key study: Asch (1956)

What was the aim of the Asch study?

Aim= To assess the level ofconformity to the opinions of others ing situation where an answer is unambiguous (certain)

What was the sample of the Asch study?

Sample= 123 male undergraduates from the USA (aka the naive ppts-NP).

What was the procedure of the Asch study?

Procedure=

• Each NP was tested individually with 6-8 confederates actors), they were unaware of this and thought them to be the other ppts

• They were sat at a table with the NP always placed last or penultimately (2nd to last).

• They were shown two cards, one with a single, standard line and another with three comparison lines, and asked which of the three matched the first

• The ppts gave their answers in sequence and moved on to the next cards. Each of these events was called a 'trial'.

• Each ppt took part in 18 trials, and in 12 critical trials, the confederates gave the same obviously incorrect answer.

• There was also a control group where the confederates always answered correctly; this resulted in incorrect answers in only 1% of the trials.

What were the findings of the Asch study?

Findings of the Asch study=

The NPS conformed/complied to the incorrect answer in 36.8% of the critical trials, 75% of the NPS conformed at least once, and 5% conformed all 12 times.

What were the conclusions of the Asch study?

Conclusions= 

This has become known as the ‘Asch Effect’ and is an example of compliance (as they did not know the others and the answer was certain), identification (as they may have wanted to associated with the group or feared ridicule) and normative social influence (as many confirmed in post-interviews).

What are the 3 variables affecting conformity?

3 variables affecting conformity=

• group size

• unanimity (The extent to which all the members of a group agree)

• task difficulty

How did group size affect conformity in the Asch study?

Asch varied the group size and therefore the size of the majority and found that a group of 4 with a majority of 5 was the minimum size to create conformity, but there was little effect with group and majority sizes beyond this.

Campbell and Fairey (1989) suggest that this may vary with the type of influence. If there is no correct answer in the trial and NSI is causing the conformity, bigger groups do cause more effect, ISI seems to stay static with a group size of 3 or more.

textbook= Asch wanted to know whether the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group. To test this he varied the number of confederates from one to 15 (so the total group size was from two to 16). Asch found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rate. Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point. With three confederates, conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%. But the presence of more confederates made little diff erence – the conformity rate soon levelled off . This suggests that most people are very sensitive to the views of others because just one or two confederates was enough to sway opinion.

How did unanimity affect conformity in the Asch study?

Asch introduced a non-conforming, dissenting confederate and found that breaking the group’s unanimous position lowered conformity from 35% to 5.5%. In this variation they just gave the correct answer all the time, but in another version they varied between correct and incorrect but were still different from the incorrect answer given by the group. This reduced conformity to 9%.

textbook= Asch wondered if the presence of a non-conforming person would affect the naïve participant’s conformity. He introduced a confederate who disagreed with the other confederates. In one variation of the study, this person gave the correct answer, and in another variation, he gave a (different) wrong one. The genuine participant conformed less often in the presence of a dissenter. The rate decreased to less than a quarter of the level it was when the majority was unanimous. The presence of a dissenter appeared to free the naïve participant to behave more independently. This was true even when the dissenter disagreed with the genuine participant. This suggests that the influence of the majority depends to a large extent on it being unanimous. And that non-conformity is more likely when cracks are perceived in the majority’s unanimous view.

How did task difficulty affect conformity in the Asch study? 

Asch made the task more difficult, and therefore the answer less certain (more ambiguous), by making the lines more similar in length. This increased the level of conformity and suggested ISI as having a greater role with ppts looking to the group for guidance.

Lucas et al (2006) found that self-efficacy, or confidence in your own ability, played a role here. He repeated an Asch-type experiment but with maths problems and found thal those more confident in their maths ability (high self-efficacy) conformed less than the low self-efficacy ppts

How did gender differences (Eagly and Carli 1981) affect conformity in the Asch study?

Gender differences (Eagly and Carli 1981) reviewed conformity research on gender differences and found that women generally conform more than men

What is the overall statement for these variations in the Asch study?

Overall= all these variations show that both situational (environmental) and disposition (individual) factors both have an effect on conformity