Asch conformity experiments: Difference between revisions
m Robot: hu:Asch-kísérlet is a featured article |
APS Wikipedia Initiative edits |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{citation style|date=March 2012}} |
|||
The '''Asch conformity experiments''' were a series of laboratory studies published in the 1950s that demonstrated a surprising degree of [[conformity]] to a majority opinion. These are also known as the '''Asch Paradigm'''. |
|||
During the 1950s, [[Solomon Asch]] conducted and published a series of laboratory experiments that demonstrated the degree to which an individuals own opinions are influenced by those of a majority group.<ref name="Asch1951">Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgements. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), ''Groups, leadership and men''(pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh:PA Carnegie Press.</ref><ref name="Asch1952b">Asch, S.E. (1952b). "Social psychology". Englewood Cliffs:NJ Prentice Hall.</ref><ref name="Asch1955">Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. ''Scientific American'', 193, 35–35.</ref><ref name="Asch1956">Asch, S.E. (1956). [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/mon/70/9/1/ Studies of independence and conformity. A minority of one against a unanimous majority]. ''Psychological Monographs'', 70(9), 1–70.</ref> This type of influence is known as [[conformity]]. Together, these experiments are recognized as the '''Asch conformity experiments''' or the '''Asch Paradigm'''. Subsequent to the release of these experiments, several scientists attempted to replicate them through various lenses. In the present day, experiments of this nature continue to be conducted. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
==Initial Conformity Experiment== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Image:Asch experiment.png|thumb|270px|One of the pairs of cards used in the experiment. The card on the left has the reference line and the one on the right shows the three comparison lines.]] |
[[Image:Asch experiment.png|thumb|270px|One of the pairs of cards used in the experiment. The card on the left has the reference line and the one on the right shows the three comparison lines.]] |
||
| ⚫ | |||
In 1951, [[Solomon Asch]] of [[Swarthmore College]] conducted one of his first conformity laboratory experiment, laying the foundation for his remaining conformity studies. The conformity experiment was published on two occasions. <ref name="Asch1951"></ref><ref name="Asch1952a">Asch, S.E. (1952a). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgements. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb & E.L. Hartley (Eds.), ''Readings in social psychology''(2nd ed., pp. 2–11). New York:NY Holt.</ref> |
|||
| ⚫ | Each participant was |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Each participant was placed in a room with 7 "confederates". Confederates knew the true aim of the experiment, but were introduced as participants to the "real" participant. Participants were shown a card with a line on it, followed by a card with 3 lines on it (lines labeled A, B and C, respectively). Participants were then asked to say aloud, which line (i.e., A, B or C) matched the line on the first card in length. Each line question was called a "trial". Prior to the experiment, all confederates were given specific instructions on how they should respond to each trial. Specifically, they were told to unanimously give the correct response or unanimously give the incorrect response. The real participant was always the last to respond. For the first two trials, the participant would feel at ease in the experiment, as he and the confederates gave the obvious, correct answer. On the third trial, the confederates would all give the same wrong answer, placing the participant in a dilemma. There were 18 trials in total and the confederates answered incorrectly for 12 of them. These 12 were known as the "critical trials". The aim was to see whether the real participant would change his answer and respond in the same way as the confederates, despite it being the wrong answer. Once the experiment was completed, the "real" participant was individually interviewed; at the end of the interview, the participant was debriefed about the true purpose of the study. |
||
Solomon Asch's experiment also had a control condition where there were no confederates, only a "real participant". This meant that one participant answered to all 18 trials without the group of confederates present and only with the experimenter in the room. In total, there were 50 "real" participants that took part in the experimental condition and 37 participants in the control condition. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
All results are based off of participants responses to critical trials. In the control group, with no pressure to conform to confederates, less than 1% of participants gave an incorrect response. An examination of all critical trials in the experimental group revealed that one-third of all responses were incorrect. These incorrect responses often matched the incorrect response of the majority group (i.e., confederates). Overall, in the experimental group, 75% of the participants gave an incorrect answer to at least one question while only 25% never gave an incorrect response. Thus, 75% of participants conformed at least once and 25% never conformed. |
|||
Interview data revealed that participants who did not conform to the majority group and thus, remained "independent" from the group, reacted to the experiment in particular ways. Some reacted with "confidence" in their perception and experience. That is, despite experiencing conflict between their idea of the obvious answer and the groups incorrect answer, they stuck with the answer that was based off of their own perception. Others were "withdrawn", suggesting that they stuck with their perception without experiencing conflict as those in the confidence group. Some participants also exhibited "doubt". This meant that they experienced great doubt and tension but nonetheless stuck with their correct responses because they felt a need to adequately take part in the task. |
|||
Moreover, interview data with participants that did conform to the majority group on at least one-half or more of the trials, and thus, "yielded" to the group also exhibited certain reactions to the experiment. Some participants reacted with a "distortion of perception". These participants (very few) conformed on nearly all trials and actually believed that the confederates incorrect answers were true. They were never aware that the majority gave incorrect answers. Other participants exhibited a "distortion of judgment" (most belonged to this category). This meant that participants got to a point where they realized that they must be wrong and that the majority must be right, leading them to answer with the majority. These individuals lacked confidence and were very doubtful. Lastly, participants exhibited a "distortion of action", suggesting that they know what the correct answer is, but conformed with the majority group simply because they didn't want to seem inferior. |
|||
==Subsequent Asch Conformity Experiments== |
|||
Solomon Asch took the paradigm from his experiment published in 1951 and applied it to his subsequent research experiments. In his 1952b paper, he slightly altered his experiment.<ref name="Asch1952b"></ref> His sample still consisted of male college students. However, instead of 8 persons per session, there were 7 to 9; instead of 18 trials (with 12 of them being critical trials), there were 12 trials (with 7 of them being critical trials). Asch also mentioned that an outsider in the room would single out the "real" participant after the first few trials. Furthermore, in his 1955 paper he conducted the same study as in 1951 but with 123 male students from three different universities; instead of 8 participants per group, there was a range of 7 to 9.<ref name="Asch1955"></ref> Finally, his 1956 also consisted of 123 male college students from three different universities.<ref name="Asch1956"></ref> Asch never mentioned whether it was the same sample as in his 1955 paper. Unlike his previous papers, his 1956 paper includes an elaborate account of his interviews with participants. Overall, across all of his papers published, Asch found the same results - participants conformed to the majority group in about one-third of all critical trials. |
|||
==Factors Influencing Conformity== |
|||
In his 1951 experiment and subsequent studies, Asch wanted to further his investigation of conformity by examining whether slight changes in participants environments would lead to different results. He had the following experimental variations: |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
In a control group, with no pressure to conform to an erroneous view, only one participant out of 35 ever gave an incorrect answer. Solomon Asch hypothesized that the majority of participants would not conform to something obviously wrong; however, when surrounded by individuals all voicing an incorrect answer, participants provided incorrect responses on a high proportion of the questions (32%). Seventy-five percent of the participants gave an incorrect answer to at least one question. |
|||
===Presence of a true partner=== |
|||
Variations of the basic paradigm tested how many cohorts were necessary to induce conformity, examining the influence of just one cohort and as many as fifteen. Results indicate that one cohort has virtually no influence and two cohorts have only a small influence. When three or more cohorts are present, the tendency to conform increases only modestly. The maximum effect occurs with four cohorts. Adding additional cohorts does not produce a stronger effect. |
|||
Asch examined whether the presence of a "true partner" influenced level of conformity. <ref name="Asch1951"></ref><ref name="Asch1955"></ref> This partner was also a "real" participant or another actor that was told to give the correct response to each question. This decreased the level of conformity, especially when the partner was instructed to give correct responses. |
|||
===Withdrawal of a partner=== |
|||
Asch also examined whether the removal of a partner (that he instructed to give correct answers) halfway through the experiment would influence the participants level of conformity.<ref name="Asch1951"></ref><ref name="Asch1955"></ref> He found that there was a low level of conformity during the first half of the experiment. However, once the partner left the room, the level of conformity increased dramatically. |
|||
===Majority size=== |
|||
Asch also examined whether decreasing or increasing the majority size had an influence on participants level of conformity. <ref name="Asch1951"></ref><ref name="Asch1952b"></ref><ref name="Asch1955"></ref> It was discovered that the smaller the size of the opposing group (confederate), the lower the level of conformity, and by simply increasing the opposing group to two or three persons, the level of conformity increased substantially. However, including more individuals to the opposing group did not increase conformity. |
|||
===Written responses=== |
|||
Asch wanted to know whether altering participants method of responding would have an influence on their level of conformity. He constructed an experiment whereby all confederates verbalized their responses aloud and only the "real" participant was allowed to respond in writing. He discovered that conformity significantly decreased when shifting from public to written responses.<ref name="Asch1956"></ref> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
The unanimity of the confederates has also been varied. When the confederates are not unanimous in their judgment, even if only one confederate voices a different opinion, participants are much more likely to resist the urge to conform (only 5–10% conform) than when the confederates all agree. This finding illuminates the [[Power (philosophy)|power]] that even a small dissenting minority can have. Interestingly, this finding holds whether or not the dissenting confederate gives the correct answer. As long as the dissenting confederate gives an answer that is different from the majority, participants are more likely to give the correct answer. Men show around half the effect of women (tested in same-sex groups); and conformity is higher among members of an [[ingroup]].<ref>Bond, R. and Smith, P. B. (1996.) Culture and Conformity: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Asch's ( 1952b, 1956) Line Judgment Task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111-137.</ref> |
|||
Researchers suggest that individuals conform for various reasons. One reason why people conform is because of [[informational social influence]], which is is a tendency to conform to the behavior of others because one sees them as a source of knowledge for what they should be doing. Another reason is due to [[normative social influence]], which is a tendency for individuals to conform to the behavior of others in order to be accepted. <ref name="Feist">Feist, G.J. & Rosenberg, E.L. (2012). ''Psychology: Perspectives and connections''(2nd ed.). New York:NY McGraw-Hill.</ref><ref name="Schacter">Schacter, D.L., Gilbert, D.T. & Wegner, D.M. (2011). ''Psychology''(2nd ed.). New York:NY Worth Publishers. </ref> Given that the task was so simple and had an obvious correct answer, researchers suggest that Asch's conformity experiments exhibits the power of normative social influence.<ref name="Feist"></ref> Individuals knew what the correct answer was or at some point doubted the incorrect responses of the confederates but nonetheless conformed in an effort to alleviate conflict. |
|||
==Asch's Influences== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Asch told his colleagues that his idea to study conformity was brought about by his childhood experiences in Poland. He recalls being 7 years old and staying up for his first Passover night. He recalls seeing his grandmother pour an extra glass of wine. When he asked who the glass of wine was for, she said that it was for the prophet Elijah. He then asked her whether he would really take a sip from the glass and his uncle assured him that he would. His uncle told him to watch very closely when the time came. "Filled with a sense of suggestion and expectation" Asch "thought he saw the level of wine in the cup drop just a bit." <ref name="NYtimesArticle">Stout, D. (February 29, 1996). [http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/29/us/solomon-asch-is-dead-at-88-a-leading-social-psychologist.html Solomon Asch is dead at 88; a leading social psychologists]. ''The New York Times''.</ref> |
|||
===Public conformity vs. social influence=== |
|||
The Asch conformity experiments are often interpreted as evidence for the power of conformity and [[normative social influence]].<ref name="Turner (1985)">{{cite journal| last1=Turner| first1=J.C.| editor-last =Lawler| editor-first =E. J.| year=1985| title=Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavoir| journal=Advances in group processes: Theory and research|volume=2|pages=77–122|location=Greenwich, CT| publisher=JAI press}}</ref><ref name="Turner, J. C. (1991)"> Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. </ref> That is, the willingness to conform publicly to attain social reward and avoid social punishment. Others have argued that it is rational to use other people's judgments as evidence.<ref>Robert J. Aumann (1976). "Agreeing to Disagree". The Annals of Statistics 4 (6): 1236-1239. ISSN 00905364</ref> Along the lines of the latter perspective, the Asch conformity experiments are cited as evidence for the [[self-categorization theory]] account of [[social influence]]. From that perspective the Asch results are interpreted as an outcome of [[self-categorization theory#Depersonalization|depersonalization]] processes whereby the participants expect to hold the same opinions as similar others.<ref name="Turner (1985)"/><ref name="Turner (1987)">{{cite journal |last= Turner|first= J. C. |year= 1987|title= The analysis of social influence |journal= Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory |pages= 68-88 |publisher= Basil Blackwell |editor1-first= J.C.|editor1-last= Turner |editor2-first= M. A. |editor2-last= Hogg |editor3-first= P. J. |editor3-last= Oakes |editor4-first= S. D.|editor1-last= Reicher|editor5-first= M. S.|editor5-last= Wetherell |}}</ref> |
|||
==Replications by the Research Community== |
|||
===Social comparison theory=== |
|||
===Different Stimuli=== |
|||
The conformity demonstrated in Asch experiments is problematic for [[social comparison theory]],<ref name="Turner (1985)"/><ref name="Turner & Oakes (1986).">{{cite journal|last = Turner|first = John|last2=Oakes|first2=Penny|title = The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence|journal = British Journal of Social Psychology|volume = 25| issue = 3| pages = 237–252|year = 1986}}</ref><ref name="Turner (1987)"/> which predicts that when physical reality testing yields uncertainty, social reality testing, or [[informational influence]] will arise. The Asch conformity experiments demonstrated that uncertainty can arise as an outcome of social reality testing. Relatedly, this inconsistency has been used to support the position that the theoretical distinction between social reality testing and physical reality testing, as well as the distinction between informational influence and normative influence, are untenable.<ref name="Turner (1987)"/><ref name="Turner, J. C. (1991)"/><ref name=" Turner (2005)">{{cite journal |Last =Turner | First = J. C. |title=Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory|journal=European Journal of Social Psychology|year=2005|volume=35|pages=1-22 </ref> |
|||
In 1961, Asch's student, [[Stanley Milgram]] published a study where he utilized Asch's conformity paradigm using audio tones instead of lines; he conducted his study in Norway and France. <ref name="Milgram">Milgram, S. (1961). [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=milgram-nationality-conformity Nationality and conformity]. ''Scientific America'', 205(6).</ref>He found substantially larger levels of conformity than Asch, with participants conforming 62% and 50% of the time during critical trials, respectively. Milgram also conducted the same experiment once more but told participants that the results of the study would be applied to the design of aircraft safety signals. His conformity estimates were 56% in Norway and 46% in France. Stanley Migram's study illuminated how Asch's study could be replicated with other stimuli and in the case of tones, there was a high degree of conformity. |
|||
===Culture=== |
|||
A plethora of studies have documented cultural differences in conformity. Stanley Milgram's study was among the first to exhibit these differences.<ref name="Milgram"></ref> Specifically, he found that individuals in Norway (from a collectivistic culture) exhibited a higher degree of conformity than individuals in France (from a individualistic culture). Moreover, after Milgram's study was published, several researchers attempted to examine conformity across different cultures. These studies are documented in meta-analysis of studies using Asch's 1952b and 1956 line judgement task. <ref name="BondSmith">Bond, R. & Smith, P.B. (1996). [http://www.radford.edu/~jaspelme/_private/gradsoc_articles/individualism_collectivism/conformity%20and%20culture.pdf Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgement task ]. ''Psychological Bulletin'', 199(1), 111-137.</ref>The meta-analysis included 133 studies from 17 different countries. Overall, the analysis revealed that individuals from collectivistic cultures (e.g., Japan) conform more than those from individualistic cultures (e.g., United States). It is also noteworthy to mention that over time, conformity has decreased in the United States. This suggest that in the United States, our level of conformity is not what it was in previous decades. <ref name="BondSmith"></ref> |
|||
== |
===Gender & Age=== |
||
Research has also noted differences across gender and age in conformity. Previous research has documented that females display higher conformity than males. <ref name="BondSmith"></ref><ref name="EagleyCarli">Eagly, A.H. & Carli, L. (1981). [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/90/1/1/ Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies ]. ''Psychological Bulletin'', 90(1), 1-20.</ref> <ref name="BondSmith"></ref> <ref name="CooperHM">Cooper, H.M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 37, 131-146.</ref><ref name="Eagly78">Eagly, A.H. (1978). Sex differences in influenceability. ''Psychological Bulletin'', 85, 86-116.</ref> Among these studies were two meta-analyses, one of 148 studies and another of 133 studies (previously mentioned). <ref name="EagleyCarli"></ref><ref name="BondSmith"></ref> Moreover, research has also noted age differences in conformity. For example, research with Australian children and adolescents ages 3 to 17 discovered that conformity decreases with age. <ref name="WalkerMB"> Walker, M.B. & Andrade, M.G. (1996). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8758616 Conformity in the Asch task as a function of age]. ''Journal of Social Psychology'', 136(3), 367-72.</ref> Another study examined individuals that were ranged from ages 18 to 91. The results revealed a similar trend - older participants displayed less conformity when compared to younger participants. <ref name="Pasupathi"> Pasupathi, M (1999). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10224640 Age differences in response to conformity pressure for emotional and nonemotional material]. ''Psychology and Aging'', 14(1), 170-4.</ref> |
|||
* [[No soap radio]], a joke or prank that preys upon a subject's likeliness to conform to other people's reactions to a stimulus. The basic setup is very similar to an Asch conformity experiment. |
|||
* [[Three men make a tiger]], a [[Chinese language|Chinese]] [[proverb]] which refers to an individual's tendency to accept absurd information as long as it is repeated by enough people. |
|||
* [[Bandwagon effect]] |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
<references /> |
<references /> |
||
==Bibliography== |
|||
* Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) ''Groups, leadership and men''. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press. ([http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/asch_conform.html summary here]) |
|||
* Asch, S. E. (1955). [http://www.panarchy.org/asch/social.pressure.1955.html Opinions and social pressure]. ''Scientific American, 193'', 31-35. |
|||
* Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. ''Psychological Monographs, 70'' (Whole no. 416). |
|||
* Bond, R., & Smith, P. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. ''Psychological Bulletin'', 119, 111-137. {{doi|10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111}} |
|||
* Hayes, N. (2000). Foundations of psychology. 3rd edition. Thomson, p. 518-520. |
|||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
{{commons|Asch conformity experiments|Asch conformity experiments}} |
|||
*[http://scienceaid.co.uk/psychology/social/majority.html Science Aid: Asch experiment] A look at majority influence and Asch's experiment for high school level |
|||
*[http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/normative_social_influence.htm Changingminds: Normative social influence] |
|||
*[http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html Age of the sage summary of one Asch experiment] |
|||
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/mindchangers1.shtml BBC Radio: Mind changers: Solomon Asch] |
|||
*[http://www.betterdaystv.net/play.php?vid=19441 Video] |
*[http://www.betterdaystv.net/play.php?vid=19441 Video] |
||
Revision as of 08:24, 19 November 2012
During the 1950s, Solomon Asch conducted and published a series of laboratory experiments that demonstrated the degree to which an individuals own opinions are influenced by those of a majority group.[1][2][3][4] This type of influence is known as conformity. Together, these experiments are recognized as the Asch conformity experiments or the Asch Paradigm. Subsequent to the release of these experiments, several scientists attempted to replicate them through various lenses. In the present day, experiments of this nature continue to be conducted.
Initial Conformity Experiment
Methodology
In 1951, Solomon Asch of Swarthmore College conducted one of his first conformity laboratory experiment, laying the foundation for his remaining conformity studies. The conformity experiment was published on two occasions. [1][5]
Male college students participated in a simple “perceptual” task. In reality, all but one of the participants were "confederates" (i.e., actors), and the true focus of the study was about how the remaining student (i.e., real participant), would react to the confederates' behavior.
Each participant was placed in a room with 7 "confederates". Confederates knew the true aim of the experiment, but were introduced as participants to the "real" participant. Participants were shown a card with a line on it, followed by a card with 3 lines on it (lines labeled A, B and C, respectively). Participants were then asked to say aloud, which line (i.e., A, B or C) matched the line on the first card in length. Each line question was called a "trial". Prior to the experiment, all confederates were given specific instructions on how they should respond to each trial. Specifically, they were told to unanimously give the correct response or unanimously give the incorrect response. The real participant was always the last to respond. For the first two trials, the participant would feel at ease in the experiment, as he and the confederates gave the obvious, correct answer. On the third trial, the confederates would all give the same wrong answer, placing the participant in a dilemma. There were 18 trials in total and the confederates answered incorrectly for 12 of them. These 12 were known as the "critical trials". The aim was to see whether the real participant would change his answer and respond in the same way as the confederates, despite it being the wrong answer. Once the experiment was completed, the "real" participant was individually interviewed; at the end of the interview, the participant was debriefed about the true purpose of the study.
Solomon Asch's experiment also had a control condition where there were no confederates, only a "real participant". This meant that one participant answered to all 18 trials without the group of confederates present and only with the experimenter in the room. In total, there were 50 "real" participants that took part in the experimental condition and 37 participants in the control condition.
Results
All results are based off of participants responses to critical trials. In the control group, with no pressure to conform to confederates, less than 1% of participants gave an incorrect response. An examination of all critical trials in the experimental group revealed that one-third of all responses were incorrect. These incorrect responses often matched the incorrect response of the majority group (i.e., confederates). Overall, in the experimental group, 75% of the participants gave an incorrect answer to at least one question while only 25% never gave an incorrect response. Thus, 75% of participants conformed at least once and 25% never conformed.
Interview data revealed that participants who did not conform to the majority group and thus, remained "independent" from the group, reacted to the experiment in particular ways. Some reacted with "confidence" in their perception and experience. That is, despite experiencing conflict between their idea of the obvious answer and the groups incorrect answer, they stuck with the answer that was based off of their own perception. Others were "withdrawn", suggesting that they stuck with their perception without experiencing conflict as those in the confidence group. Some participants also exhibited "doubt". This meant that they experienced great doubt and tension but nonetheless stuck with their correct responses because they felt a need to adequately take part in the task.
Moreover, interview data with participants that did conform to the majority group on at least one-half or more of the trials, and thus, "yielded" to the group also exhibited certain reactions to the experiment. Some participants reacted with a "distortion of perception". These participants (very few) conformed on nearly all trials and actually believed that the confederates incorrect answers were true. They were never aware that the majority gave incorrect answers. Other participants exhibited a "distortion of judgment" (most belonged to this category). This meant that participants got to a point where they realized that they must be wrong and that the majority must be right, leading them to answer with the majority. These individuals lacked confidence and were very doubtful. Lastly, participants exhibited a "distortion of action", suggesting that they know what the correct answer is, but conformed with the majority group simply because they didn't want to seem inferior.
Subsequent Asch Conformity Experiments
Solomon Asch took the paradigm from his experiment published in 1951 and applied it to his subsequent research experiments. In his 1952b paper, he slightly altered his experiment.[2] His sample still consisted of male college students. However, instead of 8 persons per session, there were 7 to 9; instead of 18 trials (with 12 of them being critical trials), there were 12 trials (with 7 of them being critical trials). Asch also mentioned that an outsider in the room would single out the "real" participant after the first few trials. Furthermore, in his 1955 paper he conducted the same study as in 1951 but with 123 male students from three different universities; instead of 8 participants per group, there was a range of 7 to 9.[3] Finally, his 1956 also consisted of 123 male college students from three different universities.[4] Asch never mentioned whether it was the same sample as in his 1955 paper. Unlike his previous papers, his 1956 paper includes an elaborate account of his interviews with participants. Overall, across all of his papers published, Asch found the same results - participants conformed to the majority group in about one-third of all critical trials.
Factors Influencing Conformity
In his 1951 experiment and subsequent studies, Asch wanted to further his investigation of conformity by examining whether slight changes in participants environments would lead to different results. He had the following experimental variations:
Presence of a true partner
Asch examined whether the presence of a "true partner" influenced level of conformity. [1][3] This partner was also a "real" participant or another actor that was told to give the correct response to each question. This decreased the level of conformity, especially when the partner was instructed to give correct responses.
Withdrawal of a partner
Asch also examined whether the removal of a partner (that he instructed to give correct answers) halfway through the experiment would influence the participants level of conformity.[1][3] He found that there was a low level of conformity during the first half of the experiment. However, once the partner left the room, the level of conformity increased dramatically.
Majority size
Asch also examined whether decreasing or increasing the majority size had an influence on participants level of conformity. [1][2][3] It was discovered that the smaller the size of the opposing group (confederate), the lower the level of conformity, and by simply increasing the opposing group to two or three persons, the level of conformity increased substantially. However, including more individuals to the opposing group did not increase conformity.
Written responses
Asch wanted to know whether altering participants method of responding would have an influence on their level of conformity. He constructed an experiment whereby all confederates verbalized their responses aloud and only the "real" participant was allowed to respond in writing. He discovered that conformity significantly decreased when shifting from public to written responses.[4]
Interpretations
Researchers suggest that individuals conform for various reasons. One reason why people conform is because of informational social influence, which is is a tendency to conform to the behavior of others because one sees them as a source of knowledge for what they should be doing. Another reason is due to normative social influence, which is a tendency for individuals to conform to the behavior of others in order to be accepted. [6][7] Given that the task was so simple and had an obvious correct answer, researchers suggest that Asch's conformity experiments exhibits the power of normative social influence.[6] Individuals knew what the correct answer was or at some point doubted the incorrect responses of the confederates but nonetheless conformed in an effort to alleviate conflict.
Asch's Influences
Asch told his colleagues that his idea to study conformity was brought about by his childhood experiences in Poland. He recalls being 7 years old and staying up for his first Passover night. He recalls seeing his grandmother pour an extra glass of wine. When he asked who the glass of wine was for, she said that it was for the prophet Elijah. He then asked her whether he would really take a sip from the glass and his uncle assured him that he would. His uncle told him to watch very closely when the time came. "Filled with a sense of suggestion and expectation" Asch "thought he saw the level of wine in the cup drop just a bit." [8]
Replications by the Research Community
Different Stimuli
In 1961, Asch's student, Stanley Milgram published a study where he utilized Asch's conformity paradigm using audio tones instead of lines; he conducted his study in Norway and France. [9]He found substantially larger levels of conformity than Asch, with participants conforming 62% and 50% of the time during critical trials, respectively. Milgram also conducted the same experiment once more but told participants that the results of the study would be applied to the design of aircraft safety signals. His conformity estimates were 56% in Norway and 46% in France. Stanley Migram's study illuminated how Asch's study could be replicated with other stimuli and in the case of tones, there was a high degree of conformity.
Culture
A plethora of studies have documented cultural differences in conformity. Stanley Milgram's study was among the first to exhibit these differences.[9] Specifically, he found that individuals in Norway (from a collectivistic culture) exhibited a higher degree of conformity than individuals in France (from a individualistic culture). Moreover, after Milgram's study was published, several researchers attempted to examine conformity across different cultures. These studies are documented in meta-analysis of studies using Asch's 1952b and 1956 line judgement task. [10]The meta-analysis included 133 studies from 17 different countries. Overall, the analysis revealed that individuals from collectivistic cultures (e.g., Japan) conform more than those from individualistic cultures (e.g., United States). It is also noteworthy to mention that over time, conformity has decreased in the United States. This suggest that in the United States, our level of conformity is not what it was in previous decades. [10]
Gender & Age
Research has also noted differences across gender and age in conformity. Previous research has documented that females display higher conformity than males. [10][11] [10] [12][13] Among these studies were two meta-analyses, one of 148 studies and another of 133 studies (previously mentioned). [11][10] Moreover, research has also noted age differences in conformity. For example, research with Australian children and adolescents ages 3 to 17 discovered that conformity decreases with age. [14] Another study examined individuals that were ranged from ages 18 to 91. The results revealed a similar trend - older participants displayed less conformity when compared to younger participants. [15]
References
- ^ a b c d e Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgements. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men(pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh:PA Carnegie Press.
- ^ a b c Asch, S.E. (1952b). "Social psychology". Englewood Cliffs:NJ Prentice Hall.
- ^ a b c d e Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 35–35.
- ^ a b c Asch, S.E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1–70.
- ^ Asch, S.E. (1952a). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgements. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb & E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology(2nd ed., pp. 2–11). New York:NY Holt.
- ^ a b Feist, G.J. & Rosenberg, E.L. (2012). Psychology: Perspectives and connections(2nd ed.). New York:NY McGraw-Hill.
- ^ Schacter, D.L., Gilbert, D.T. & Wegner, D.M. (2011). Psychology(2nd ed.). New York:NY Worth Publishers.
- ^ Stout, D. (February 29, 1996). Solomon Asch is dead at 88; a leading social psychologists. The New York Times.
- ^ a b Milgram, S. (1961). Nationality and conformity. Scientific America, 205(6).
- ^ a b c d e Bond, R. & Smith, P.B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgement task . Psychological Bulletin, 199(1), 111-137.
- ^ a b Eagly, A.H. & Carli, L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies . Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 1-20.
- ^ Cooper, H.M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 131-146.
- ^ Eagly, A.H. (1978). Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 86-116.
- ^ Walker, M.B. & Andrade, M.G. (1996). Conformity in the Asch task as a function of age. Journal of Social Psychology, 136(3), 367-72.
- ^ Pasupathi, M (1999). Age differences in response to conformity pressure for emotional and nonemotional material. Psychology and Aging, 14(1), 170-4.