Evaluating explanations for conformity

RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE (STRENGTH): One strength of informational social influence as an explanation for conformity is that it is supported by research evidence. For example, Jenness asked participants to estimate the number of beans in a jar individually before discussing their answers in groups. When given a second opportunity to estimate individually, most participants changed their original answers so that they were closer to the group estimate. This suggests that participants conformed because they believed the group's judgement was more likely to be correct than their own. Therefore, Jenness's findings provide support for informational social influence as an explanation for conformity, particularly in situations where people are uncertain or lack knowledge.

RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE (STRENGTH WITH COUNTERARGUMENT): One strength of normative social influence as an explanation for conformity comes from research by Asch. In his line judgement study, participants gave incorrect answers because they were influenced by a larger group of confederates. Post-experiment interviews suggested that many participants conformed to fit in with the group and avoid social rejection, rather than because they believed the group was correct. This supports the idea of normative social influence, as participants appeared to change their public behaviour without changing their private beliefs. However, it could be argued that Asch's study lacks temporal validity. The research was conducted in 1950s America, a time when social conformity may have been higher than it is today. As a result, the findings may not fully reflect behaviour in more individualistic modern societies. Consequently, although Asch's study supports normative social influence, the findings should be applied to contemporary settings with some caution.

CONFORMITY IN THE REAL WORLD (STRENGTH): Another strength of normative social influence as an explanation for conformity is that it is supported by research from real-world settings. For example, Schultz et al. (2008) studied hotel guests to see whether perceived group behaviour would influence environmentally friendly actions, such as towel reuse. Guests who were told that 75% of other guests reused their towels were 25% less likely to request fresh towels each day than those in the control condition. This suggests that people do conform to perceived social norms in everyday situations. Therefore, this research supports normative social influence as an explanation for conformity beyond the laboratory.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES (LIMITATION): One limitation of explanations for conformity is that they do not fully account for individual differences. For example, Perrin and Spencer (1980) replicated Asch's study using engineering, mathematics and chemistry students, and found only one instance of conformity in 396 trials. This suggests that these participants were more confident in their ability to judge line lengths and were less affected by group pressure. Therefore, this research suggests that factors such as confidence, knowledge and expertise can reduce conformity, meaning that conformity cannot always be explained by normative social influence or informational social influence alone.