Describe and evaluate (informative social influence and normative social influence) as
explanations for conformity (16 Marks)
A03:
A strength of informative social influence is that it has research support. Lucas (2006) asked students
for answers to maths problems that were easy or difficult, there was more conformity to incorrect
answers when they were more difficult. This supports informative social influence because as the
task difficulty increases the students wanted to be correct and they believed the answers of the
other students were right, so they conformed with them as they wanted to be right, students
doubted they were right.
A limitation of normative social influence is that it doesn’t necessarily affect everyone’s behaviour in
the same way. For example, nAffiliators are people who have a greater need for affiliation I.e., to be
in a relationship with others. Therefore, nAffiliators are more likely to conform due to normative
social influence to be accepted by others, than those who do not have this need for affiliation. This is
a problem for the theory because it is not as straightforward as originally thought and normative
social influence is not the same for everyone. Normative social influence may be an explanation for
conformity for certain types of people but no others.
A strength of normative social influence is that it has research support. For example, in Asch’s study,
many participants went along with a wrong answer because other people did. This was supported by
them saying that they were afraid of disapproval. This supports normative social influence because
the participants wanted to be accepted and avoid their social disapproval. This is further supported
by the fact that the conformity was less if they wrote their answer down. Writing down the answer
the participant doesn’t have to share what they wrote. Therefore, this relates to normative social
influence as there would be no social disapproval.
A strength of both informative social influence and normative social influence is that they work
together. The original 2 process model suggested that conformity had to be either due to normative
social influence or informative social influence. However, this has not been criticised, and it is likely
that often both processes could be involved. For example, in Asch’s study, conformity is reduced
when there is one other dissenter (a non-conforming person). The unanimity then decreases as it
isn’t now only one person is not conforming. It reduces power of normative social influence as there
is social support. Therefore, we cannot be sure that the concept of these working as separate factors
can be supported, and it is very difficult to separate them out.
explanations for conformity (16 Marks)
A03:
A strength of informative social influence is that it has research support. Lucas (2006) asked students
for answers to maths problems that were easy or difficult, there was more conformity to incorrect
answers when they were more difficult. This supports informative social influence because as the
task difficulty increases the students wanted to be correct and they believed the answers of the
other students were right, so they conformed with them as they wanted to be right, students
doubted they were right.
A limitation of normative social influence is that it doesn’t necessarily affect everyone’s behaviour in
the same way. For example, nAffiliators are people who have a greater need for affiliation I.e., to be
in a relationship with others. Therefore, nAffiliators are more likely to conform due to normative
social influence to be accepted by others, than those who do not have this need for affiliation. This is
a problem for the theory because it is not as straightforward as originally thought and normative
social influence is not the same for everyone. Normative social influence may be an explanation for
conformity for certain types of people but no others.
A strength of normative social influence is that it has research support. For example, in Asch’s study,
many participants went along with a wrong answer because other people did. This was supported by
them saying that they were afraid of disapproval. This supports normative social influence because
the participants wanted to be accepted and avoid their social disapproval. This is further supported
by the fact that the conformity was less if they wrote their answer down. Writing down the answer
the participant doesn’t have to share what they wrote. Therefore, this relates to normative social
influence as there would be no social disapproval.
A strength of both informative social influence and normative social influence is that they work
together. The original 2 process model suggested that conformity had to be either due to normative
social influence or informative social influence. However, this has not been criticised, and it is likely
that often both processes could be involved. For example, in Asch’s study, conformity is reduced
when there is one other dissenter (a non-conforming person). The unanimity then decreases as it
isn’t now only one person is not conforming. It reduces power of normative social influence as there
is social support. Therefore, we cannot be sure that the concept of these working as separate factors
can be supported, and it is very difficult to separate them out.
