BC

Conformity: Asch's Research (Vocabulary Flashcards)

Baseline procedure

  • Solomon Asch devised a procedure to assess the extent to which people conform to the opinions of others even when the correct answer is uncertain or ambiguous (unambiguous context in the slide is described as baseline).
  • Participants: n = 123 American men were tested.
  • Group setting: Participants were tested in groups of six to eight, with the genuine participant always seated next to the last in the group in the baseline design.
  • Confederates: All other group members were confederates of Asch who gave the same incorrect scripted answers on every trial; the genuine participant did not know whether others were real participants or confederates.
  • Task: On each trial, two large white cards were shown. Card X (the standard) was on the left; lines a, b, c were the three comparison lines on the right. One comparison line was always the same length as the standard line X; the other two were clearly different lengths (i.e., clearly wrong).
  • Response mode: Participants had to say out loud which of the comparison lines was the same length as the standard line X.
  • Baseline outcome: The genuine participant conformed to the confederates’ incorrect answers on average 36.8\% of the trials, i.e., about one third of the time.
  • Individual differences: About 25\% of participants never gave a wrong answer (i.e., never conformed).
  • Significance: The baseline study provides a reference point against which later variations on the procedure were tested.

Variables investigated by Asch (1955)

  • Purpose: To determine factors that increase or decrease conformity.

1) Group size

  • Manipulation: Varying the number of confederates from 1 to 15 (total group size from 2 to 16).
  • Finding: A curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity. Conformity increased with group size but only up to a point; after a certain size, additional confederates had little or no effect.
  • Specific result: With only three confederates, conformity to the incorrect answer rose to 31.8\%. Additional confederates beyond this had little effect, suggesting the presence of one or two dissenting or agreeing individuals can strongly influence the naive participant.
  • Interpretation: People are highly sensitive to the view of others, and even a small majority can sway opinion; the effect saturates after a small number of confederates.

2) Unanimity

  • Manipulation: Introduce a dissenter who disagrees with the majority.
    • Variant A: The dissenter gives the correct answer.
    • Variant B: The dissenter gives a different wrong answer.
  • Finding: The presence of a dissenter reduced conformity markedly, with the conformity rate dropping to less than a quarter of the level observed when the majority were unanimous.
  • Interpretation: The effect of the majority is strongly dependent on its unanimity; nonconformity increases when cracks appear in the majority’s view and dissenters enable independent judgments, even if the dissenter disagrees with the genuine participant.

3) Task difficulty

  • Manipulation: Increase task difficulty by making the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar in length, making the correct answer harder to discern.
  • Finding: Conformity increased as the task became harder.
  • Interpretation: In more ambiguous situations (informational social influence), people look to others for guidance and assume they are correct when unsure. This shifts behavior toward the group.
  • Concept: This increased conformity in harder tasks illustrates informational social influence, where individuals accept information from others as evidence about reality.

Evaluation of Asch’s baseline and variations

Limitations and critiques

  • Artificiality: The task and setting were artificial; participants were aware they were in a study (demand characteristics) and the line-judging task was relatively trivial, which may have biased conformity higher than in real-world settings.
  • Generalizability of group dynamics: Susan Fiske (2014) argued that Asch’s groups did not resemble real-world groups; therefore, the findings may not generalize to everyday life where group dynamics are more complex.
  • Cultural and gender limitations: Asch’s participants were all American men. Subsequent research suggests women can be more conformist in some contexts due to emphasis on social relationships, and cultural context matters: collectivist cultures often show higher conformity than individualist cultures like the US (see Bond & Smith, 1996; Netto, 1995).
  • Implication: The results have limited applicability to women and to people from non-Western cultures; broader generalizations require cross-cultural and gender-diverse samples.

Support and extensions

  • Additional research supports the effect of task difficulty on conformity (e.g., Asch’s own findings on ambiguity).
  • However, later work shows that conformity is more nuanced: individual factors (e.g., confidence, ability) interact with situational factors (e.g., difficulty).

Cross-cultural and gender considerations

  • Collectivist cultures (e.g., China) tend to exhibit higher conformity compared with individualist cultures (e.g., the USA) due to greater emphasis on group harmony and social acceptance.
  • Bond & Smith (1996) documented cross-cultural conformity differences; Netto (1995) discussed gender differences and social concerns about acceptance.
  • Implication: Asch’s findings are not universally generalizable; cultural norms and gender expectations shape conformity dynamics.

Real-world and theoretical implications

  • Theoretical distinction: Normative social influence (conformity to be liked or accepted by the group) vs. informational social influence (conformity due to believing others have correct information).
  • Asch’s results highlight a strong role for normative influence (unanimity, size) and informational influence (task difficulty) under different circumstances.
  • Practical implications: In group decision-making, jury deliberations, and organizational settings, even small groups can produce conformity pressures that alter judgments and potentially suppress independent thinking.

Ethical considerations

  • Deception and informed consent: Naive participants were deceived into believing the other participants were genuine, which raises ethical concerns about deception in psychological research.
  • Balancing risk and benefit: Asch’s study contributed to understanding social dynamics and could help prevent mindless conformity, but the ethical cost of deception must be weighed against the potential gains.
  • Contemporary standards: Modern ethics would require careful risk assessment, debriefing, and justification of deception; many later studies shifted toward greater transparency or alternative designs to mitigate deception while still exploring social influence.

Connections to broader theories and prior knowledge

  • Related concepts: Normative vs. informational social influence, groupthink, and social identity processes in groups.
  • Relation to other classic studies: Milgram’s obedience experiments illustrate another form of social influence (authority) but in a different context; the general theme is that social context powerfully shapes individual judgment and behavior.
  • Foundational principle: People weigh the need to be correct against the need to be accepted by the group; the balance shifts with group size, unanimity, and task ambiguity.

Summary of key numerical results (for quick reference)

  • Baseline conformity: 36.8\%; proportion of participants who conformed on average.
  • Proportion never conforming: 25\%.
  • Group size effect: Conformity rises with confederate count up to about three confederates (e.g., when there are three confederates, conformity ≈ 31.8\%); additional confederates yield diminishing returns.
  • Unanimity effect: Presence of a dissenter reduces conformity to less than a quarter of the unanimous level.
  • Task difficulty effect: Higher difficulty → higher conformity due to informational influence.
  • Cross-cultural notes: Higher conformity in collectivist cultures; gender and cultural context modulate conformity levels.

Key concepts to remember

  • Conformity: Adjusting behavior or opinions to align with a group standard.
  • Normative social influence: Conformity driven by the desire to be liked or accepted.
  • Informational social influence: Conformity driven by the belief that others have more accurate information in ambiguous situations.
  • Unanimity: A complete agreement within the majority that strengthens conformity; even a single dissenter can dramatically reduce conformity.
  • Task ambiguity: When the correct answer is unclear, people rely more on group input, increasing conformity.

ext{Note: all numeric values are taken from Asch (1955) baseline and variations as described in the transcript.}