People often respond to the desire for safety within a group — usually a group with a similar age, culture, religion or similar educational status. It is often called a group thinking: a model of thought characterized by self-delusion, forced obtaining consent and conformity with group values and ethics, which ignores the realistic appreciation of other practices. Reluctance to adapt carries the risk of social rejection. Compliance is often associated with adolescence and youth culture, but it strongly affects people of all ages.  The results showed a surprisingly high level of compliance: 74% of participants were in at least one study. On average, people were a third of the time.  One question is how the group would affect people in a situation where the correct answer is less obvious.  Solomon E. Asch amended Sherif`s study on the assumption that compliance would be significantly reduced if the situation was very clear. He exposed people in a group to a series of lines, and participants were asked to cross-reference a line with a standard line. All but one of the participants were complicit in the wrong answer in 12 of the 18 trials.
 In addition, Forsyth shows that non-compliance can also fall into one of two categories of responses. First, a person who does not join the majority can be independent. Independence or dissent can be defined as a lack of willingness to bow to peer pressure. Thus, this person stays true to his personal standards instead of fluctuating towards group standards. Second, a maverick could be non-compliant or counter-compliant, implying opinions that are opposed to what the group believes. This type of non-compliance may be motivated by the need to rebel against the status quo rather than be correct in one`s own opinion. Although Kelman`s distinction was influential, social psychology research focused primarily on two types of compliance. These are normative influences and conformity consistent with information or the information society, also known as normative social influences. In Kelman`s terminology, these correspond to internalization or compliance.
There are, of course, more than two or three variables in society that influence human psychology and conformity; the notion of “varieties” of conformity based on “social influence” is, in this context, ambiguous and indefinable. An experiment similar to beiasch`s showed that there was much less compliance in groups of friends of six than in groups of six strangers.  As friends already know and accept each other, in some situations there may be less normative pressure to adapt.