variables affecting conformity as investigated by Asch

Asch (1956) - original experiment - aim

to investigate if people would conform to a majority group even when the coups’s answer was obviously incorrect

Asch (1956) - original experiment - participants

123 American male students took part

participants tested in groups of 6

one real participant in each group and others were confederates

Asch (1956) - original experiment - procedure

pp told they were taking part in a vision test

shows standard line and 3 comparison lines (A, B and C)

had to say aloud which comparison line was same length as standard line

correct answer was obvious

real participant answered last/near the end in each group

12 out of 18 trials confederates gave same incorrect answer

asch measured if real participant would conform to incorrect majority answer

Asch (1956) - original experiment - results

pp confirmed to incorrect majority answer on 36.8% of critical trials

75% of pp conformed at least once

25% of pp never conformed and always gave correct answer

after experiment many pp said they knew majority answer was wrong but changed reposes to avoid standing out

Asch (1956) - original experiment - conclusion

people may conform to majority even when answer is clearly incorrect

mainly due to NSI

Asch (1956) strength - high internal validity

strict control of extraneous variables

eg. pp completed line judgment taking before confederates introduced to ensure they knew correct answer - conformity couldn’t be explained by a lack of knowledge

controlled procedure allowed asch to be more confident that majority group pressure was the cause of change in behaviour

valid evidence social pressure influences conformity

Asch (1956) weakness - limited ecological validity

task was artificial

judging lengths of lines is unlikely to reflect types of situations where people conform in everyday life - pp may not have experienced same social pressure they would encounter in real-world groups

findings may not fully generalise to everyday situations

Asch (1956) strength - practical applications in understandings social influence

pp conformed in a trivial task involving judgement of line lengths - no real pressure/consequence for being incorrect

if people are willing to conform in a simple situation conformity may also occur in more important real world situations as there’s a greater pressure to fit in with a group

may have wider applications in explaining conformity in everyday social situations

Asch (1956) weakness - culturally and historically biased

research conducted in a America during 1950's

period influenced by McCarthyism - people encouraged to conform to dominant social and political views and fearful of expressing opinion that differed from majority

increased participants tendency to conform

results may reflect social climate of the time instead of a universal tendency to conform

Smith and Bond (1996) - conformity rates varied across cultures with collectivist cultures showing higher levels of conformity than individualist cultures

findings may not be generalisable across different cultures or historical periods - reduces temporal and population validity

Asch (1956) weakness - ethical concerns due to use of deception

pp told study was an eye test instead of a study investigating conformity

unaware of true aim of research and couldn’t give fully informed consent

deception necessary to prevent pp from changing behaviour due to knowing conformity was being studied

not fully aware of what they were taking part in

Asch’s study provided valuable insight into conformity but use of deception raises ethical concerns

variables affecting conformity

asch (1956) investigated how variables affect conformity through a series of variations of his original line judgement task

examined whether changes to majority group and task itself influenced likelihood of conformity

investigated effects of:

• group size

• unanimity of majority

• task difficulty

on conformity levels

group size

aim: to investigate whether size of majority group affects level of conformity

procedure: asch varied number of confederates giving incorrect answer

majority size ranged form 1-15 confederates

pp completed same line judgement task as original task

findings: 1 confederate = conformity was low

conformity increased as majority size increased

highest conformity occurred with 3 confederates

increased majority beyond 3 = little further increase

conclusion: majority of around 3 people is enough o create strong conformity pressure

unanimity

aim: investigate if conformity changes when majority is not unanimous

procedure: asch introduced confederate who disagreed with majority

one condition - dissenter gave correct answer

other condition - dissenter gave incorrect but different answer from majority

finings: original condition - conformity = 36.8%

dissenter present - conformity = 5%

conclusion: dissenting person provides social support - makes it easier for individuals to resist majority influence

task difficulty

aim: investigate if difficulty of task affects conformity

procedure: asch made line judgement task more difficult by making differences between lines smaller

pp still had to publicly state answer

findings: conformity increased when task became more difficult

conclusion: when individuals are unsure of own judgment they rely on others for information - showing ISI

task difficulty strength - supported by research

Lucas et al. (2006) - pp more likely to conform to incorrect answers in maths task when questions were more difficult and had lower confidence in own ability

when individuals are uncertain they are more likely to rely on others for information

support asch - task difficult influences conformity through ISI

unanimity strength - supported by further research evidence

Allen and Levine (1969) - found pp less likely to conform when they had social support from other person who disagreed with majority

conformity is reduced when majority isn’t unanimous - individuals feel more confident in expressing own views

support asch’s conclusion - unanimity is an important factor influencing conformity

group size weakness - effect may have been overstated

asch found conformity increased as majority size increased only up to 3 confederates which higher had little effect

suggests group size may influence conformity only up to a certain point and other factors may be more improtant

ascus conclusion about impact of majority size may be limited

asch’s variables weakness - may interact with each other

makes it difficult to identify effect of individual factors

eg. task difficulty may increase conformity because it create uncertainty but may also increase desire for social approval from group

suggest factors (eg. group size, unanimity, task difficulty) may not operate seperately

asch’s variables may provide an oversimplified explanation of conformity