AO3 - eval conformity

• Strength for NSI

  • Research support by Asch line study
  • When interviewing Px some said they conformed because they felt self-concious giving the correct answer and were afraid of disapproval
  • When answers were written down privately, conformity fell to 12.5% - no normative group pressure
• Strength for ISI: study support

  • Lucas et al. (2006) gave 'easy' and 'hard maths problems
  • More people conformed to incorrect answers when the maths problems were difficult i.e. situation became ambiguous (unclear)
  • Px didn't want to be wrong so relied on answers given (not real) from 3 other students
  • Results are what ISI would predict about conformity
• Counterpoint - Lucas et. al.

  • often unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work in research studies (or in real life)
  • Asch (1955) found that conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant
  • the dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because they provide social support)
  • may reduce the power of ISI (because they provide an alternative source of social information)
  • hard to separate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate together in most real-world conformity
• A limitation of NSI is it does not predict conformity in every case

  • nAffiliators: people who are greatly concerned with being liked by others/have a strong need for 'affiliation' (i.e. they want to relate to other people)
  • McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform
  • NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others
  • there are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures