Types And Explanations For Conformity Flashcards
A problem with research into the types and explanation of conformity is its social sensitivity
E – According to Sieber and Stanley, a theory can be considered socially sensitive if it has the potential for harmful social consequences for those connected to the research.
E – The theoretical ideas of Kelman (types of conformity) and Deutsch and Gerard (explanations for conformity) have the potential for social consequences as they provide a toolkit for social influence. If used by people with bad intentions, this set of ideas could be used to cause social harm by, for example, allowing people with prejudiced views to persuade others in society to accept these views and so stigmatize vulnerable social groups in society. However, just because research is socially sensitive does not mean it shouldn’t be conducted. Understanding what conformity is and how it occurs could be useful to society and help encourage socially beneficial behaviours or to educate citizens on how to resist being psychologically manipulated by others.
L - Therefore, research into the explanations and types of conformity needs to be approached carefully, as it has the potential for social harm as well as social good.
There is research support for informational social influence (ISI) as an explanation of conformity.
E – Jenness asked participants to give three estimates of the number of jellybeans in a jar: an initial private estimate, a second public estimate and a final private estimate. Jeness found participants’ final private estimate tended to move toward the public estimate.
E – Jenness’s research provides evidence of conformity that can be explained by ISI. It’s clear that participants in the study demonstrated conformity as they moved their final estimate closer to the group estimate, suggesting they changed their opinion of the number of jellybeans after they were exposed to the opinion of a majority group (I.e., the other participants). One reason this conformity is best explained by ISI, rather than NSI, is ISI drives conformity in ambiguous situations. Given that the correct number of jellybeans was ambiguous, it’s likely the participants were uncertain of the correct answer and so looked for guidance from the group estimate. Another reason this research provides support for the role of ISI as a cause of conformity is that this behaviour is not easily explained by NSI. Since NSI usually occurs in situations where we believe we are being monitored by the majority group, the fact that the final estimate was private (and so unmonitored by the group) is not easily explained by NSI. However, Jenness’s experiment took place in laboratory conditions and involved a task that was highly artificial. This makes it difficult to generalise from these findings to everyday behaviour in everyday settings, meaning this study lacks ecological validity and therefore provides limited support for ISI as an explanation for conformity.
L – Therefore, Jenness’s study provides support for ISI as an explanation of conformity, albeit limited support given its lack of ecological validity.
There is research support for normative social influence (NSI) as an explanation of conformity
E – In Asch’s line judgment task, 33% of the participants conformed to the obviously wrong answer given by Asch’s confederates. Follow-up interviews revealed most of these participants only conformed to avoid feeling rejected by the other people in the study.
E – Since the participants that conformed admitted they didn’t truly believe their answers, it suggests their conformity was motivated by a desire to fit in with the group, rather than a genuine belief the group was correct. Therefore, Asch’s research provides support for NSI as an explanation of conformity. However, subsequent research in the 1980s failed to replicate Asch’s findings, suggesting that generalising from Asch’s 1950s research to present day behaviour may be unwise. This criticism of Asch therefore weakens its support for NSI as an explanation of conformity. Moreover, Asch’s experiment took place in laboratory conditions and involved a task that was highly artificial. This makes it difficult to generalise from these findings to everyday behaviour in everyday settings, meaning this study lacks ecological validity and therefore provides limited support for NSI as an explanation for conformity.
L – Therefore, there Asch’s research provides support for NSI as an explanation of conformity, albeit limited support given its lack of temporal validity.
