Asch's Study & Variable affecting conformity

Asch’s Aim

To investigate majority influence and determine whether individuals would conform to a clearly incorrect majority in an unambiguous line‑judgement task.

Asch’s Sample

123 male American college students, each tested individually with 6–8 confederates who were instructed to give predetermined answers.

Asch’s Procedure

• 123 American men were tested

• Each one in a group with other apparent participants

• Each participant saw two large cards on each trial

• The line X on the left-hand card is the standard line. The lines A,B and C are the three comparison lines

• One of the comparison lines is always clearly the same length as X, the other two are substantially different.

• On each trial the participant has to say out loud, which of the comparison lines was the same length as the standard line X

Asch’s Findings

• On average, the genuine participants agreed with confederates' incorrect answers 36.8% of the time (i.e they conformed about a third of the time).

• There were individual differences, 25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer (i.e never conformed)

• 75% of participants conformed at least one

Asch’s Conclusions

Conformity occurs due to normative social influence (wanting acceptance) and informational social influence (believing others are correct). Conformity is common but not inevitable.

Group Size Variation

Aim: Asch wanted to know if the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group. To do this he varied the number of confederates from 1 to 15.

Conformity increased with group size up to three confederates: 1 confederate = 3% conformity; 2 confederates = 12.8%; 3 confederates = 31.8%. Adding more confederates did not increase conformity further.

Findings: Asch found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rates. 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 difference - the conformity levelled off.

Define unanimity

The extent to which all the members of a group agree.

In Asch’s studies, the majority was unanimous when all the confederates selected the same comparison line. This produced the greatest degree of conformity in the naïve participants.

Unanimity Variation

When one confederate gave the correct answer, conformity dropped to 5%. When one confederate gave a different incorrect answer, conformity dropped to 9%. Breaking unanimity reduces conformity.

Aims: Asch wondered if a lack of unanimity would affect the participant's conformity.

So 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 answer.

Findings: 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.

Suggestion: 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.

Task Difficulty Variation

When Asch made the lines more similar in length, the task became ambiguous and conformity increased. This supports informational social influence because participants relied on others when uncertain.

Finding: Asch found that conformity increased. It may be that the situation is more ambiguous when the task becomes harder so the genuine participant is less confident in their idea.

PEEL Strength: Standardised Procedure

Asch used a highly standardised procedure (same stimuli, same number of trials, same confederate responses), allowing easy replication. Replications consistently produce similar conformity rates, demonstrating high reliability. However, the artificial setting reduces ecological validity because real‑world conformity situations are more complex.

PEEL Strength: Cross‑Cultural Support

Smith & Bond (1996) found higher conformity in collectivist cultures, supporting Asch’s conclusion that social norms influence conformity. This increases external validity. However, Asch’s original sample was limited to American male students, reducing generalisability across genders and cultures.

PEEL Limitation: Temporal Validity

Asch’s study was conducted in the 1950s, a period of high social conformity. Social norms have changed, meaning findings may not reflect modern behaviour. However, later replications still show conformity effects, suggesting the underlying processes remain relevant.

PEEL Limitation: Response Bias

The simplicity of the task may have led participants to guess the aim and conform because they believed it was expected, reducing internal validity. However, post‑study interviews showed participants genuinely felt group pressure, supporting the role of normative social influence.