Editing Asch conformity experiments (section)

== Selective representation in textbooks and the media ==
Asch's 1956 report emphasized the predominance of independence over yielding saying "the facts that were being judged were, under the circumstances, the most decisive."<ref name="Arsch1956" />  However, a 1990 survey of US social psychology textbooks found that most ignored independence, instead reported a misleading summary of the results as reflecting complete power of the situation to produce conformity of behavior and belief.<ref name="Friend1999">{{cite journal | last1 = Friend | first1 = R. | last2 = Rafferty | first2 = Y. | last3 = Bramel | first3 = D. | year = 1990 | title = A puzzling misinterpretation of the Asch 'conformity' study | journal = European Journal of Social Psychology | volume = 20 | pages = 29–44 | doi=10.1002/ejsp.2420200104}}</ref>

A 2015 survey found no change, with just 1 of 20 major texts reporting that most participant-responses defied majority opinion. No text mentioned that 95% of subjects defied the majority at least once. Nineteen of the 20 books made no mention of Asch's interview data in which many participants said they were certain all along that the actors were wrong.<ref name="Griggs2015">{{cite journal|doi=10.1177/0098628315569939|title=The Disappearance of Independence in Textbook Coverage of Asch's Social Pressure Experiments|journal=Teaching of Psychology|volume=42|issue=2|pages=137–142|year=2015|last1=Griggs|first1=R. A.|s2cid=146908363}}</ref> This portrayal of the Asch studies was suggested to fit with social psychology narratives of situationism, obedience and conformity, to the neglect of recognition of disobedience of immoral commands (e.g., disobedience shown by participants in [[Milgram experiment|Milgram Studies]]), desire for fair treatment (e.g., resistance to tyranny shown by many participants in the [[Stanford prison experiment|Stanford prison studies]]) and [[Self-determination theory|self-determination]].<ref name="Griggs2015" />