Conformity Theory

So far, conformity has been discussed in terms of group identification and social roles. However, individuals also tend to change prior beliefs to seek group acceptance. Asch (1951) investigated the effect of group pressure on conformity by asking participants to make a line judgment with seven confederates that gave the same obviously incorrect answer. Yet, 37% of participants conformed by giving the incorrect majority answer, whereas in the absence of group pressure, less than 1% of participants conformed (Asch, 1951). There are implications on normative influence as individuals, despite knowing the majority opinion was incorrect, may conform to avoid social punishment (Breckler et al., 2005). However, Turner and colleagues (1987) argued

Latane and Darley (1968) investigated the phenomenon known as the bystander effect and staged an emergency situation where smoke was pumped into the room participants was in. Results showed that 75% of participants who were alone reported the smoke, whereas only 38% of participants working in groups of three reported (Latane & Darley, 1968). Their findings provide evidence for the negative consequence of the diffusion of responsibility. In line with the social influence principle, bystanders depend on reactions of others to perceive a situation as an emergency and are subsequently less likely to help. Latane and Darley’s findings were also supported in recent research: Garcia and colleagues (2002) found that even priming a social context by asking participants to imagine themselves in a group could decrease helping behaviour. It can be contended that these findings are examples of social proof where individuals believe actions of the group is correct for the situation, or examples of pluralistic ignorance where individuals outwardly conform because they incorrectly assumed that a group had accepted the norm (Baumeister & Bushman,

Rutkowski and colleagues (1983) showed that group size only decreased helping where bystanders were unacquainted, but facilitated helping where there was high cohesion and acquainted individuals. This can be explained as groups being more likely to conform to the social responsibility norm of helping when there is high group cohesion (Rutkowski et al., 1983). Additional evidence provided by Levine and Crowther (2008) showed that group size encouraged intervention in emergency situations when bystanders were acquaintances. Moreover, Levine and Crowther (2008) found that where bystanders and victims share a salient social category membership, group size could increase helping (Levine & Crowther, 2008; Swann et al., 2015). Drawing on the self-categorisation theory, the results support that individuals are more able to empathise when their identity is attached and fused to their group membership. Consequently, salient group-based identity would increase a bystander’s likelihood of intervening. These studies show that Latane and Darley’s finding that groups reduce helping behaviour is not conclusive. Instead, there are implications that the effects of groups depend on situational factors and the importance of the group to