Conformity: Asch's research

• Asch - conformity research (procedure)

  Asch recruited 123 American male students. Each was tested individually with a group of between 6 and 8 confederates.

  On each trial participants identified the length of a standard line.

  On the first few trials confederates gave correct answers but then all selected the same wrong answers. Each participant completed 18 trials. On 12 'critical trials' confederates gave the wrong answer.
• Asch - conformity research (findings and conclusion)


  The naive participants gave a wrong answer 36.8% of the time (when the participants agreed with the confederates).

  This shows a high level of conformity, called the Asch effect - the extent to which people conform even in an unambiguous situation.

  25% of participants never gave a wrong answer, so 75% conformed at least once. Most participants said the conformed to avoid rejection (NSI) and continued to privately trust their own opinions (compliance).
• Variables affecting conformity - group size


  Procedure: the number of confederate varied between 1 and 15.

  Findings and conclusion: With two confederates, conformity to the wrong answer was 13.6%; with three it rose to 31.8%. Adding any more confederates made little difference.
• Variables affecting conformity - unanimity

  Procedure: Asch introduced a truthful confederate or a confederate who was dissenting but inaccurate.

  Findings and conclusion: The presence of a dissenting confederate reduced conformity, whether the dissenter was giving the right or wrong answer. The figure was, on average, 25% wrong answers. Having a dissenter enabled a naive participant to behave more independently.
• Variables affecting conformity - task difficulty


  Procedure: Asch made the line judging task harder by making the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar in length.

  Findings and conclusion: Conformity increased when the task was more difficult. So ISI plays a greater role when the task becomes harder. The situation is more ambiguous, so we are more likely to look to others for guidance and assume they are right.
• One limitation is that Asch's research may be a 'child of the times'.

  Perrin and Spencer found just one conforming response in 396 trials. Participants (UK engineering students) felt more confident measuring lines than Asch's original sample, so were less conformist. Also, the 1950s were a conformist time in America and people might be less likely to conform in subsequent decades. The Asch effect is not consistent over time, so is not an enduring feature of human behaviour.
• A second limitation of Asch's research is that the situation and task were artificial. 


  Participants knew they were in a study so may have just responded to demand characteristics. The line task was trivial so there was no reason not to conform. Also, the naive participants were in a 'group', but not like groups found in everyday life. The findings do not generalise to everyday situations where consequences of conformity are important, and where we interact with groups more directly.
• There are ethical issues associated with Asch's research.

  Naive participants were deceived. They thought the confederates in the procedure were genuine. But this ethical cost should be weighed against the benefits of the study. The main benefit was highlighting people's susceptibility to group conformity and the variables affecting it.