Learning Objectives
Define social influence and conformity and explain how they shape attitudes and behavior.
Distinguish between informational and normative social influence and identify when each is most likely to occur.
Explain how majority, minority, and authority influence affect individual behavior and decision making.
Analyze how situational, individual, and cultural factors influence conformity, leadership, and resistance to influence.
Think about the last time you chose a class based on what your friends were taking, picked an outfit by noticing what others wore, or even altered your beliefs because a teacher, religious leader, or political figure suggested a new way of thinking. Perhaps you found yourself smoking or drinking, even though you didn’t really want to, simply because your friends were doing it (Asch, 1955; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). If any of these experiences sound familiar, you are not alone. Like everyone, you are influenced by the people around you. These everyday pressures reflect one of the central processes studied in social psychology: social influence; the ways other people affect our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Aronson et al., 2021).
Social influence often leads individuals, sometimes without their conscious awareness, to adopt the beliefs and behaviors of others. This process, known as conformity, involves changes in attitudes, opinions, or actions based on what we perceive others believe or do (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Conformity can serve cognitive goals, helping us make decisions by relying on others’ knowledge or advice, but it also has an emotional dimension. Humans have a deep need for social acceptance; we sometimes act against our own preferences to be liked or included, such as engaging in unhealthy behaviors to fit in with peers (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Conformity exists along a spectrum, from subtle, automatic imitation to obedience toward authority figures. This chapter explores both conformity and leadership—the ability to guide or motivate others toward shared goals (Northouse, 2021). We will examine the benefits and drawbacks of conforming, as well as the personal and cultural factors that make some individuals more susceptible to influence than others.
Despite its sometimes negative reputation, conformity is an important human adaptation. Just as birds coordinate their movements in a flock, social influence allows humans to cooperate effectively and survive in groups (Henrich & Boyd, 1998). Importantly, social influence is not one-way; our own actions also shape the beliefs and behaviors of those around us, creating a continuous, dynamic process of mutual influence (Bandura, 1977).
Conformity often occurs automatically and without conscious effort. For instance, you might develop a preference for jazz or rap simply because your roommate frequently plays it, even though neither of you intended for this change to happen (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Research shows similar patterns in other behaviors: college students are more likely to litter after seeing someone else drop trash and less likely to do so when observing proper disposal (Cialdini et al., 1990). Beyond behavior, emotions can also align over time, as people subconsciously mirror the feelings of those they interact with regularly (Hatfield et al., 1994).
Social psychologists distinguish between two main forms of social influence. Informational social influence occurs when individuals adopt the beliefs or actions of others because they trust their knowledge or expertise, particularly in ambiguous situations or when unsure of their own judgment. This influence often leads to private acceptance, meaning that people genuinely change their beliefs (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). In contrast, normative social influence arises from the desire to gain approval or avoid rejection. It often produces public compliance without immediate private belief change, although repeated compliance can gradually result in internalization (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).
Classic studies illustrate the power of both majority and minority influence. Sherif’s autokinetic effect experiments showed how group norms emerge in uncertain situations and persist over time (Sherif, 1936). Asch demonstrated that even when the correct answer is obvious, individuals often conform to group pressure, highlighting the strength of normative influence (Asch, 1955). Conversely, minority influence, while less common, can also drive social change when a small, consistent, and confident group challenges the majority, prompting deeper cognitive processing and eventual private acceptance (Moscovici et al., 1969).
Influence extends beyond peer pressure to authority. Social power refers to the ability to change others’ behavior even against resistance (French & Raven, 1959). Milgram’s obedience studies illustrated that ordinary people could perform harmful actions when instructed by legitimate authorities, demonstrating the potent role of situational factors (Milgram, 1963). Leadership, however, provides a more constructive form of influence. Effective leaders inspire and guide others toward shared goals, combining personal traits and situational awareness. Transformational leaders, in particular, motivate followers by presenting a compelling vision and fostering commitment rather than mere compliance (Bass, 1985; Fiedler, 1967; Northouse, 2021).
Individual and cultural differences also shape susceptibility to social influence. Factors such as self-esteem, age, group identification, and cultural values affect the likelihood of conformity (Bond & Smith, 1996). Collectivistic cultures, which emphasize social harmony, generally see higher levels of conformity than individualistic cultures, which prioritize personal independence. At the same time, excessive pressure can trigger psychological reactance, a motivational state in which individuals resist influence attempts to protect their perceived freedom (Brehm, 1966).
In everyday life, social influence is both subtle and powerful. It shapes what we believe, how we feel, and what we do, often without our awareness. Recognizing these forces not only helps us understand our own behaviors but also equips us to influence others responsibly and resist undue pressure when necessary.
Reflection Questions
- Reflect on a situation in which you changed your opinion or behavior to align with others. How can this experience be explained using informational and/or normative social influence?
- Imagine you are the sole juror who believes the defendant is innocent. What approaches could you use to influence the majority and encourage reconsideration of their decision?
Discussion Questions
- Consider whether you would choose to drive an unconventional vehicle, such as a hearse, for everyday use. How do you think people close to you would respond? Given that deviance is socially and culturally defined, are there behaviors others encourage you to adopt that you choose to resist? Why?
- Reflect on a recent instance in which you used informal negative sanctions. What behavior were you responding to, and how did your response influence the individual(s) involved? In what ways did your reaction contribute to maintaining social norms or social control?
Close Reading Questions
- Write a brief reflection on the Holocaust or another historical example of obedience to authority. Explain how research on obedience in social psychology helps you understand the events.
- Consider what it might have been like to participate in Milgram’s obedience study. How do you think you would have responded as the situation progressed?
- Identify real-world examples of individuals who demonstrate each of the forms of social power discussed in this section.
References
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Sommers, S. R. (2021). Social psychology (10th ed.). Pearson.
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
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.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert et al. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge University Press.
Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (1998). The evolution of conformist transmission. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 204(2), 203–219.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(1), 95–114.
Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper.
