Asch's Study of Conformity
Asch (1951)
In 1951, Solomon Asch designed an experiment to investigate whether and why individuals would conform to majority influence. He recruited 50 American male students and devised a line perception task to test how participants would respond to social pressure from the majority. As a comparison, he included 37 control participants
The experiment was straightforward. Eight individuals would sit at a table and be presented with two cards: one with a single line and the other with three lines of varying lengths. Participants were then asked to state, out loud, which line on the second card matched the length of the line on the first card.
The correct answer was meant to be obvious, so in this example, they should all say it is Line A
However, only one of the participants was a genuine participant; the others were confederates, meaning they were actors who were aware of the experiment. The genuine participant would always sit second to last in the seating arrangement.
During the experiment, 18 trials were conducted with each participant. The confederates were instructed to provide an incorrect answer on 12 out of the 18 trials, which Solomon Asch referred to as the critical trials.
Findings
In the control group, where participants answered in isolation, correct responses were observed only 0.7% of the time. This suggests that the perception task was sufficiently easy, and incorrect answers in subsequent trials were likely due to conformity and social pressure rather than the task’s difficulty.
During the critical trials, participants conformed to the majority opinion 36.8% of the time, with 75% of participants conforming at least once. Solomon Asch concluded that this conformity was primarily due to normative social influence (NSI), as participants desired to fit in and avoid appearing foolish. Interviews conducted at the end of the experiment revealed that participants often knew the correct answer but still conformed to the majority to avoid social discomfort.
Asch's Variations (1955)
A few years later, Asch decided to replicate his study with several variations, exploring the impact of group size, unanimity (social support), and task difficulty on rates of conformity.
When there was only one other person in the room, who was a confederate, the level of conformity dropped to 3%. With two confederates, conformity increased to 13%, and with three, it rose to 31.8%.
Based on these results, Asch concluded that the optimal group size to influence an individual is four, as there was little increase in conformity beyond a group of four.
Asch's Variation - Group Size
How group size effected the rates of conformity
When participants had another confederate who agreed with them, the levels of conformity dropped to 25%. This demonstrates that the presence of social support does indeed affect the levels of conformity.
Furthermore, as the level of task difficulty increased, so did the levels of conformity. This is likely because participants sought confirmation from others when uncertain of the correct answer, leading to conformity due to informational social influence (ISI), where individuals conform because they want to be accurate.
Contradicting Evidence
Perrin and Spencer (1980) replicated Asch’s study using engineering students, but found a significant decrease in the level of conformity compared to Asch’s original study. Only one participant conformed out of 396 trials. This low level of conformity was attributed to the participants’ familiarity and confidence with technical drawings, suggesting that their high level of confidence in their own abilities reduced susceptibility to majority influence.
Additionally, Perrin and Spencer argued that Asch’s study might be considered ‘a child of its time.’ Conducted in the 1950s, a period characterised by heightened societal conformity, particularly following World War II, the study’s findings may not be fully generalisable to modern-day contexts. This raises questions about the temporal validity of Asch’s study and whether its results can be extrapolated to contemporary society.
Research Design
When designing an experiment, several factors must be carefully considered, including the experimental setup, sample selection, and participant numbers. Different experimental designs offer distinct advantages and disadvantages.
Asch’s study was conducted as a laboratory experiment, offering a high level of control and ease of replication. However, laboratory experiments often lack ecological validity, as they may not reflect real-life situations of group pressure accurately. Critics, such as Fiske (2014), question the realism of participants’ responses in such controlled settings, suggesting that behavior might differ outside of the laboratory environment.
Moreover, participants’ awareness of being part of an experiment can influence their responses, introducing demand characteristics that must be accounted for when interpreting results.
Additionally, Asch’s study exclusively used male participants, limiting the generalizability of results across genders. Neto (1995) suggests that women might exhibit higher levels of conformity due to their increased concern for social relationships.
Furthermore, cultural differences can impact conformity levels. Bond and Smith (1996) propose that conformity may be more pronounced in cultures like China, where group needs and views are prioritized over individual preferences.
Lastly, Williams and Sogon (1984) argue that responses to group pressure might vary depending on whether the group consists of strangers or friends.
Ethics
When designing an experiment, ethical considerations are paramount. While Asch’s study was largely ethical, a couple of issues deserve attention.
Firstly, the study involved deception. Participants were not informed that the other participants in the room were confederates. This deception was necessary to prevent participants from altering their behavior, but it compromised fully informed consent. However, debriefing participants at the study’s conclusion helped address this issue by explaining the true nature of the study.
Secondly, the study may have caused stress to participants, particularly when they conformed to the majority despite the answer being obvious. This could potentially lead to feelings of embarrassment or inadequacy. While this issue might be considered minor, it underscores the importance of considering the emotional impact on participants and ensuring their well-being throughout the experiment.
Summary
