Evaluation of Asch (1951)

• Asch’s study was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting. This allowed the researcher to standardise conditions such as the seating arrangement (with confederates positioned so that the real participant always responded last or next-to-last), the timing of responses, and the fixed order of the 18 trials (with 12 being critical). This high degree of control meant that the independent variable (group pressure) could be isolated effectively, thereby increasing internal validity.
• Supporting evidence: Numerous replications have produced similar findings—on average, participants conformed on about 32% of the critical trials, with 75% conforming at least once.
• Replicability and Consistency with Other Research

  The simplicity and clarity of Asch’s design make it highly replicable. The straightforward nature of the task (judging line lengths) has enabled many subsequent studies to reproduce similar levels of conformity.Supporting evidence: Replication studies continue to report conformity rates in the region of 30–35% on critical trials, which reinforces the reliability of Asch’s findings.
• Ethical Issues – Use of Deception

  A major criticism is the ethical concern regarding the use of deception. Participants were misled into believing that the other group members were genuine participants when, in fact, they were confederates. This breach of informed consent raises ethical questions about the psychological impact on the participants.

  Furthermore, the participants were deceived into believing the study was a visual discrimination task.
• Ethnocentrism – Limited Sample

  The sample consisted exclusively of 123 American male undergraduates. This narrow demographic limits the generalisability of the findings to other cultures, genders, and age groups. In other words, the study’s external validity is compromised because the results may not apply beyond this specific group.
• Demand Characteristics – Arrangement and Awareness

  The experimental procedure, particularly the arrangement where the participant always answered last, may have alerted individuals to the study’s purpose. This could lead them to alter their responses simply because they sensed the expected group consensus—a phenomenon known as demand characteristics. This issue means that some conformity might have been a result of participants trying to please the experimenter rather than a true influence of group pressure.
• Low Ecological Validity – Artificial Task and Setting

  The task of comparing line lengths is highly artificial and does not reflect the complexity of real-life social decision-making. Consequently, the extent to which the findings can be applied to everyday situations is limited. The simplicity of the stimulus (line judgement) and the contrived group setting mean that the behaviour observed may not occur in more natural contexts.