Psychology - Mary Henle - Google Books [WWW Document], n.d. URL

\(accessed 11.11.19).

Eagly: Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role... - Google Scholar [WWW Document],

n.d.

Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., Fishbaugh, L., 1981. Sex differences in conformity: Surveillance by the

group as a determinant of male nonconformity. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 40, 384–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.384

EBSCO Publishing Service Selection Page - Ehost2 [WWW Document], n.d. URL

Effects of Group Size and Stimulus Ambiguity on Conformity: The Journal of Social

Psychology: Vol 97, No 1 [WWW Document], n.d. URL

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1975.9923321 (accessed

11.11.19).

Fox, V., 1952. The Influence of Personality on Social Non-Conformity. J. Crim. Law Criminol.

Police Sci. 42, 746–754. https://doi.org/10.2307/1139678

Granié, M.-A., 2010. Gender stereotype conformity and age as determinants of preschoolers’

injury-risk behaviors. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42, 726–733.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368430205056464 (accessed 11.11.19).

Group Size Effects on Conformity: The Journal of Social Psychology: Vol 98, No 2 [WWW

Document], n.d. URL

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1976.9923388?src=recsys (accessed

11.11.19).

Herbert C. Kelman, (1958), Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of

attitude change, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, (1), 51-60

Holzhausen, K.G., Dissertation, A., 1993., NORMATIVE AND INFORMATIONAL

INFLUENCES IN CONFORMITY, PERSUASION, AND GROUP POLARIZATION: A

UNIFIED PARADIGM OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE 104.

Klein, R.L., 1970. sex, and task difficulty as predictors of social conformity (unpublished

master’s thesis.

Longman, W., Vaughan, G., & Hogg, M. (1995). Introduction to social psychology.

Meta-Analysis With Complex Research Designs: Dealing With Dependence From Multiple

Measures and Multiple Group Comparisons on JSTOR [WWW Document], n.d. URL

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24434240?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=cooper%
27s&searchText=meta-

analysis&searchText=stud&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcooper%2

5E2%2580%2599s%2Bmeta-

analysis%2Bstud%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26a

mp%3Bgroup%3Dnone&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_SYC-

4802%2Ftest2&refreqid=search%3A15cbdc4a44c7178eb6d3126a083343ad (accessed 11.11.19).

Morality and conformity: The Asch paradigm applied to moral decisions: Social Influence: Vol

8, No 4 [WWW Document], n.d. URL

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2012.727767?src=recsys (accessed

11.11.19).

Nahemow, L., Bennett, R., 1967. Conformity, Persuasibility and Counternormative Persuasion.

Sociometry 30, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786435

Panagopoulos, C., Larimer, C., Condon, M., 2013. Social Pressure, Descriptive Norms, and

Voter Mobilization. Polit. Behav. 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9234-4

Sakurai, M.M., 1975. Small Group Cohesiveness and Detrimental Conformity. Sociometry 38,

340–357. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786169

Schulman, G.I., 1967. Asch conformity studies: conformity to the experimenter and-or to the

group. Sociometry 30, 26–40.

TILLICH, P., 1957. CONFORMITY. Social Research 24, 354–360.

The Journal of Social Psychology: Vol 159, No 6 [WWW Document], n.d. URL

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.2019.1586636 (accessed 11.11.19).

Weinschenk, A.C., Panagopoulos, C., Drabot, K., Linden, S. van der, 2018. Gender and social

conformity: Do men and women respond differently to social pressure to vote? Soc. Influ. 13,

53–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2018.1432500

What is Conformity?| Simply Psychology [WWW Document], n.d. URL

https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html (accessed 11.11.19).

Witkin, H.A., Price-williams, D., Bertini, M., Christiansen, B., Oltman, P.K., Ramirez, M., Meel,

J.V., 1974. Social Conformity and Psychological Differentiation. Int. J. Psychol. 9, 11–29.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00207597408247089

Zafar,2009 - An Experimental Investigation of Why Individuals C.pdf, n.d.

Zollman, K.J.S., 2010. Social Structure and the Effects of Conformity. Synthese 172, 317–340.