Fitting In or Following Facts: Normative Versus Informational Conformity

UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 9.7 Free with a free account

Fitting In or Following Facts: Normative Versus Informational Conformity

Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 9: Group Dynamics, Conformity, and ObedienceSection 9.7 · lesson 60 of 859 min · free with a free account

← The Few Versus the Many: Minority, Majority, and Social InfluenceNext lesson: The Weight of the Crowd: Social Pressure and Everyday Conformity →

Earn 3 college credits for Advanced Social PsychologyRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Psychology 310 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Advanced Social Psychology · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Two motives behind conformity, and two experiments built to separate them.

  • Distinguish normative from informational influence
  • Connect each route to its paradigmatic experiment
  • Identify the features that favor one route over the other
  • Apply the distinction to misinformation online

Free study notes

Get this lesson's notes by email

The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.

One email. Unsubscribe in one click.

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (1,234 words). Read along, or search it.

Group Dynamics, Conformity, and Obedience

Fitting In or Following Facts

Why do people go along with a group? Two answers, and they are psychologically unrelated. One is about wanting to be right. The other is about wanting to be liked. From the outside, they produce identical behavior. From the inside, they leave completely different traces. Two famous experiments were built to isolate one route each. Sherif's autokinetic study, and Asch's line task. We will work through both, then use the distinction diagnostically. And end with why it explains a modern problem: failed fact-checks.

Deutsch And Gerard, 1955

Two Motives, One Behavior

Two motives lie behind almost any case of conformity. The first is a desire to be accurate, in an uncertain world. That is informational influence: we align because we think they know something. Other people's behavior is being taken as evidence about reality. The second is a desire to be liked, in an evaluative world. We align because we want to be accepted, and to avoid rejection. That is normative influence. Others' approval or disapproval bears on our social standing. Deutsch and Gerard formalized this two-process account in nineteen fifty-five. And it was needed for a specific reason. The same observable act can be produced by two different mechanisms. With very different consequences afterward.

Sherif, 1936

A Light That Does Not Move

Sherif designed the pure case for informational influence. It uses a perceptual illusion, and the choice is deliberate. View a single point of light in an otherwise dark room. The light appears to move. That is the autokinetic effect. But the light is in fact stationary. So any estimate of the apparent movement is irreducibly subjective. In nineteen thirty-six, Sherif had participants estimate that movement, alone and in groups. Now see why an illusion is the right stimulus here. Reality offers no independent feedback at all. There is no correct answer to be wrong about. Which leaves other people as the only evidence available.

The Result

A Norm That Outlived the Group

The pattern came in three stages. Alone at first, personal estimates differed widely, with no agreement to speak of. In groups, estimates converged within a few trials. They settled on a group norm. So far, that could be ordinary social pressure. The third stage is what makes it a landmark finding. Participants returned to the dark room alone. Days later, and in Rohrer and colleagues' study, even a year later. Their estimates continued to track the group norm. Rather than reverting to their original personal ones. Alone in a dark room, there is nobody to please. So a norm still governing the answer has become their own estimate.

The Pure Case

When Conformity Is Rational

That setting is paradigmatic, and two properties make it so. First, the task is genuinely ambiguous. There is no fact of the matter the participant is failing to perceive. Second, reality offers no independent feedback. Nothing in the environment can correct an estimate, or confirm one. Under those conditions, something follows that is easy to miss. What others say is the best evidence available. So convergence is rational, rather than capitulating. Hold onto that phrase, because it corrects a common assumption. Informational conformity is not a failure of independence. It is what a careful person should do when the only data is other people.

Asch, 1951 And 1956

The Opposite Case, Engineered

Asch engineered the opposite case, deliberately. His line-judgment studies ran in nineteen fifty-one and fifty-six. The task was perceptual, with an unambiguous correct answer. Participants were shown three comparison lines, and asked which matched a standard. They sat among confederates who unanimously gave the wrong answer. Naive participants conformed on approximately thirty-seven percent of trials. And conformed at least once, across the full series, in seventy-five percent of cases. Now see what the design is doing theoretically. The task eliminated informational uncertainty. The answer was visible. So whatever conformity occurred had to be normative pressure. Choosing an easy task is the whole point.

The Interviews

They Knew, and Yielded Anyway

The post-hoc interviews settle the interpretation. Most conformers knew the correct answer. They yielded to avoid standing out from the group. So this was not a perceptual error. Their perception was intact, and their judgment was correct. Nor was it a belief change. Nothing about their private view of the lines shifted. The change existed only in the spoken answer. What they were avoiding was purely social: standing out. One caution about the headline number, which is often misquoted. Thirty-seven percent is a rate across trials. Most trials were answered correctly. So the claim that people simply cannot resist a majority overstates it.

Group Size

Three Is Enough, and One Breaks It

Asch's group-size manipulations are instructive in both directions. Conformity rose sharply as the unanimous majority grew. From one confederate up to three. Then it plateaued. Adding confederates beyond about three produced diminishing returns. So this is not simply a matter of weight of numbers. The other manipulation is even more telling. A single dissenting confederate dramatically reduced conformity. And here is the crucial detail. That held even when the dissenter's own answer was also wrong. A dissenter who is also wrong supplies no better information. What they remove is unanimity, which is what normative pressure runs on.

Which Route

Task and Situation Features

So when does each route dominate? Task ambiguity is the clearest signal. High ambiguity favors informational influence. A clear right answer favors normative influence, as Asch showed. Source expertise matters only informationally: competent others are better evidence. Crisis and urgency also favor the informational route. Under time pressure you copy, because you must act. Group cohesion favors the normative route instead. So does response visibility, a public and observable judgment. Self-relevance is the ambiguous one, and it cuts both ways. It can raise the motivation to be accurate, or to be accepted. And the typical outcomes differ: private acceptance versus public compliance.

The Diagnostic

Compliance and Acceptance Behave Differently

Those two outcomes behave differently over time, which is useful. Informational influence supplies information taken to be valid. So it tends to produce private acceptance. The new belief is internalized. And it persists in the absence of the original group. Normative influence satisfies social motives instead. Without modifying private judgment at all. So it tends to produce public compliance. Visible in observable behavior, and absent from private report. Which gives you a diagnostic test you can actually run. If the change persists in anonymous post-tests, it was likely informational. If it disappears with the audience, it was likely normative.

The Caveat

In the Wild, Both Routes Run

One caveat before applying any of this. Real-world influence rarely operates through one channel alone. Take a new policy announced at work. It is informational: perhaps they know something I do not. And it is normative: my colleagues are doing this, and I should not stand out. Both are running at once, in almost every real case. So what is the distinction actually for? It identifies which route is dominant in a given setting. And that lets you predict what will happen if conditions change. Whether the conformity is preserved, or dissolves. Anonymity, new information, and the departure of the influencer. Each of those tests a different route.

Consolidate

Why Fact-Checks Struggle

The distinction has acquired renewed importance online. Because algorithmically curated feeds amplify both kinds of influence. Visible engagement metrics do the informational work: likes, shares, view counts. They signal what is true, or at least what is worth attention. Meanwhile, in-group identification with online communities does the rest. It supplies the normative pressure to conform to a shared frame. And when the same content travels through both channels at once. Misinformation can be internalized through the informational channel. And reinforced through the normative one. Which explains why single-channel corrections struggle. Fact-checks and content warnings address only the information. They leave the social cost of abandoning the group's frame untouched.

About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study

Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →

Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology

Why take it here

Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study

How other people shape what we think and doAdvanced Social Psychology explains how people think about, influence and relate to one another: attitudes and persuasion, the self, prejudice and intergroup conflict, attraction and close relationships, conformity and obedience, helping and aggression. It is a common upper-level course in psychology and sociology degrees.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About Fitting In or Following Facts: Normative Versus Informational Conformity

What is the difference between normative and informational social influence?
Informational influence is conforming because you believe others know something about reality, while normative influence is conforming to be liked or to avoid rejection. Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard formalized this two-process account in 1955. The same visible behavior can come from either route, but the results differ: informational influence tends to change private beliefs, while normative influence often changes only what people say or do in public.
What did Sherif's autokinetic experiment show about conformity?
Muzafer Sherif's 1936 study showed that people facing uncertainty adopt group judgments as their own. Participants in a dark room estimated how far a stationary point of light seemed to move, an illusion called the autokinetic effect. Alone, their estimates varied widely; in groups, they quickly converged on a shared norm. Tested alone later, even a year later in a 1954 follow-up by Rohrer and colleagues, they still used the group norm.
What did the Asch conformity experiment find?
In Solomon Asch's line-judgment studies of the 1950s, participants went along with a unanimous wrong majority on about 37 percent of critical trials, and about 75 percent conformed at least once. Because the correct answer was obvious, the conformity is usually attributed mainly to normative pressure, and in interviews few conformers said they had actually seen the lines the majority's way. Most answers were still correct, and a single dissenter, even one who was also wrong, sharply reduced conformity.
How can you tell whether someone conformed for informational or normative reasons?
Check whether the change lasts without an audience. Informational influence tends to produce private acceptance, a belief change that persists when the group is gone or answers are anonymous. Normative influence tends to produce public compliance, which shows up in visible behavior but disappears in private. High ambiguity, expert sources, and urgency favor the informational route; a clear right answer, group cohesion, and public responses favor the normative route.

About the Advanced Social Psychology course

How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 85 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 85 lessons total about 15 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.

85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Advanced Social Psychology →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Advanced Social Psychology
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →