Types of Conformity
Types of Conformity
Conformity is defined as a change in a person's behaviour or beliefs as a result of real or imagined group pressure. Psychologist Herbert Kelman (1958) identified three qualitatively distinct types of conformity: compliance, identification and internalisation. These differ in depth, duration and the psychological mechanisms that produce them. Recognising which type has occurred moves analysis beyond a simple yes-or-no question about whether someone conformed, towards an explanation of how and why the change happened.
Compliance
Compliance is the most superficial form of conformity. The individual changes their publicly visible behaviour to align with the group but their private beliefs and attitudes remain entirely unchanged. Because the behaviour exists only to satisfy group expectations, it persists only while the person perceives group scrutiny. Once that pressure is removed, the original behaviour returns. Applauding a performance you disliked because everyone around you is applauding is a straightforward example. The motivation is typically normative — a desire to avoid disapproval or rejection — rather than genuine agreement with the group's position. Compliance is therefore an outward performance rather than a real change in the person's view of the world.
Identification
Identification is a deeper form of conformity in which the individual adopts the attitudes or behaviours of a group because they value membership of that group or wish to be associated with a particular role. Unlike compliance, both public behaviour and private beliefs may change during identification. However, the change is contingent on continued identification with the group: if the person leaves the group or no longer values the associated role, the conformity is likely to cease. A person starting a new job may genuinely come to hold the professional values and opinions of their colleagues while employed, but may revise those views upon moving on. Identification is therefore more than performance, but less than a fundamental restructuring of the individual's values.
Internalisation
Internalisation is the deepest and most enduring form of conformity. The individual genuinely accepts the group's norms, values or beliefs as their own, producing a lasting change in both public behaviour and private views. This typically occurs through informational social influence — when a person is persuaded by a compelling argument or a credible source and integrates the new belief into their existing value system. Because the change has become part of the person's own thinking, it persists even in the total absence of the original group. Joining a cause and genuinely adopting its principles, to the point where those principles guide future decisions independently, represents internalisation.
Summary comparison
| Type | Public change | Private change | Duration | Typical motivation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance | Yes | No | Only under observation | Normative (NSI) |
| Identification | Yes | Yes — whilst role valued | Temporary | Normative and informational |
| Internalisation | Yes | Yes | Permanent | Informational (ISI) |
Evaluation
Kelman's three-type model provides a more refined account of conformity than treating all group-influenced behaviour as equivalent. It generates testable predictions: for example, it anticipates that Asch's participants would give correct answers when responding privately — a pattern consistent with compliance — which was indeed observed. The framework also maps naturally onto the distinction between informational and normative social influence, adding explanatory coherence across social influence research.
However, the model faces significant methodological challenges. Private beliefs are unobservable, so distinguishing between identification and internalisation requires inferring internal states from behaviour after the group has dispersed — an imprecise and potentially unreliable method. There is also a theoretical objection: conformity may exist on a continuum rather than falling into three discrete categories, making the boundaries between types somewhat artificial. Despite these limitations, Kelman's framework remains a central organising concept in social influence research and is applicable to a wide range of real-world phenomena, from jury deliberation to organisational socialisation.