Conformity and Internalisation in a Participative Decision Making Process

This paper reflects upon the stretching concept of the RISCOM model. We agree with the Habermassian point of departure that a competent speaker makes validity claims on truth, legitimacy and authenticity and partially with the Dialogue Project's conclusions that opening the black box of science is not possible in a decision making process (DMP) on a highly technical issue. Accordingly, we see an important role for a regulator to stretch the implementer, i.e. balance commercial and guardian ethics in the DMP. However, some caution is needed. Conformity studies indicate the large influence of group norms on individuals. When individuals lack personal reference frames of a particular issue they are prone to conform. The more values are shared, the more group members are convinced of the correctness. And social psychology shows more. In studies on persuasion, a difference between compliance and internalisation is made. Compliance is attained from rewards and coercive sources of power, whereas internalisation originates from expertise, legitimacy and credibility. Because of the shift to legitimacy and authenticity in the DMP, alignment of the norms and internalisation of discussed values becomes more apparent in the RISCOM participation model. Conformity reactions and possible internalisation are normal aspect of human interaction and not necessarily a negative aspect of public involvement. But keeping the importance of conformity in mind, a few consequences can be mentioned with regard to the relation implementer-regulator, the non-participation majority, and non-participating critics. The new role of the regulator and the involved public in the RISCOM mode] cannot absolutely avoid the risks due to conformity, it can only decrease the conformity influence