Lesson 2 Explanations for conformity Flashcards
Two explanations for conformity
Deutsch and Gerrard (1955) developed a theory to explain why people conform. They proposed that there were (only) two reasons why people conformed.
Normative social influence and Informational social influence
Normative social influence
People have a fundamental need for social approval and acceptance. We therefore avoid any behaviour that will make others reject or ridicule us. This can lead us to copy the behaviour of others in order to ‘fit in’. Studies have shown that people like those who are similar to them and so conformity can be an effective strategy to ensure we fit in with a group. Normative social influence is likely to lead to compliance, where people will agree publically with the group but privately they do not change their personal opinions.
Informational social influence
People have a fundamental need to be right and to have an accurate perception of reality. Individuals may make objective tests against reality (e.g. check the facts) but if this is not possible they will rely on the opinions of others to check if they are correct and then use this as evidence about reality. Informational social influence is more likely to happen if the situation is ambiguous (the correct answer is not clear) or when others are experts. Informational social influence leads to internalisation, where people publically AND privately change their opinions.
How does Asch (1951) support explanations of conformity
Asch (1951) asked participants to say which of three ‘test lines’ was the same as the ‘standard line’. The participants were in a group with confederates who purposefully gave the same wrong answer, even though the correct answer was obvious. In 33% of the trials the participants conformed to the group and gave the wrong answer (the chance of making a genuine mistake on this task was only 1%). Participants conformed due to normative social influence. After the experiment they claimed that they knew the correct answer but were worried that the group would ridicule them if they answered differently to everyone else.
How does Jenness (1932) support explanations for conformity
Jenness (1932) asked participant to estimate how many beans they thought were in a jar. Each participant had to make an individual estimate first, and then do the same as a group. He found that when the task was carried out in a group, the participants would report estimates of roughly the same value (even though they had previously reported quite different estimates as individuals).This is likely to be an example of informational social influence as participants would be uncertain about the actual number of beans in the jar and so be genuinely influenced by the group.
How does Sherif (1935) support explanations of conformity
Sherif (1935) used the autokinetic effect to investigate conformity. This is where a small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion). It was discovered that when participants were tested individually their estimates of how far the light actually moved varied considerably (e.g. from 20cm to 80cm). The participants were then tested in groups of three. Sherif manipulated the composition of the group by putting together two people whose estimate of the light movement when alone was 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. Sherif found that over numerous estimates of the movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate. The person whose estimate of movement was greatly different to the other two in the group conformed to the view of the other two because of informational social influence. The task was ambiguous so they looked to others for the answer.
Disadvantage of explanations of conformity (McLeaod 2007)
It has been suggested that there is a third explanation for conformity, not included in this theory, known as ingratiational conformity. This is similar to normative social influence, but group influence does not enter into the decision to conform. It is instead motivated by the need to impress or gain favour,rather than the fear of rejection (McLeod, 2007).
Disadvantage of explanations of conformity
Dispositional factors (i.e. personality traits) may also impact whether or not a person conforms. People with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform than those with an external locus of control. Normative social influence and informational social influence cannot explain this finding. A person’s locus of control refers to the extent to which they believe they have control over their own behaviour. People with an internal locus of controlbelieve that what occurs in their life is the result of their own behaviour and actions. People with an external locus of control believe strongly that what happens in their life is outside of their control
