Social Influence -> Explanations For Conformity Flashcards
Normative Social Influence (NSI)
People have a fundamental need for social approval and acceptance. Therefore avoiding 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’. Conformity can be an effective strategy to ensure acceptance. Normative social influence is likely to lead to compliance.
Informational Social Influence (ISI)
People have a fundamental need to be right/correct. 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. Informational social influence is more likely to happen if the situation is ambiguous/difficult/novel or when others are experts. Informational social influence leads to internalisation.
Strength of explanations for conformity
Jenness asked participants to estimate how many beans were in a jar. Each participant had to make an individual estimate first, and then as a group. He found that when the task was carried out in a group, the participants would report estimates of roughly the same, though they had previously reported quite differently. This is likely to be an example of ISI as participants would be uncertain and so be influenced by the group.
Weaknesses of explanations for conformity
It has been suggested that there is a third explanation for conformity, not included in this theory, known as ingratiation conformity. This is similar to NSI, 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
Dispositional factors may also have an impact. People with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform than those with an external locus. NSI and ISI cannot explain this finding.
Asch (1951)
Procedure: Asch placed a participant in a group with several confederates. The group was asked to look at a ‘standard line’ and then decide which of three other ‘test lines’ was the same length as it, without discussing it. They then gave their responses one at a time. The answer was obvious; however, the confederates gave the wrong answer on 12 of the 18 trials. The participant was the last, or second to last, one to give their response so they heard the rest of the groups’ responses before giving their own.
Findings: Participants gave a wrong answer 37% of the time. 75% of participants
conformed in at least once. When Asch interviewed his participants afterwards he discovered that the majority who had conformed had continued to trust their own judgment but gave the same answer as the group to avoid disapproval (normative social influence).
Group Size
Groups with one confederate had a conformity rate of 3%. Groups with two confederates had a conformity rate of 13%. With three confederates conformity rose to 32%. It appears that we can resist the influence of two people fairly easily, but three people are much harder to resist. There was little change to conformity once groups have
reached four or more confederates
Task Difficulty
When the lines were of a similar length, making the judgement more difficult, conformity levels increased. When the correct answer was obvious, making the judgement easier,
conformity levels decreased. The more difficult the task the more informational social influence there would have been.
Unanimity
When the majority were unanimous in their wrong answer conformity levels
increased. However, when only one other person in the group gave a different
answer from the others, meaning that the group was not unanimous, conformity
dropped. Asch found that even the presence of just one confederate
who went against the majority reduced conformity from 37% to 5%. When groups are unanimous normative social influence is stronger.
Weaknesses of Asch (1951)
- Asch (1951, 1956) may not have temporal validity. The study was conducted 70 years ago and it is possible that people may have been more conformist then than they are now. Post-war attitudes that people should work together and consent rather than dissent may have affected the results.
- This study is gender biased because the sample only contained male participants. This means that the study may not represent female behaviour. It is also culturally biased because it only included white American men and may not reflect the behaviour of other cultures.
- The study took place in a laboratory so participants may have guessed the aim of the experiment and changed their behaviour. This means demand characteristics would occur reducing validity as it would not reflect conformity in everyday life.
