COMPLIANCE AND CONFORMITYsudden fads or fashions for similar reasons. Power-
ful conformity processes take over as group stan-
dards define for the individual what the ‘‘right’’
clothes or music are.
The less people care about an issue, the more
open they are to both informational and norma-
tive influence. Without the motivation to examine
an issue personally, people usually accept the group
standard about it, both because the agreement of
others makes the standard seem right and because
there are more rewards and fewer costs in going
along with the group. Because of such rewards and
costs, people are especially likely to go along when
their response must be public rather than private.
Since people compare their perceptions and
views most closely to those of people who are
socially similar to them, similarity increases group
members’ informational influence on one anoth-
er. Similarity also increases liking and, when peo-
ple like one another, they have more power to
reward or punish each other, so normative influ-
ence increases as well. Because of the increased
power of both informational and normative influ-
ence, conformity pressures are often especially
strong in peer groups.
When members are highly dependent on one
another for something they value, conformity pres-
sure increases because the members have more
power to reward or frustrate one another (norma-
tive influence). Similarly, when a group is very
attractive to an individual, its members have more
power to normatively influence the individual.
Gangs, fraternities, and professional societies all
use this principle to induce new members to adopt
their groups’ distinctive standards. Also, when a
group is very tight knit and cohesive, members’
commitment to the group gives it more power
over their behavior, increasing the forces of
conformity.
The unanimity of the majority in a group is an
especially important factor in the conformity proc-
ess. In his studies, Asch (1951) found that as long
as it was unanimous, a majority of three was as
effective in inducing conformity as one of sixteen.
Subsequent research generally confirms that the
size of a majority past three is not a crucial factor in
conformity. It is unanimity that counts (see Allen
1975 for a review). When Asch (1951) had one
confederate give the correct answer to the line
task, the naive subjects’ conformity to the ma-
jority dropped from a third to only 5 percent.
One fellow dissenter shows an individual that
nonconformity is possible and provides much need-
ed social support for an alternate construction of
social reality. Interestingly, a dissenter need not
agree with an individual to encourage nonconformity.
It is only necessary that the dissenter also break
with the majority.Another factor that affects conformity is the
sex composition of the group. Although the re-
sults of studies are inconsistent, statistical summa-
ries of them, called meta-analyses, indicate that
there is an overall tendency for women to conform
slightly more than men (Becker 1986; Eagly and
Wood 1985). Sex differences in conformity are
most likely when behavior is under the surveil-
lance of others. The evidence suggests two expla-
nations (see Eagly 1987 for a review). First, sex
carries status value in interaction, which creates
social expectations for women to be less compe-
tent and influential in the situation than men
(Ridgeway 1993). Second, sex stereotypes pres-
sure men to display independence when they are
being observed.THE INFLUENCE OF THE MINORITY ON
THE MAJORITYConformity arises out of a social influence process
between an individual and the group majority.
The influence process is not always one way, how-
ever. As Serge Moscovici (1976) points out, a
dissenting group member is not just a recipient of
pressure from the majority, but also someone
who, by breaking consensus, challenges the validi-
ty of the majority view, creating conflict, doubt,
and the possibility of opinion change in the group.
Dissenters sometimes modify the opinion of the
majority in a process called minority influence. Re-
search shows that for a minority opinion to affect
the majority it must be presented consistently and
clearly without wavering and it helps if there are
two such dissenters in the group rather than one
(see Moscovici 1985; Moscovici, Mucchi-Faina, and
Maass 1994; Wood et al. 1994, for reviews). A
dissenting minority increases divergent thinking
among group members that can enhance the like-
lihood that they will arrive at creative solutions to
the problems the group faces (Nemeth 1986).