Discuss explanations of conformity. (16 marks)
Normative social ifluefce (NSI) suggests that we cofform to the forms of the majorit
because we waft to be accepted b them afd avoid social disapproval. This usuall leads to
compliafce; we cofform whef we believe we are ufder surveillafce of the group, but if private our
behaviours afd attudes remaif ufchafged. NSI) is more likel whef we are with people we kfow,
as we are more cofcerfed about social rejectiof, afd if stressful situatiofs where we feed social
support.
)fformative social ifluefce ()SI) is where we believe that the majorit are correct, afd so we
cofform to their behaviours afd attudes because we waft to be correct as well. This ofef leads to
ifterfalisatiof, where we accept the majorit ’s viewpoift if public afd if private. )SI) is more likel if
ambiguous or crisis situatiofs, or whef we believe the others to be experts.
A strefgth of both explafatiofs is that there is research support. Asch foufd that
participafts cofformed to af obvious wrofg afswer if 37% of trials if order to avoid social
disapproval, supportifg NSI). Furthermore, Lucas foufd that cofformit if childref was higher whef
maths questiofs were more difcult, supportifg )SI). However, it ma be that both processes are
ifvolved. For example, if Asch’s experimeft cofformit decreased whef a dissefter was preseft,
et this ma be due to social support (NSI) or af alterfative source of ifformatiof beifg preseft
()SI) . This weakefs our ufderstafdifg of explafatiofs of cofformit , as we curreftl view the two
explafatiofs as separate whef the ma actuall work alofgside each other.
A criticism of the explafatiofs of cofformit is that the ma be afected b ifdividual
diferefces. ooter claims that ifdividuals with af ifterfal locus of coftrol (Lo) are more able to
resist social ifluefce because the are more self-coffdeft, have less feed for social approval afd
are active seekers of ifformatiof who take persofal respofsibilit for their actiofs. The explafatiofs
do fot accouft for persofalit diferefces that ma afect af ifdividual’s desire to be correct or
accepted b societ , so caf ofl provide a partial explafatiof of cofformit .
A strefgth of NSI) is that it has practical applicatiofs to promotifg beter behaviour. Nolaf
foufd that households told that ‘other residefts are tr ifg to decrease their eferg usage’
sigfifcaftl reduced their eferg cofsumptiof, whereas households simpl told the should
decrease their usage did fot. This prifciple has beef successfull applied to campaigfs that promote
positive social chafge, strefgthefifg the value of the NSI) explafatiof; e.g. usifg phrases such as
“Bif it, others do it” discourages literifg as ifdividuals feel that literifg is fot the form afd will
lead to social rejectiof.
Word couft: 144 + 294
Normative social ifluefce (NSI) suggests that we cofform to the forms of the majorit
because we waft to be accepted b them afd avoid social disapproval. This usuall leads to
compliafce; we cofform whef we believe we are ufder surveillafce of the group, but if private our
behaviours afd attudes remaif ufchafged. NSI) is more likel whef we are with people we kfow,
as we are more cofcerfed about social rejectiof, afd if stressful situatiofs where we feed social
support.
)fformative social ifluefce ()SI) is where we believe that the majorit are correct, afd so we
cofform to their behaviours afd attudes because we waft to be correct as well. This ofef leads to
ifterfalisatiof, where we accept the majorit ’s viewpoift if public afd if private. )SI) is more likel if
ambiguous or crisis situatiofs, or whef we believe the others to be experts.
A strefgth of both explafatiofs is that there is research support. Asch foufd that
participafts cofformed to af obvious wrofg afswer if 37% of trials if order to avoid social
disapproval, supportifg NSI). Furthermore, Lucas foufd that cofformit if childref was higher whef
maths questiofs were more difcult, supportifg )SI). However, it ma be that both processes are
ifvolved. For example, if Asch’s experimeft cofformit decreased whef a dissefter was preseft,
et this ma be due to social support (NSI) or af alterfative source of ifformatiof beifg preseft
()SI) . This weakefs our ufderstafdifg of explafatiofs of cofformit , as we curreftl view the two
explafatiofs as separate whef the ma actuall work alofgside each other.
A criticism of the explafatiofs of cofformit is that the ma be afected b ifdividual
diferefces. ooter claims that ifdividuals with af ifterfal locus of coftrol (Lo) are more able to
resist social ifluefce because the are more self-coffdeft, have less feed for social approval afd
are active seekers of ifformatiof who take persofal respofsibilit for their actiofs. The explafatiofs
do fot accouft for persofalit diferefces that ma afect af ifdividual’s desire to be correct or
accepted b societ , so caf ofl provide a partial explafatiof of cofformit .
A strefgth of NSI) is that it has practical applicatiofs to promotifg beter behaviour. Nolaf
foufd that households told that ‘other residefts are tr ifg to decrease their eferg usage’
sigfifcaftl reduced their eferg cofsumptiof, whereas households simpl told the should
decrease their usage did fot. This prifciple has beef successfull applied to campaigfs that promote
positive social chafge, strefgthefifg the value of the NSI) explafatiof; e.g. usifg phrases such as
“Bif it, others do it” discourages literifg as ifdividuals feel that literifg is fot the form afd will
lead to social rejectiof.
Word couft: 144 + 294
