social influence
Conformity: Asch
Asch’s Research
baseline procedure
by Solomon Asch (1951) to assess to what extent people will conform to the
opinion of others, even if the answer is certain (unambiguous)
123 american male undergraduates, each in a group with another apparent
participant. Shown one standard line that must be matched to three
comparison lines, answer was very clear.
participants tested individually in a group of 6-7 confederates who all gave
incorrect answers on 12 critical trials
participants agreed with the confederates 36.8% of the time
75% of participants conformed at least once
The Asch Paradigm
Asch extended the baseline study to investigate the variables that may increase
or decrease conformity
1. group size ↑
varied the number of confederates from 1-15, finding a curvilinear
relationship between size and conformity.
social influence 1
, Conformity increased, but only to a point → 3 confederates, conformity
rose to 31.8% but more made little difference, before plateauing
suggests most are very sensitive to the views of others as just one or
two confederates was enough to sway opinion
2. unanimity ↓
the extent that members of the majority agree with one another
Asch introduced a confederate, a dissenter, who disagreed with the other
confederates, in one variation giving the correct answer, and in another
variation the wrong answer
dissenter appeared to free naive participant to behave more
independently, even when they disagreed with participant, acting as a
‘model’
rate of conformity decreased to less than 1/4 of the level it was when the
majority was unanimous
suggests that influence of the majority depends to a large extent on
it being unanimous, and that non-conformity is more likely when
cracks are perceived in the majority’s unanimous view
3. task difficulty ↑
made stimulus and comparison more similar in length, making it harder
for the participants to see the differences
social influence 2
, may be that it is more ambiguous when the task becomes harder, making
it natural to look to others for an opinion (ISI)
conformity increased
evaluation
artificial situation and task ✘
participants knew they were in a research study and may simply have just gone
along with what was expected (demanded characteristics). The task of identifying
lines was relatively trivial so there was no reason not to conform
Susan Fiske (2014) said that “Asch’s groups were not very groupy” (did not
resemble groups in everyday life)
findings do not generalise to real-world situations, especially those
where the consequences of conformity might be important
limited application ✘
some research says that women may be more conformist, possibly as they are
concerned about social relationships and being accepted (Neto, 1995).
the US is an individualist culture, and studies in more collectivist cultures have
found higher conformity rates (Bond and Smith 1996)
Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from
some cultures
research support ✓ ✘
Todd Lucas et al (2006) asked their participants to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths
problems. Participants were given answers from three other ‘real’ students and
conformed more often to the wrong one when the problems were harder
Asch is correct in claiming that task difficulty is a variable that affects
conformity
HOWEVER… Lucas et al’s study found that conformity is more complex than
Asch suggested. Participants with high confidence in their maths ability
conformed less than those not so confident in the harder tasks
an individual level factor can influence conformity by interacting with
situational variables, which Asch did not research
ethical issues ✓ ✘
social influence 3
Conformity: Asch
Asch’s Research
baseline procedure
by Solomon Asch (1951) to assess to what extent people will conform to the
opinion of others, even if the answer is certain (unambiguous)
123 american male undergraduates, each in a group with another apparent
participant. Shown one standard line that must be matched to three
comparison lines, answer was very clear.
participants tested individually in a group of 6-7 confederates who all gave
incorrect answers on 12 critical trials
participants agreed with the confederates 36.8% of the time
75% of participants conformed at least once
The Asch Paradigm
Asch extended the baseline study to investigate the variables that may increase
or decrease conformity
1. group size ↑
varied the number of confederates from 1-15, finding a curvilinear
relationship between size and conformity.
social influence 1
, Conformity increased, but only to a point → 3 confederates, conformity
rose to 31.8% but more made little difference, before plateauing
suggests most are very sensitive to the views of others as just one or
two confederates was enough to sway opinion
2. unanimity ↓
the extent that members of the majority agree with one another
Asch introduced a confederate, a dissenter, who disagreed with the other
confederates, in one variation giving the correct answer, and in another
variation the wrong answer
dissenter appeared to free naive participant to behave more
independently, even when they disagreed with participant, acting as a
‘model’
rate of conformity decreased to less than 1/4 of the level it was when the
majority was unanimous
suggests that influence of the majority depends to a large extent on
it being unanimous, and that non-conformity is more likely when
cracks are perceived in the majority’s unanimous view
3. task difficulty ↑
made stimulus and comparison more similar in length, making it harder
for the participants to see the differences
social influence 2
, may be that it is more ambiguous when the task becomes harder, making
it natural to look to others for an opinion (ISI)
conformity increased
evaluation
artificial situation and task ✘
participants knew they were in a research study and may simply have just gone
along with what was expected (demanded characteristics). The task of identifying
lines was relatively trivial so there was no reason not to conform
Susan Fiske (2014) said that “Asch’s groups were not very groupy” (did not
resemble groups in everyday life)
findings do not generalise to real-world situations, especially those
where the consequences of conformity might be important
limited application ✘
some research says that women may be more conformist, possibly as they are
concerned about social relationships and being accepted (Neto, 1995).
the US is an individualist culture, and studies in more collectivist cultures have
found higher conformity rates (Bond and Smith 1996)
Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from
some cultures
research support ✓ ✘
Todd Lucas et al (2006) asked their participants to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths
problems. Participants were given answers from three other ‘real’ students and
conformed more often to the wrong one when the problems were harder
Asch is correct in claiming that task difficulty is a variable that affects
conformity
HOWEVER… Lucas et al’s study found that conformity is more complex than
Asch suggested. Participants with high confidence in their maths ability
conformed less than those not so confident in the harder tasks
an individual level factor can influence conformity by interacting with
situational variables, which Asch did not research
ethical issues ✓ ✘
social influence 3
