The present article describes the development and validation of the Informational and Normative Conformity Scale (SKI-N), a brief self-report tool capturing adolescents' general propensity to adopt a conformist attitude, and the underlying motives for doing so. The presentation includes a description of scale construction and an assessment of the psychometric properties. In two independent samples of adolescents (total N = 1,953), the SKI-N factorial structure was investigated, and the reliability and dimensionality, the multi-group measurement invariance, and the construct validity were each verified. The findings showed that the scale structure is bi-factorial, and the tool is reliable, valid, and invariant across gender. Therefore, the SKI-N can be applied in research and/or in psychological and educational practice to provide important information in a broader assessment of students’ psychosocial functioning in the school environment. Moreover, compared to currently available measures, it fills a gap in the tools for measuring conformity in the adolescent population.
AERA, A. P. A., & NCME (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
2.
ArndtJ.SchimelJ.GreenbergJ.PyszczynskiT. (2002). The intrinsic self and defensiveness: Evidence that activating the intrinsic self reduces self-handicapping and conformity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 671–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202288011
3.
AschS. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
BeghettoR. A. (2017). Creativity and conformity: A paradoxical relationship. In Creativity and innovation. Routledge.
6.
BernackaR. E. (2009). KANH III Questionnaire of Creative Behaviour – presentation of the revised version. In PopekS.BernackaR. E.DomańskiC. W.GawdaB.TurskaD.ZawadzkaA. (Eds), Psychologia twórczości. Nowe horyzonty [psychology of creativity. New approaches (pp. 169–175): UMCS.
BondR.SmithP. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111
10.
BranjeS.de MoorE. L.SpitzerJ.BechtA. I. (2021). Dynamics of identity development in adolescence: A decade in review. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 908–927. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12678
11.
BrüggerA.DornM. H.MessnerC.KaiserF. G. (2019). Conformity within the Campbell paradigm: Proposing a new measurement instrument. Social Psychology, 50(3), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000366
12.
BuistK. L.DekovićM.MeeusW.van AkenM. A. G. (2004). The reciprocal relationship between early adolescent attachment and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 27(3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.11.012
13.
BurnsS.MaycockB.CrossD.BrownG. (2008). The power of peers: Why some students bully others to conform. Qualitative Health Research, 18(12), 1704–1716. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308325865
14.
BurtonL. J.MazerolleS. M. (2011). Survey instrument validity Part I: Principles of survey instrument development and validation in athletic training education research. Athletic Training Education Journal, 6(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.4085/1947-380X-6.1.27
15.
CakirpalogluS. D.ČechT.KrajňákováM. (2021). Relationship between conformity and risk behavior in children in emering adolescence. ICERI2021 Proceedings, 5979–5987. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2021.1349
16.
CampbellJ. D.FaireyP. J. (1989). Informational and normative routes to conformity: The effect of faction size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the stimulus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.457
17.
ChassinL.ForaD. B.KingK. M. (2004). Trajectories of alcohol and drug use and dependence from adolescence to adulthood: The effects of familial alcoholism and personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.113.4.483
18.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
CialdiniR. B.TrostM. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In The handbook of social psychology (4th ed, 1-2, pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.
21.
ComreyA. L.BackerT. E. (1970). Construct validation of the Comrey personality scales. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 5(4), 469–477. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0504_5
CoultasJ. C.van LeeuwenE. J. C. (2015). Conformity: Definitions, types, and evolutionary grounding. In Zeigler-HillV.WellingL. L. M.ShackelfordT. K. (Eds), Evolutionary perspectives on social psychology (pp. 189–202). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12697-5_15
de Jong-GierveldJ.KamphulsF. (1985). The development of a Rasch-type loneliness scale. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(3), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900307
DeutschM.GerardH. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408
28.
DeYoungC. G.PetersonJ. B.HigginsD. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health?Personality and Individual Differences, 33(4), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00171-4
29.
DueberD. (2017). Bifactor indices calculator: A microsoft excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models. In Educational, school, and counseling psychology research tools. https://doi.org/10.13023/edp.tool.01
30.
DueberD. M.TolandM. D. (2021). A bifactor approach to subscore assessment. Psychological Methods, 28(1), 222–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000459
31.
EnjaianB.Zeigler-HillV.VonkJ. (2017). The relationship between approval-based contingent self-esteem and conformity is influenced by sex and task difficulty. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.040
32.
EysenckS. B. G.EysenckH. J.BarrettP. (1985). A revised version of the Psychoticism Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90026-1
33.
FeinbergR. A.JurichD. P. (2017). Guidelines for interpreting and reporting subscores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 36(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12142
34.
GalbraithS.BowdenJ.ManderA. (2017). Accelerated longitudinal designs: An overview of modelling, power, costs and handling missing data. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 26(1), 374–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280214547150
35.
GarridoL. E.AbadF. J.PonsodaV. (2016). Are fit indices really fit to estimate the number of factors with categorical variables? Some cautionary findings via Monte Carlo simulation. Psychological Methods, 21(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000064
36.
GignacG. E.KretzschmarA. (2017). Evaluating dimensional distinctness with correlated-factor models: Limitations and suggestions. Intelligence, 62, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.04.001
37.
GriskeviciusV.GoldsteinN. J.MortensenC. R.CialdiniR. B.KenrickD. T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(2), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.281
JiangY.BongM.KimS. I. (2015). Conformity of Korean adolescents in their perceptions of social relationships and academic motivation. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.04.012
41.
KalkbrennerM. T. (2021). Alpha, omega, and H internal consistency reliability estimates: Reviewing these options and when to use them. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 14(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2021.1940118
KaufmanT. M. L.Laninga‐WijnenL.LodderG. M. A. (2022). Are victims of bullying primarily social outcasts? Person‐group dissimilarities in relational, socio-behavioral, and physical characteristics as predictors of victimization. Child Development, 93(5), 1458–1474. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13772
44.
KlineT. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage Publications.
45.
KoepkeS.DenissenJ. J. A. (2012). Dynamics of identity development and separation–individuation in parent–child relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood – a conceptual integration. Developmental Review, 32(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.01.001
46.
KosloffS.IrishS.PerreaultL.AndersonG.NottbohmA. (2017). Assessing relationships between conformity and meta-traits in an Asch-like paradigm. Social Influence, 12(2–3), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2017.1371639
47.
KostenP. A.ScheierL. M.GrenardJ. L. (2013). Latent class analysis of peer conformity: Who is yielding to pressure and why?Youth & Society, 45(4), 565–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X12454307
48.
KyriazosT. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology, 09(08), Article 08https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126
49.
LaghiF.BianchiD.PompiliS.LonigroA.BaioccoR. (2019). Heavy episodic drinking in late adolescents: The role of theory of mind and conformity drinking motives. Addictive Behaviors, 96, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.04.011
50.
LaursenB.VeenstraR. (2021). Toward understanding the functions of peer influence: A summary and synthesis of recent empirical research. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12606
51.
LearyM. R. (2005). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value: Getting to the root of self-esteem. European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1), 75–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280540000007
LearyM. R.KellyK. M.CottrellC. A.SchreindorferL. S. (2013). Construct validity of the need to belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.819511
54.
LittD. M.StockM. L.LewisM. A. (2012). Drinking to fit in: Examining the need to belong as a moderator of perceptions of best friends’ alcohol use and related risk cognitions among college students. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.693357
MeadeA. W.JohnsonE. C.BraddyP. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568
57.
MeeusW.IedemaJ.MaassenG.EngelsR. (2005). Separation–individuation revisited: On the interplay of parent–adolescent relations, identity and emotional adjustment in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 28(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.07.003
58.
MehrabianA.SteflC. A. (1995). Basic temperament components of loneliness, shyness, and conformity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 23(3), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1995.23.3.253
59.
MillsapR. E.KwokO.-M. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychological Methods, 9(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.93
60.
MiticM.WoodcockK. A.AmeringM.KrammerI.StiehlK. A. M.ZehetmayerS.SchrankB. (2021). Toward an integrated model of supportive peer relationships in early adolescence: A systematic review and exploratorymeta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. Article 589403, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.589403
61.
MurphyT. P.LaibleD.AugustineM. (2017). The influences of parent and peer attachment on bullying. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(5), 1388–1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0663-2
62.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2019). Mplus. Statistical analysis with latent veriables. User’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Opozda-SuderS.Karteczka-ŚwiętekK.MichelM. (2021). The Conformist Attitudes Scale (SPK-II): Latent structure analysis using the bi-factor model. Przegląd Badań Edukacyjnych = Educational Studies Review, 1(32), 229–249. https://doi.org/10.12775/PBE.2021.014
65.
PaapM. C. S.HummelenB.BraekenJ.ArnevikE. A.WalderhaugE.WilbergT.BerghuisH.HutsebautJ.PedersenG. (2021). A multi-center psychometric evaluation of the Severity Indices of Personality Problems 118 (SIPP-118): Do we really need all those facets?Quality of Life Research, 30(2), 567–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02654-8
66.
PopekS. (2008). Kwestionariusz twórczego Zachowania KANH [Creative behaviour questionnaire KANH]. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu M. Curie-Skłodowskiej.
RagelienėT. (2016). Links of adolescents identity development and relationship with peers: A systematic literature review. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 25(2), 97–105.
69.
RefaeilzadehP.TangL.LiuH. (2009). Cross-validation. In LiuL.LingM. T. (Eds), Encyclopedia of database systems (pp. 532–538). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_565
70.
RegnerusM. D. (2002). Friends’ influence on adolescent theft and minor delinquency: A developmental test of peer-reported effects. Social Science Research, 31(4), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-089X(02)00010-8
71.
ReiseS. P.BonifayW. E.HavilandM. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
72.
ReiseS. P.HavilandM. G. (2005). Item Response Theory and the measurement of clinical change. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_02
73.
ReiseS. P.MooreT. M.HavilandM. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data Yield Univocal Scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477
74.
ReiseS. P.ScheinesR.WidamanK. F.HavilandM. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
75.
RobinsonE.JonesA.ChristiansenP.FieldM. (2015). Drinking like everyone else: Trait self-control moderates the association between peer and personal heavy episodic drinking. Substance Use & Misuse, 50(5), 590–597. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2014.991407
76.
RosenbergM. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.
77.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(1). Article 1https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
78.
Schermelleh-EngelK.MoosbruggerH.MüllerH. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
SchmittT. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653
81.
SchreiberJ. B. (2017). Update to core reporting practices in structural equation modeling. Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy: RSAP, 13(3), 634–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2016.06.006
82.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
83.
SchwarzerR.JerusalemM. (1995). generalized self-efficacy scale. In WeinmanJ.WrightS.JohnstonM., Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-NELSON.
84.
SibilskyA.ColleranH.McElreathR.HaunD. B. M. (2021). Conformity decreases throughout middle childhood among ni-Vanuatu children: An intracultural comparison. Developmental Psychology, 57(9), 1497–1509. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001234
85.
SowdenS.KoletsiS.LymberopoulosE.MilitaruE.CatmurC.BirdG. (2018). Quantifying compliance and acceptance through public and private social conformity. Consciousness and Cognition, 65, 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.08.009
TainakaT.MiyoshiT.MoriK. (2014). Conformity of witnesses with low self-esteem to their co-witnesses. Psychology, 05(15), Article 15https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.515177
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
90.
WiceM.DavidaiS. (2021). Benevolent conformity: The influence of perceived motives on judgments of conformity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(7), 1205–1217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220963702
91.
WilliamsK. D.CheungC. K. T.ChoiW. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 748–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748
92.
WuA. D.LiZ.ZumboB. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.7275/MHQA-CD89
93.
XuC.TuC.-C. (2022). Impact of college students’ learning adaptation on learning conformity behavior in Hengyang: Moderating role of peer attachment. In The Asia-pacific education researcher. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00678-x.
94.
ZhangP.ZhangY.MuZ.LiuX. (2017). The development of conformity among Chinese children aged 9–15 years in a public choice task. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(4), Article 1474704917743637. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704917743637
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
