Evaluation
Research support for NSI
One strength of NSI is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity. For example, when Asch (1951, see previous spread) interviewed his
participants, some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were
afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote their answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%.
This is because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure. This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to
be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them.
Research support for ISI
Another strength is that there is research evidence to support ISI from the study by Todd Lucas et al. (2006). Lucas et al. found that participants
conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult. This is because when the problems were easy the
participants 'knew their own minds but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous (unclear). The participants did not want to be
wrong, so they relied on the answers they were given. This shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would
predict. Counterpoint: However, it is often unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work in research studies (or in real life). For example, Asch (1955) found that
conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant (see previous spread). The dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because they
provide social support) or they may reduce the power of ISI (because they provide an alternative source of social
information). Both interpretations are possible. Therefore, it is hard to separate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate
together in most real-world conformity situations.
Individual differences in NSI Is the NSI/ISI distinction useful?
One limitation is that NSI does not predict conformity The counterpoint suggests the distinction is not
in every case. Some people are greatly concerned with useful because it is impossible to work out which
being liked by others. Such people are called is operating. Lucas et al’s findings could be due to
nAffiliators - they have a strong need for affiliation' (ie. NSI, ISI or both. However, Asch's research clearly
they want to relate to other people). Paul McGhee demonstrates both NSI and ISI as reasons for
and Richard Teevan (1967) found that students who conformity. For instance, in terms of group
were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. unanimity, a unanimous group is a powerful
This shows that NSI underlies conformity for some source of disapproval. The possibility of rejection
people more than it does for others. There are is a strong reason for conforming (NSI). But it is
individual differences in conformity that cannot be also true that a unanimous group conveys the
fully explained by one general theory of situational impression that everyone is 'in the know' apart
pressures. from you (ISI).
Research support for NSI
One strength of NSI is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity. For example, when Asch (1951, see previous spread) interviewed his
participants, some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were
afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote their answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%.
This is because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure. This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to
be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them.
Research support for ISI
Another strength is that there is research evidence to support ISI from the study by Todd Lucas et al. (2006). Lucas et al. found that participants
conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult. This is because when the problems were easy the
participants 'knew their own minds but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous (unclear). The participants did not want to be
wrong, so they relied on the answers they were given. This shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would
predict. Counterpoint: However, it is often unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work in research studies (or in real life). For example, Asch (1955) found that
conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant (see previous spread). The dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because they
provide social support) or they may reduce the power of ISI (because they provide an alternative source of social
information). Both interpretations are possible. Therefore, it is hard to separate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate
together in most real-world conformity situations.
Individual differences in NSI Is the NSI/ISI distinction useful?
One limitation is that NSI does not predict conformity The counterpoint suggests the distinction is not
in every case. Some people are greatly concerned with useful because it is impossible to work out which
being liked by others. Such people are called is operating. Lucas et al’s findings could be due to
nAffiliators - they have a strong need for affiliation' (ie. NSI, ISI or both. However, Asch's research clearly
they want to relate to other people). Paul McGhee demonstrates both NSI and ISI as reasons for
and Richard Teevan (1967) found that students who conformity. For instance, in terms of group
were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. unanimity, a unanimous group is a powerful
This shows that NSI underlies conformity for some source of disapproval. The possibility of rejection
people more than it does for others. There are is a strong reason for conforming (NSI). But it is
individual differences in conformity that cannot be also true that a unanimous group conveys the
fully explained by one general theory of situational impression that everyone is 'in the know' apart
pressures. from you (ISI).
