Evaluation points

• Asch study- when asked pps to judge the lengths of lines and match them to a standard line, he found many of the pps went along with the obviously wrong answers of the other group members, pps later said they did this to avoid dissaproval from the group, compliance had occured so that they would 'fit in', furthermore, Asch demonstrated in a later variation (1955) that when the pressure to publically conform is removed by asking pps to write down their answers on a piece of paper, rather than say them aloud the conformity rates fell to 12.5% as the fear of rejection became far less.
• Research for ISI- Et Al's study- 2006- students were asked to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult, greater conformity to incorrect answers was found when the questions were difficult rather than being easy. pps 'knew their own minds', but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous (unclear), the pps did not want to be incorrect, so they relied on the answers they were given. This shows ISI is valid explanation of conformity bc the results are accurate to what ISI would predict
• Counterpoint from Et Al's research- unclear whether or not it is NSI or ISI at work in research studies (or in real life).
• EG dissenter being added to the study may reduce the conformity effect due to NSI or ISI, it is unclear, NSI eg may be that they are supplied for research support however ISI example may be that the dissenter provides an alternative source of info. the pp now has more info to go off and may want to conform to be correct (ISI)!
• Asch found that conformity reduced when there is one dissenting pp,