Psychologists investigating social influence have discovered several reasons why people conform. Discuss what psychological research has told us about why people conform. (Total 16 marks)

Model Answer:

Psychological research has identified two main explanations for why people conform: informational social influence (ISI) and normative social influence (NSI). ISI occurs when individuals conform because they believe others have the correct answer. This is a cognitive process, typically occurring in ambiguous situations or crises, as individuals rely on others for guidance. For example, a person might copy their classmates’ answers during a group task if they are unsure of the correct answer. In contrast, NSI occurs when individuals conform to be liked or accepted by a group. This is an emotional process, often driven by a desire to avoid rejection or gain social approval. For instance, someone might agree with their friends’ music preferences to avoid being excluded. Both ISI and NSI provide valuable insights into the social and psychological mechanisms underlying conformity.

One strength of these explanations is their focus on environmental determinism. (Point) ISI and NSI demonstrate how social and situational factors, such as group dynamics and ambiguity, shape behaviour. (Because) This supports the idea that conformity is often driven by environmental influences rather than individual choices, providing a comprehensive understanding of social behaviour. (Why) This is beneficial because recognising the role of environmental factors allows researchers and practitioners to design interventions, such as anti-bullying programmes, that address situational pressures to conform. (Counterargument) However, focusing heavily on situational factors may ignore the role of individual agency and free will, which can also influence conformity behaviour, limiting the overall explanatory power of these theories.

A weakness of the research is its reliance on laboratory experiments, such as Asch’s study. (Point) These controlled settings often lack ecological validity as they do not replicate the complexity of real-world social interactions. (Because) This is problematic because findings from these studies may not generalise to everyday settings, reducing their overall applicability to real-life behaviour. (Why) For example, conformity in a real-world situation may involve higher stakes and more nuanced influences, which laboratory conditions cannot adequately capture. (Counterargument) However, the use of laboratory experiments ensures high control over extraneous variables, allowing researchers to establish causal relationships and ensure the reliability of the findings.

Another strength is the practical applications derived from ISI. (Point) Understanding ISI has been used to improve educational strategies, such as promoting peer learning in classrooms where students rely on each other to develop their understanding. (Because) This is beneficial because applying ISI in educational settings enhances collaborative learning, helping students gain confidence in ambiguous situations and improve their academic performance. (Why) These insights demonstrate how psychological research can directly improve societal systems, highlighting the value of conformity research in everyday life. (Counterargument) However, these practical applications may not be universally effective, as the impact of ISI might differ based on cultural or educational contexts, limiting their global applicability.

A further weakness is that explanations of conformity may oversimplify behaviour by ignoring individual differences. (Point) Not everyone conforms to the same degree, as personality traits such as confidence or intelligence can significantly affect susceptibility to ISI or NSI. (Because) This is problematic as it suggests that ISI and NSI do not account for all variations in conformity, limiting their ability to explain human behaviour fully. (Why) For example, Perrin and Spencer found lower conformity rates in engineering students, suggesting individual factors can override situational influences. (Counterargument) Nevertheless, acknowledging these individual differences does not invalidate the overall value of ISI and NSI but instead highlights the need for a more integrative approach that considers both situational and personal factors.