Steph and Jeff are student teachers who recently joined other members of staff on a one-day strike. When asked why they decided to do so, Steph replied, ‘I never thought I would strike but I listened to the other teachers’ arguments and now I have become

Model Answer:

Psychologists have identified two main explanations for conformity: 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 that typically happens in ambiguous situations or when individuals lack knowledge, as they rely on others for guidance. Normative social influence (NSI), on the other hand, occurs when individuals conform to be liked or accepted by a group. This is an emotional process driven by the desire to gain social approval or avoid rejection.

In this scenario, Steph’s behaviour can be explained by ISI. She mentioned that she listened to the other teachers’ arguments, suggesting that she relied on their knowledge to make her decision. This aligns with ISI, where individuals conform because they believe others’ opinions are correct, particularly in situations where they are uncertain. Jeff’s behaviour reflects NSI, as he conformed to strike because everyone else was doing it and he didn’t want to be the only one who wasn’t. This demonstrates NSI, where the desire to avoid rejection or gain approval drives conformity.

One strength of these explanations is their supporting evidence from research. (Point) For example, Asch’s study demonstrated NSI, as participants conformed to incorrect answers to avoid group disapproval, even when they knew the group was wrong. (This is because) It shows how individuals are influenced by the need for social acceptance, which helps explain Jeff’s behaviour in the scenario. (Why it is beneficial) This is beneficial because it provides a valid explanation for conformity in real-life situations, like workplace decisions. (Counterargument) However, Asch’s findings lack ecological validity as the artificial line-judgment task does not fully replicate real-life scenarios like Jeff’s decision, limiting its generalisability.

A weakness of these explanations is that they can oversimplify conformity by ignoring individual differences. (Point) Some people are naturally less susceptible to ISI or NSI due to personality traits such as high confidence or independence. (This is because) Such traits mean individuals are less likely to rely on others for information or approval, reducing the applicability of ISI and NSI to all people. (Why it is problematic) This is problematic because it suggests these explanations cannot account for variability in conformity behaviour, limiting their universality. (Counterargument) However, recognising individual differences does not invalidate ISI or NSI but highlights the need to consider these factors alongside situational influences.