Asch’s study

• what was the aim

  to find out if a minority will conform to a majority
• what type of sampling was used

  opportunity
• what was the sample

  123 male undergraduates in the USA
• procedure

  Ps were in groups with one naive P and either 6,7 or 8 confederates in the majority.

  • asked to state out loud which line of the 3 matched the standard line
  • 6/18 - confederates gave right answer
  • 12/18 - confederates gave wrong answer = critical trials
• what experimental method was it

  laboratory
• what were they told it was a study about?

  visual judgement
• Ps were also interviewed after the research
• findings

  ~ 36.8% on the critical trials conformed and gave wrong answers

  ~ control group (judged lines alone) found a 0.7% incorrect answer rate

  ~ 25% never conformed

  ~ 75% conformed at least once
• what was the conformity rate in the critical trials

  36.8%
• conclusion

  people will conform to the majority influence even when the answer is obvious due to a desire to be accepted and a fear of ridicule or rejection
• wanting to be right =

  informational social influence
• wanting to be liked =

  normative social influence
• AO3 - population validity

  -sample is all male undergrad students = females suggested to be more conformist because they may care more about what groups think of them

  -ethnocentric = conformity rates differ in cultures
• AO3 - temporal validity

  -1950s was a time of a highly conformist society in the USA = findings are era dependent
• AO3 - temporal validity support study

  Perrin + Spencer replicated the study in 1980 and only 1/396 responses went along with the majority

  :( done with british engineering, maths and chemistry students - less likely to conform because they have knowledge on the topic
• AO3 - ethical issues

  deception

  no informed consent

  failure to protect from psychological harm
• AO3- lab experiment 


  ~ highly controlled

  ~ standardised instructions= replicable and the findings will be consistent + reliable giving greater scientific credibility

  :( ecological validity:

  ~ artificial setting, irl situations are more complex + have ambiguity

  ~ matching lines isn’t important/reflective of real life, might’ve conformed because they don’t care