A03

• What are the strengths of explanations for conformity?

  1. Research support for NSI
  2. Research support for ISI
• What are the limitations of explanations for conformity?

  1. ISI and NSI may be interdependent
  2. Normative influence may not be detected
  3. Individual differences in NSI
• Strength = research support for NSI

  • Linkenbach and Perkins (2003) found that adolescents who were exposed to the message that the majority of their age peers did not smoke were less likely to take up smoking
  • In Asch’s (1951) conformity research, he interviewed participants at the conclusion of the experiment, and they reported conforming because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and were afraid of group disapproval
  • However, when participants wrote their answers down, instead of saying them aloud, conformity fell to 12.5%
  • This is because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure
  • Both studies demonstrate power of NSI
• Strength = research support for ISI

  • Lucas et al. (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult
  • There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than when they were easier ones
  • Study shows that people conform in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer, which is the outcome predicted by ISI
• Limitation = ISI and NSI may be interdependent

  • Assumed that NSI and ISI are separate processes and that behaviour is solely due to NSI or ISI
  • Asch (1955) found that conformity reduced when there was one other dissenting participant in the experiment
  • This dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because they provides social support) or they may reduce the power of ISI (because they provide an alternative source of information)
  • Both interpretations are plausible
  • This shows it isn’t always possible to be sure which type of social influence is at work and casts doubt over the view that ISI and NSI operate independently
• Limitation = normative influence may not be detected

  • Some support for the claim that individuals do not always recognise the behaviour of others as a causal factor in the change in their behaviour
  • Nolan et al. (2008) investigated the persuasive impact and detectability of normative social influence
  • They surveyed Californians about energy conservation and found that descriptive normative beliefs were more predictive of behaviour than were other relevant beliefs, even though respondents rated such norms as least important in their conservation decisions
  • In a follow-up field experiment, they found that normative social influence produced the greatest change in behaviour compared to information highlighting other reasons to conserve, even though respondents rated the normative information as least motivating
  • Such results show that normative messages can be a powerful lever of persuasion but that their influence is often under detected
• Limitation = individual differences in NSI

  • Research has evidenced that NSI cannot be used as an explanation for, or prediction of conformity in every case
  • Certain individuals who are less concerned with being liked are less affected by normative influences than those who care more about being liked by others
  • These people are known as nAffiliators – people who have a greater need for ‘affiliation’
  • McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform
  • This shows that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others, and so they will be affected by NSI in differing ways
  • Therefore, studies need to consider these individual differences when conducting their research