Explanations of conformity

Question 1

What are the explanations for conformity?

Answer 1

• Informative social influence (ISI)
• Normative social influence (NSI)

Question 2

What is the two-process theory?

Answer 2

• Deutsch and Gerard developed a two-process theory, arguing that there are two main reasons people conform. They are based on two central human needs; the need to be right (ISI), and the need to be liked (NSI).

Question 3

Informational social influence (ISI) pt.1

Answer 3

• ISI is a cognitive process because its to do with what you think.
• Is about who has better info- you or the rest of the group.
• Often we are uncertain about what behaviours/ beliefs are right or wrong.
• The reasons individuals follow the behaviour of the group is because they want to be right.

Question 4

Informational social influence (ISI) pt.2

Answer 4

• ISI is most likely to happen in situations that are new to a person, or situations where there is some ambiguity (so isn’t clear what is right).
• Also typical in crisis situations where decisions have to be made quickly.
• Occurs as well when one person/ group is regarded as being more of an expert.

Question 5

Normative social influence (NSI) pt.1

Answer 5

• Is about norms i.e. what is ‘normal’ or typical behaviour for a social group.
• Norms regulate the behaviour of groups and individuals so it is not surprising that people pay attention to them.
• People do not like to appear foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than be rejected.
• NSI is emotional rather than a cognitive process.

Question 6

Normative social influence (NSI) pt.2

Answer 6

• NSI is most likely to occur in situations with strangers where you may eel concerned about rejection.
• It may also occur with people you know because we are most concerned about the social approval of our friends.
• It may be more pronounced in stressful situations where people have a greater need for social support.

Question 7

Evaluation of the NSI explanation of compliance (+)

Answer 7

+
1. Research support= Asch’s research demonstrates how individuals conform with the majority on an unambiguous line comparison test (even when they know their response is incorrect) in order to be liked or in an attempt to avoid standing out from the group.
Evaluation: This is a strength because it shows that the normative social influence explanation is a valid assumption as to why people conform with the majority.

Question 8

Evaluation of the NSI explanation of compliance (-)

Answer 8

-
Points: Criticised for not acknowledging the importance of belonging to a group.
Evidence: For example, many studies (Sherif & Rohrer) have shown how conformity to group norms can persist long after the group no longer exists.
Evaluation: This is a weakness because ppts in an experiment cannot fear group exclusion which implies that factors other than dependency on the group may be important as regards to whether or not an individual conforms.

Question 9

Evaluation of the ISI explanation for conformity (+)

Answer 9

+
Point: Research has supported the suggestions of the informational social influence explanation as regards to why people conform.
Evidence: E.g. Sherif’s research demonstrates how the exposure to other peoples beliefs has an important influence on other ppts estimates especially when the ppts are uncertain about what to believe themselves.
Evaluation: This is a strength because the research supports the ISI explanation of conformity and the assumption that individuals will be influenced by members of the majority who appear more informed than them.

Question 10

Evaluation of the ISI conformity explanation (-)

Answer 10

-
Point: Sherif study can be criticised as to the extent in which it demonstrates conformity.
Evidence: Cardwell suggests that Sherif’s study demonstrates how groups norms emerge and not necessarily the process of conformity. He suggests that majority influence means a majority influencing a minority who then conform to the majority view. In Sherif’s study there was no majority or minority group, simply a number of people who had different views.
Evaluation: This is a weaknesses because if Sherif’s study is not a true demonstration of conformity and internalisation then it cannot be used in support of ISI as an explanation of conformity.

Question 11

Evidence to support conformity: Sherif (Aim)

Answer 11

Aim= Conducted an experiment with the aim of demonstrating that people conform to group norms when they are put in an ambiguous situation.

Question 12

Evidence to support conformity: Sherif (Method)

Answer 12

• Lab experiment.
• He used autokinetic effect (a small spot of light in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still)= visual illusion.
• When ppts were individually tested, their estimates of how far the light moved varied considerably (e.g. 20cm to 80cm).
• The ppts were then tested in groups of 3.
• Sherif manipulated the composition of the group by putting together 2 people whose estimate of the light movement when alone were very similar and one person whose estimate was very different.
• Each person in the group had to say aloud how far they thought the light had moved.

Question 13

Evidence to support conformity: Sherif (Results)

Answer 13

• Found that over numerous estimates/ trials of movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate.
• The person whose estimate was greatly different from the other 2 in the group conformed to the view of the other two.
• Sherif said that this showed that people would always tend to conform, rather than make individual judgements, they tend to come to a group agreement.

Question 14

Evidence to support conformity: Sherif (Conclusion)

Answer 14

• Results show that when in an ambiguous situation, a person will look to others for guidance. They want to do the right thing but lack the appropriate information.
• Observing others can provide this information.
• This is known as informational conformity.