conformity

• Asch and conformity


  Solomon Asch - devised a procedure to assess the extent people conform to the opinion of others, even when the answers are unambiguous ( easy).
• Asch baseline procedure

  • 123 American male participants tested, each one in a group with other apparent participants.
  • They were told to compare the standard line ( line x) to the three comparison lines ( a ,b and c) and find the line that matches.
  • one line is clearly the right answer and on each trial the participant hast to say there answer out loud.
• Asch baseline procedure - physical arrangement

  • participants tested in groups of 6-8
  • only one was a genuine participant, always seated last or second to last . The rest were confederates who all gave the same scripted wrong answer each trial
  • the genuine participant did not know the others were "fake" participants.
• Asch baseline findings

  • on average the genuine participants agreed with the confederates incorrect answers 36.8% of the time.
  • There were individual differences as 25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer. ( never conformed)
• Variables tested by Asch

  Asch extended his baseline study to investigate variables that might increase or decrease conformity. There were three variables tested : group size , unanimity and task difficulty.
• Group size

  • The first variable tested by Asch in the extended study as he wanted to see if group size affected conformity.
  • He varied the confederates from 1-15 ( so over all participants were 2-16)
• Group size findings

  Asch found a curvilinear relationship with conformity as conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point. Conformity rose to 31.8% with three confederates but after three confederates there was little increase.
• Group size variation- conclusion

  The curvilinear relationship group size has with conformity suggests people are very sensitive to the opinion of others as one or two people was enough to sway opinion.
• Unanimity

  • The second variable tested by Asch was unanimity. He wanted to see if the presence of a non- conforming confederate affected the naive participants opinion.
  • So introduced a confederate that disagreed with other confederates. This confederate either gave the correct answer or another incorrect answer.
• Unanimity 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 at when the majority was unanimous.
• Unanimity conclusion

  • The presence of the dissenter freed the naive participant to behave independently. 

  • this happened even when the dissenter disagreed with the genuine participant. Suggesting the influence of the majority depends largely on the extent of it being unanimous. And that non conformity is more likely when cracks are perceived in the majorities view.
• Task difficulty

  • the last variable tested by Ash was the difficulty of the task. He increased the difficulty of the line judging task by making line x and the comparison lines more similar. This meant it became harder for the genuine participant to see the differences between lines.
• Task difficulty findings

  • Asch found conformity increased. This may be due to the situation being more ambiguous ( the right answer becomes unclear ).
• Task difficulty conclusion

  • It is natural to look to other people for guidance and assume that they are right and you are wrong. ( ISI)
• Evaluation : point 1 ( Artificial situation and task)

  • A limitation is that the the task and situation were artificial. Participants knew they were in a study and so may simply have gone along with it as that's what was expected ( demand characteristics)
  • Also according to Susan Fiske: " Asch groups were not very groupy". They did not resemble groups that we experience in everyday life. This means the findings cannot generalise to real world situations especially those where the consequences to conformity are important. ( tasks were trivial and so not important)
• Evaluation : point 2 ( Limited application)

  
  

  • Aschs participants were American men.
  • Neto suggest women may be more conformist, possibly because they're more concerned about social relationships.
  • The USA is also an individualist culture ( where people are more concerned for themselves) so cannot be generalised.
  • Bond and Smith: Other cultures such as collectivist cultures ( care more for the group than the individual) ie studies in China have found conformity is higher
  • so Asch study has a lack of generalisability towards women and other cultures.
• Evaluation: point 3 ( Research support)

  • A strength is that Asch has support from other studies for the effects on task difficulty.
  • Todd Lucas et al: asked their participants to answer " hard" and " easy" maths problems. The participants were then given answers from other students( confederates). They found the participants conformed more often ( agreed with the wrong answers) when the problems were harder. This provides support that task difficulty does affect conformity.
• Evaluation: Point 4 ( counterpoint to Todd Lucas et al supporting Asch)

  • Todd Lucas et al's study found that conformity is more complex than Asch suggested. Participants with high confidence in their maths ability were less likely to conform on harder tasks than those with low confidence.
  • This suggests individual level factors can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables ( ie task difficulty). Ash didnt research the impact of individual factors.
• Evaluation : point 5 ( Ethical issues)

  • Asch's research increased our knowledge of why people conform however the participants were deceived as they were told they would be in a room with other participants but these were really confederates. However the ethical cost should be weighed up against the benefits.
• Curvilinear relationship


  A type of relationship between two variables where the relationship changes direction or magnitude at certain points.
• Group size variation


  A concept that refers to the idea that the number of people in a group can affect how people behave and think.