Social Influence: Types and explanations of conformity (AO3)

Question 1

STRENGTH: Empirical evidence to support NSI

Answer 1

One strength of the concept of NSI is that there is empirical evidence to support the contention that people conform to others because of a need to be liked. Linkenbach and Perkins (2003) showed three groups of teenagers different smoking campaigns. They found that 41% of the group told that most people in their age group smoked began smoking, compared to only 10% of the group told that most people in their age group did not smoke. This is the outcome predicted by NSI as it shows that people changed their behaviour to fit in with the norm, and therefore these findings lend validity to the explanation.

Question 2

STRENGTH: Empirical evidence to support ISI

Answer 2

One strength of the theory of ISI is that there is empirical evidence supporting the explanation that people conform as they want to be correct. Lucas et al. (2006) asked students to give answers to both easy and difficult maths questions. They found greater conformity to incorrect answers given by confederates on difficult questions, and this was most common in students who rated their mathematical ability as poor. These findings suggest that when people are faced with the perception that they may be wrong, they are more likely to defer to others to reduce their uncertainty. This is the outcome predicted by ISI, therefore, the explanation is validated.

Question 3

LIMITATION: Incomplete explanation

Answer 3

A limitation of Deutsch and Gerard’s two-process model is that it may not offer a complete explanation of the reasons that people conform. Turner argues that people conform to maintain the norms of the group. This is known as referent informational influence (RII) and is based on the social identity theory. By conforming to the group norms, it reinforces an individual’s self-categorisation as a member of the group. This suggests that the two-process model is an incomplete explanation as people may conform for reasons not measured by the model. Therefore, the triple process theory may be a more valid model in explaining conformity.

Question 4

LIMITATION: Individual differences

Answer 4

A limitation of Deutsch and Gerard’s two-process model is that it does not consider individual differences. McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students with a high need of affiliation were more likely to conform as they care more about being liked, showing that NSI affects people differently. In Perrin and Spencer’s (1980) study, they found very little conformity in a group of engineering students, showing that ISI affects people differently. This demonstrates that not everyone is affected by NSI and ISI, challenging the validity of the model.

Question 5

LIMITATION: Separate explanations

Answer 5

A limitation of Deutsch and Gerard’s two-process model is that it reduces NSI and ISI to two separate explanations. NSI and ISI have been viewed as separate binary explanations, but they could be working together. Asch’s experiment may reduce the power of NSI from offering social support or may reduce the power of ISI from offering a source of alternative information. This casts doubt that they are two independently operating processes. This is even more difficult to establish in a real-life setting where the complexity is even more increased, therefore limiting the validity of the explanation.