Conformity types and explanations eval Flashcards
Is the NSI/ISI distinction useful?
As suggested in the counterpoint on this page, it is hard to work out whether NSI or ISI is operating in research studies and real-world situations. Lucas et al.’s findings could be due to one or the other or both. This suggests the distinction is not very useful.
To take another example, Asch’s research into variables supports both NSI and ISI. For instance, a unanimous group is a powerful potential source of disapproval because everyone agrees that they are right and you are wrong. The pressure to avoid rejection is strong, making it more likely you will conform. This is NSI.
On the other hand, if all members of a group agree with each other, you may well think that they must know better than you do (perhaps you are literally the only person who is not ‘in the know’). This increases pressure on you to conform, an example of ISI.
This suggests that NSI and ISI are useful concepts because they can be used together to explain why people conform in most research studies and real-world situations.
[Alternative conclusion, because it is possible to draw a different conclusion from the same evidence: This suggests that NSI and ISI may operate together in many situations, so it is too simplistic to consider them as separate and independent reasons for conforming.]
Research support for NSI
One strength of NSI is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity.
For example, when Asch (1951, see previous spread) interviewed his participants, some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote their answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%.
This is because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure.
This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them (i.e. NSI)
Research support for ISI
Another strength is that there is research evidence to support ISI from the study by Todd
Lucas et al. (2006, see previous spread).
Lucas et al. found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult. This is because when the problems were easy the participants ‘knew their own minds’ but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous (unclear). The participants did not want to be wrong, so they relied on the answers they were given.
This shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would predict.
Counterpoint However
Counterpoint However, it is often unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work in research studies (or in real life). For example, Asch (1955) found that conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant (see previous spread). The dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because they provide social support) or they may reduce the power of ISI (because they provide an alternative source of social information). Both interpretations are possible.
Therefore, it is hard to separate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate together in most real-world conformity situations.
Individual differences in NSI
One limitation is that NSI does not predict conformity in every case.
Some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others. Such people are called nAffiliators - they have a strong need for ‘affiliation’ (i.e. they want to relate to other people). Paul McGhee and Richard Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform.
This shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others.
There are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures
