SOCIAL INFLUENCE 16 MARKERS
Outline and evaluate the types and explanations of conformity (16 marks)
Social influence is the study of how thoughts, feelings and behaviour of individuals have
been influenced by the presence of others. This can be actual, imagined or implied.
Conformity is a change in a person’s behaviours or opinions as a result of real or imagined
pressure from a person or group. Kelman introduced three different types of conformity:
compliance, identification and internalisation. Compliance is a temporary type of
conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority’s view but still disagree with it
privately, this change in behaviour lasts as long as the group is monitoring us.
Identification is a moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way as the group
in order to be a part of it but we don’t necessarily agree with everything that they believe.
Internalisation is the deepest type of conformity, we take on the majority’s view as we
accept it as correct, leading to a permanent change in behaviour even when the group is
absent. A two-process theory for explanations for conformity was developed, it claims that
there are two processes that lead to conformity. Informational social influence is when we
conform to others because we believe they have accurate information. It is a cognitive
process as we seek information as we aren’t sure what to do, we follow the group majority
as we assume they have better information, which often involves internalisation. Normative
social influence is when we conform to others because we want to be liked and accepted
by them. It is an emotional process where we follow the norm because we are concerned
about rejection and we need our friend’s social approval as well as group support, this
usually leads to compliance.
A strength of the explanation for conformity is that there is research support for
informational social influence (ISI). For example, Lucas et al asked students to complete a
maths test, some of these were easy and others were difficult. They found that there was
more conformity to the difficult questions than for the easy ones, which was especially true
for students who rated their maths ability as poor. This study shows that people conform in
situations when they don’t know the answers. This is a strength as it increases the validity
of the explanation because this was the predicted outcome from ISI.
However, a weakness of it is that there are individual difference in normative social
influence (NSI). Some research has shown NSI doesn’t effect everyone in the same way.
For example, people who are less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI.
These people are described as nAffiliators, they are people who don’t have a need to be in
a relationship with others. McGhee and Teevan found that students who tend to be in a
high need of affiliation are more likely to conform. This is a strength because it
demonstrates conformity however it shows the weakness as individual people have their
own responses in terms of conformity.
A further weakness is that there are individual differences in ISI. ISI doesn’t effect
everyone’s behaviour in the same way. For example Asch found that students were less
conformist (28%) than other participants (37%). As well as this, Perrin and Spencer
conducted a study using science and engineering students and only found a small amount
of conformity. This is a weakness because it shows how students that would usually be
expected to use ISI don’t respond to conformity in the way that is expected.
, Outline and evaluate Asch’s research into conformity (16 marks)
Asch’s research aimed to test conformity in social situations. 123 American males were
shown two large white cards with lines on them at a time. One of the lines was a ‘standard’
line and the other card had 3 lines, one of them being the same length as the ‘standard’
line and the other two were clearly different. The participants were then asked which of the
three lines was the same as the standard line. Each of the participants were tested with a
group of confederates. There were 18 trials, 12 of them were ‘critical’ trials where the
confederates were instructed to say the wrong answer. They found that the participants
gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time and 25% of the participants didn’t conform on
any of the trials, meaning that 75% of them conformed at least once. The participants said
that they conformed to avoid rejection, which shows normative social influence. Asch then
conducted variations of his research to investigate whether particular conditions would
lead to an increase or decrease in conformity. The first variation was group size, where
Asch found that with 3 confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose. However,
adding more than three confederates made little difference, which suggests that a small
majority is not sufficient for influence to be exerted but there isn’t a need for a majority of
more than three. Another variation he tested was unanimity, where he introduced a
confederate that disagreed with his peers, known as a dissenter. The dissenting
confederate meant that conformity was reduced by 1/4 from the level it was when the
majority was unanimous. This shows that presence of a dissenter enabled the participants
to behave more independently, suggesting that the influence of the group depends on
them being unanimous. The last variation he tested was task difficulty, and he found that
the more difficult the task was (making the line lengths more similar) the more conformity
increased. This suggests that informational social influence plays a greater role when the
test becomes more difficult.
A weakness of Asch’s research is that it used artificial stimuli. There could’ve been
participants with demand characteristics that went along with the situation. The actual
tasks of comparing lines was relatively trivial and so there was no real reason to conform.
The participants were members of a group, which doesn’t explain normal situations. This is
a weakness because you can’t generalise how the participants acted in the artificial
situation to real life situations.
A further weakness if that the findings were limited, leading to limited applications of the
findings. Asch only tested men and not women. Research has been conducted that show
that women are more conformist and concerned about being liked within their relationships
than men. As well as this, Asch only conducted his studies on men from an individualist
culture (USA) rather than collectivist cultures, for example China. It has been found that
collectivist cultures have much higher conformity rates, which is supported by Bond and
Smith who state that those cultures are more orientated to group needs. This is a
weakness because it shows that Asch’s findings aren’t universal and therefore cannot be
applied to everyone.
However, a strength is that his research has high internal validity. It was conducted in a
highly controlled environment, meaning that there were very few extraneous variables. As
well as this, it was conducted in a lab, meaning that the researcher had full control over the
variables used and the format of the experiment. This is a strength because it increases
the validity of the explanation.
Outline and evaluate the types and explanations of conformity (16 marks)
Social influence is the study of how thoughts, feelings and behaviour of individuals have
been influenced by the presence of others. This can be actual, imagined or implied.
Conformity is a change in a person’s behaviours or opinions as a result of real or imagined
pressure from a person or group. Kelman introduced three different types of conformity:
compliance, identification and internalisation. Compliance is a temporary type of
conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority’s view but still disagree with it
privately, this change in behaviour lasts as long as the group is monitoring us.
Identification is a moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way as the group
in order to be a part of it but we don’t necessarily agree with everything that they believe.
Internalisation is the deepest type of conformity, we take on the majority’s view as we
accept it as correct, leading to a permanent change in behaviour even when the group is
absent. A two-process theory for explanations for conformity was developed, it claims that
there are two processes that lead to conformity. Informational social influence is when we
conform to others because we believe they have accurate information. It is a cognitive
process as we seek information as we aren’t sure what to do, we follow the group majority
as we assume they have better information, which often involves internalisation. Normative
social influence is when we conform to others because we want to be liked and accepted
by them. It is an emotional process where we follow the norm because we are concerned
about rejection and we need our friend’s social approval as well as group support, this
usually leads to compliance.
A strength of the explanation for conformity is that there is research support for
informational social influence (ISI). For example, Lucas et al asked students to complete a
maths test, some of these were easy and others were difficult. They found that there was
more conformity to the difficult questions than for the easy ones, which was especially true
for students who rated their maths ability as poor. This study shows that people conform in
situations when they don’t know the answers. This is a strength as it increases the validity
of the explanation because this was the predicted outcome from ISI.
However, a weakness of it is that there are individual difference in normative social
influence (NSI). Some research has shown NSI doesn’t effect everyone in the same way.
For example, people who are less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI.
These people are described as nAffiliators, they are people who don’t have a need to be in
a relationship with others. McGhee and Teevan found that students who tend to be in a
high need of affiliation are more likely to conform. This is a strength because it
demonstrates conformity however it shows the weakness as individual people have their
own responses in terms of conformity.
A further weakness is that there are individual differences in ISI. ISI doesn’t effect
everyone’s behaviour in the same way. For example Asch found that students were less
conformist (28%) than other participants (37%). As well as this, Perrin and Spencer
conducted a study using science and engineering students and only found a small amount
of conformity. This is a weakness because it shows how students that would usually be
expected to use ISI don’t respond to conformity in the way that is expected.
, Outline and evaluate Asch’s research into conformity (16 marks)
Asch’s research aimed to test conformity in social situations. 123 American males were
shown two large white cards with lines on them at a time. One of the lines was a ‘standard’
line and the other card had 3 lines, one of them being the same length as the ‘standard’
line and the other two were clearly different. The participants were then asked which of the
three lines was the same as the standard line. Each of the participants were tested with a
group of confederates. There were 18 trials, 12 of them were ‘critical’ trials where the
confederates were instructed to say the wrong answer. They found that the participants
gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time and 25% of the participants didn’t conform on
any of the trials, meaning that 75% of them conformed at least once. The participants said
that they conformed to avoid rejection, which shows normative social influence. Asch then
conducted variations of his research to investigate whether particular conditions would
lead to an increase or decrease in conformity. The first variation was group size, where
Asch found that with 3 confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose. However,
adding more than three confederates made little difference, which suggests that a small
majority is not sufficient for influence to be exerted but there isn’t a need for a majority of
more than three. Another variation he tested was unanimity, where he introduced a
confederate that disagreed with his peers, known as a dissenter. The dissenting
confederate meant that conformity was reduced by 1/4 from the level it was when the
majority was unanimous. This shows that presence of a dissenter enabled the participants
to behave more independently, suggesting that the influence of the group depends on
them being unanimous. The last variation he tested was task difficulty, and he found that
the more difficult the task was (making the line lengths more similar) the more conformity
increased. This suggests that informational social influence plays a greater role when the
test becomes more difficult.
A weakness of Asch’s research is that it used artificial stimuli. There could’ve been
participants with demand characteristics that went along with the situation. The actual
tasks of comparing lines was relatively trivial and so there was no real reason to conform.
The participants were members of a group, which doesn’t explain normal situations. This is
a weakness because you can’t generalise how the participants acted in the artificial
situation to real life situations.
A further weakness if that the findings were limited, leading to limited applications of the
findings. Asch only tested men and not women. Research has been conducted that show
that women are more conformist and concerned about being liked within their relationships
than men. As well as this, Asch only conducted his studies on men from an individualist
culture (USA) rather than collectivist cultures, for example China. It has been found that
collectivist cultures have much higher conformity rates, which is supported by Bond and
Smith who state that those cultures are more orientated to group needs. This is a
weakness because it shows that Asch’s findings aren’t universal and therefore cannot be
applied to everyone.
However, a strength is that his research has high internal validity. It was conducted in a
highly controlled environment, meaning that there were very few extraneous variables. As
well as this, it was conducted in a lab, meaning that the researcher had full control over the
variables used and the format of the experiment. This is a strength because it increases
the validity of the explanation.
