WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.225
By  Dr. Saul McLeod, updated Dec 28, 2018

2
00:00:04.225 --> 00:00:08.167
Solomon Asch conducted an experiment
to investigate the extent to which

3
00:00:08.167 --> 00:00:12.420
social pressure from a majority group
could affect a person to conform.

4
00:00:12.420 --> 00:00:18.054
He believed that the main problem with
Sherif's (1935) conformity experiment

5
00:00:18.054 --> 00:00:22.601
was that there was no correct answer to
the ambiguous autokinetic experiment.

6
00:00:22.601 --> 00:00:26.757
How could we be sure that a person
conformed when there was no correct answer?

7
00:00:26.757 --> 00:00:32.473
Asch (1951) devised what is now regarded
as a classic experiment in social

8
00:00:32.473 --> 00:00:37.361
psychology, whereby there was an
obvious answer to a line judgment task.

9
00:00:37.361 --> 00:00:40.982
If the participant gave an incorrect
answer it would be clear that

10
00:00:40.982 --> 00:00:42.967
this was due to group pressure.

11
00:00:42.967 --> 00:00:46.567
Experimental Procedure.

12
00:00:46.567 --> 00:00:51.270
Asch used a lab experiment to study
conformity, whereby 50 male students

13
00:00:51.270 --> 00:00:55.702
from Swarthmore College in the USA
participated in a ‘vision test.

14
00:00:55.702 --> 00:01:00.072
Using a line judgment task, Asch
put a naive participant in a room

15
00:01:00.072 --> 00:01:02.690
with seven confederates/stooges.

16
00:01:02.690 --> 00:01:05.786
The confederates had agreed in
advance what their responses would

17
00:01:05.786 --> 00:01:08.055
be when presented with the line task.

18
00:01:08.055 --> 00:01:11.931
The real participant did not know this
and was led to believe that the other

19
00:01:11.931 --> 00:01:16.853
seven confederates/stooges were also
real participants like themselves.

20
00:01:16.853 --> 00:01:21.517
Each person in the room had to state
aloud which comparison line (A, B

21
00:01:21.517 --> 00:01:24.511
or C) was most like the target line.

22
00:01:24.511 --> 00:01:26.802
The answer was always obvious.

23
00:01:26.802 --> 00:01:31.399
The real participant sat at the end of
the row and gave his or her answer last.

24
00:01:31.399 --> 00:01:35.524
There were 18 trials in total, and the
confederates gave the wrong answer on

25
00:01:35.524 --> 00:01:38.544
12 trails (called the critical trials).

26
00:01:38.544 --> 00:01:41.529
Asch was interested to see if
the real participant would

27
00:01:41.529 --> 00:01:43.614
conform to the majority view.

28
00:01:43.614 --> 00:01:47.061
Asch's experiment also had a control
condition where there were no

29
00:01:47.061 --> 00:01:49.904
confederates, only a real participant.

30
00:01:49.904 --> 00:01:52.687
Findings.

31
00:01:52.687 --> 00:01:58.886
Over the 12 critical trials, about 75%
of participants conformed at least once,

32
00:01:58.886 --> 00:02:02.482
and 25% of participants never conformed.

33
00:02:02.482 --> 00:02:07.479
In the control group, with no pressure
to conform to confederates, less than 1%

34
00:02:07.479 --> 00:02:09.055
of participants gave the wrong answer.

35
00:02:09.515 --> 00:02:12.370
Conclusion.

36
00:02:12.370 --> 00:02:15.184
Why did the participants conform so readily?

37
00:02:15.184 --> 00:02:17.951
When they were interviewed
after the experiment.

38
00:02:17.951 --> 00:02:22.108
Most of them said that they did not really
believe their conforming answers, but

39
00:02:22.108 --> 00:02:26.564
had gone along with the group for fear
of being ridiculed or thought peculiar.

40
00:02:26.564 --> 00:02:30.837
A few of them said that they really did
believe the group's answers were correct.

41
00:02:30.837 --> 00:02:35.552
Apparently, people conform for two main
reasons: because they want to fit in

42
00:02:35.552 --> 00:02:37.685
with the group normative influence.

43
00:02:37.685 --> 00:02:40.643
And because they believe the group
is better informed than they

44
00:02:40.643 --> 00:02:41.618
are informational influence.

45
00:02:42.324 --> 00:02:45.796
Critical Evaluation.

46
00:02:45.796 --> 00:02:49.599
One limitation of the study is
that is used a biased sample.

47
00:02:49.599 --> 00:02:54.033
All the participants were male students
who all belonged to the same age group.

48
00:02:54.033 --> 00:02:57.423
This means that the study lacks
population validity and that the

49
00:02:57.423 --> 00:03:01.697
results cannot be generalized to
females or older groups of people.

50
00:03:01.697 --> 00:03:05.613
Another problem is that the experiment
used an artificial task to measure

51
00:03:05.613 --> 00:03:08.339
conformity - judging line lengths.

52
00:03:08.339 --> 00:03:12.322
How often are we faced with making
a judgment like the one Asch used,

53
00:03:12.322 --> 00:03:14.359
where the answer is plain to see?

54
00:03:14.359 --> 00:03:18.225
This means that the study has low
ecological validity and the results

55
00:03:18.225 --> 00:03:22.380
cannot be generalized to other
real-life situations of conformity.

56
00:03:22.380 --> 00:03:26.792
Asch replied that he wanted to investigate
a situation where the participants could

57
00:03:26.792 --> 00:03:29.635
be in no doubt what the correct answer was.

58
00:03:29.635 --> 00:03:33.495
In so doing he could explore the
true limits of social influence.

59
00:03:33.495 --> 00:03:37.594
Some critics thought the high levels of
conformity found by Asch were a reflection

60
00:03:37.594 --> 00:03:42.795
of American, 1950's culture and told us
more about the historical and cultural

61
00:03:42.795 --> 00:03:48.376
climate of the USA in the 1950s than then
they do about the phenomena of conformity.

62
00:03:48.376 --> 00:03:53.941
In the 1950s America was very conservative,
involved in an anti-communist witch-hunt

63
00:03:53.941 --> 00:03:57.564
which became known as McCarthyism
against anyone who was thought to

64
00:03:57.564 --> 00:03:59.959
hold sympathetic left-wing views.

65
00:03:59.959 --> 00:04:03.070
Conformity to American values was expected.

66
00:04:03.070 --> 00:04:08.659
Support for this comes from studies in the
1970s and 1980s that show lower conformity

67
00:04:08.659 --> 00:04:12.902
rates (e.g., Perrin and Spencer, 1980).

68
00:04:12.902 --> 00:04:18.889
Perrin and Spencer (1980) suggested that
the Asch effect was a child of its time.

69
00:04:18.889 --> 00:04:22.748
They carried out an exact replication
of the original Asch experiment

70
00:04:22.748 --> 00:04:27.356
using engineering, mathematics and
chemistry students as subjects.

71
00:04:27.356 --> 00:04:33.750
They found that on only one out of 396 trials
did an observer join the erroneous majority.

72
00:04:33.750 --> 00:04:38.013
Perrin and Spencer argue that a cultural
change has taken place in the value

73
00:04:38.013 --> 00:04:42.229
placed on conformity and obedience
and in the position of students.

74
00:04:42.229 --> 00:04:46.995
In America in the 1950s students were
unobtrusive members of society whereas

75
00:04:46.995 --> 00:04:48.859
now they occupy a free questioning role.

76
00:04:49.226 --> 00:04:53.515
However, one problem in comparing this
study with Asch is that very different

77
00:04:53.515 --> 00:04:55.873
types of participants are used.

78
00:04:55.873 --> 00:04:57.205
Perrin and

79
00:04:57.205 --> 00:05:01.393
Spencer used science and engineering
students who might be expected to be

80
00:05:01.393 --> 00:05:05.789
more independent by training when it
came to making perceptual judgments.

81
00:05:05.789 --> 00:05:10.153
Finally, there are ethical issues:
participants were not protected from

82
00:05:10.153 --> 00:05:14.296
psychological stress which may occur
if they disagreed with the majority.

83
00:05:14.296 --> 00:05:17.974
Evidence that participants in
Asch-type situations are highly

84
00:05:17.974 --> 00:05:20.718
emotional was obtained by Back et

85
00:05:20.718 --> 00:05:21.430
al.

86
00:05:21.430 --> 00:05:26.426
1963) who found that participants
in the Asch situation had greatly

87
00:05:26.426 --> 00:05:28.927
increased levels of autonomic arousal.

88
00:05:28.927 --> 00:05:30.434
This finding

89
00:05:30.434 --> 00:05:35.423
also suggests that they were in a conflict
situation, finding it hard to decide whether

90
00:05:35.423 --> 00:05:38.244
to report what they saw or to conform

91
00:05:38.244 --> 00:05:39.946
to the opinion of others.

92
00:05:39.946 --> 00:05:43.176
Asch also deceived the student
volunteers claiming they were

93
00:05:43.176 --> 00:05:45.476
taking part in a vision test.

94
00:05:45.476 --> 00:05:49.279
the real purpose was to see how the
naive participant would react to

95
00:05:49.279 --> 00:05:51.336
the behavior of the confederates.

96
00:05:51.336 --> 00:05:55.659
However, deception was necessary
to produce valid results.

97
00:05:55.659 --> 00:05:59.610
Asch Conformity Video Clip.

98
00:05:59.610 --> 00:06:04.468
The clip below is not from the original
experiment in 1951, but an acted

99
00:06:04.468 --> 00:06:07.539
version for television from the 1970s.

100
00:06:07.539 --> 00:06:11.396
Factors Affecting Conformity.

101
00:06:11.396 --> 00:06:17.931
In further trials, Asch (1952,
1956) changed the procedure example

102
00:06:17.931 --> 00:06:22.238
independent variables to investigate
which situational factors influenced the

103
00:06:22.238 --> 00:06:24.849
level of conformity dependent variable.

104
00:06:24.849 --> 00:06:27.524
His results and conclusions are given below.

105
00:06:27.524 --> 00:06:30.533
Group Size.

106
00:06:30.533 --> 00:06:36.488
Asch (1956) found that group size
influenced whether subjects conformed.

107
00:06:36.488 --> 00:06:40.290
The bigger the majority group (no
of confederates), the more people

108
00:06:40.290 --> 00:06:43.386
conformed, but only up to a certain point.

109
00:06:43.386 --> 00:06:49.420
With one other person (i.e., confederate)
in the group conformity was 3%, with

110
00:06:49.420 --> 00:06:55.846
two others it increased to 13%, and
with three or more it was 32% (or 1/3).

111
00:06:55.846 --> 00:07:01.380
Optimum conformity effects (32%)
were found with a majority of 3.

112
00:07:01.380 --> 00:07:04.803
Increasing the size of the majority
beyond three did not increase

113
00:07:04.803 --> 00:07:06.984
the levels of conformity found.

114
00:07:06.984 --> 00:07:12.002
Brown and Byrne (1997) suggest that
people might suspect collusion if the

115
00:07:12.002 --> 00:07:14.744
majority rises beyond three or four.

116
00:07:14.744 --> 00:07:19.357
According to Hogg & Vaughan
(1995), the most robust finding

117
00:07:19.357 --> 00:07:23.977
is that conformity reaches its full
extent with 3-5 person majority, with

118
00:07:23.977 --> 00:07:26.336
additional members having little effect.

119
00:07:26.336 --> 00:07:31.388
Lack of Group Unanimity
/ Presence of an Ally.

120
00:07:31.388 --> 00:07:35.656
As conformity drops off with five
members or more, it may be that it’s the

121
00:07:35.656 --> 00:07:40.174
unanimity of the group (the confederates
all agree with each other) which is more

122
00:07:40.174 --> 00:07:42.299
important than the size of the group.

123
00:07:42.299 --> 00:07:47.028
In another variation of the original
experiment, Asch broke up the unanimity

124
00:07:47.028 --> 00:07:51.196
(total agreement) of the group by
introduced a dissenting confederate.

125
00:07:51.196 --> 00:07:56.027
Asch (1956) found that even the
presence of just one confederate

126
00:07:56.027 --> 00:08:01.071
that goes against the majority choice
can reduce conformity as much as 80%.

127
00:08:01.071 --> 00:08:06.964
For example, in the original experiment, 32%
of participants conformed on the critical

128
00:08:06.964 --> 00:08:10.991
trials, whereas when one confederate
gave the correct answer on all the

129
00:08:10.991 --> 00:08:14.361
critical trials conformity dropped to 5%.

130
00:08:14.361 --> 00:08:19.001
This was supported in a study
by Allen and Levine (1968).

131
00:08:19.001 --> 00:08:23.411
In their version of the experiment, they
introduced a dissenting disagreeing.

132
00:08:23.411 --> 00:08:26.572
Confederate wearing thick-rimmed
glasses – thus suggesting he

133
00:08:26.572 --> 00:08:28.774
was slightly visually impaired.

134
00:08:28.774 --> 00:08:35.407
Even with this seemingly incompetent
dissenter conformity dropped from 97% to 64%.

135
00:08:35.407 --> 00:08:39.275
Clearly, the presence of an
ally decreases conformity.

136
00:08:39.275 --> 00:08:43.355
The absence of group unanimity lowers
overall conformity as participants

137
00:08:43.355 --> 00:08:47.001
feel less need for social approval of
the group (re: normative conformity).

138
00:08:47.775 --> 00:08:51.212
Difficulty of Task.

139
00:08:51.212 --> 00:08:58.373
When the (comparison) lines (e.g., A,
B, C) were made more similar in length

140
00:08:58.373 --> 00:09:02.224
it was harder to judge the correct
answer and conformity increased.

141
00:09:02.224 --> 00:09:06.246
When we are uncertain, it seems we
look to others for confirmation.

142
00:09:06.246 --> 00:09:09.691
The more difficult the task,
the greater the conformity.

143
00:09:09.691 --> 00:09:12.916
Answer in Private.

144
00:09:12.916 --> 00:09:17.426
When participants were allowed to answer in
private (so the rest of the group does not

145
00:09:17.426 --> 00:09:20.527
know their response) conformity decreases.

146
00:09:20.527 --> 00:09:24.158
This is because there are fewer group
pressures and normative influence

147
00:09:24.158 --> 00:09:28.295
is not as powerful, as there is no
fear of rejection from the group.

148
00:09:28.295 --> 00:09:32.003
How to reference this article:

149
00:09:32.003 --> 00:09:37.131
McLeod, S. A. (2018, Dec 28).

150
00:09:37.131 --> 00:09:39.900
Solomon Asch - Conformity Experiment.

151
00:09:49.508 --> 00:09:53.417
APA Style References.

152
00:09:53.417 --> 00:09:59.515
Allen, V. L., & Levine, J. M. (1968).

153
00:09:59.515 --> 00:10:02.460
Social support, dissent and conformity.

154
00:10:02.460 --> 00:10:06.815
Sociometry, 138-149.

155
00:10:06.815 --> 00:10:10.356
Asch, S. E. (1951).

156
00:10:10.356 --> 00:10:14.953
Effects of group pressure upon the
modification and distortion of judgment.

157
00:10:14.953 --> 00:10:19.315
In H. Guetzkow (ed.)
Groups, leadership and men.

158
00:10:19.315 --> 00:10:22.409
Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

159
00:10:22.409 --> 00:10:25.875
Asch, S. E. (1952).

160
00:10:25.875 --> 00:10:29.820
Group forces in the modification
and distortion of judgments.

161
00:10:29.820 --> 00:10:33.433
Asch, S. E. (1956).

162
00:10:33.433 --> 00:10:39.760
Studies of independence and conformity: I. A
minority of one against a unanimous majority.

163
00:10:39.760 --> 00:10:45.596
Psychological monographs:
General and applied, 70(9), 1-70.

164
00:10:45.596 --> 00:10:56.040
Back, K. W., Bogdonoff, M. D., Shaw,
D. M., & Klein, R. F. (1963).

165
00:10:56.040 --> 00:11:00.768
An interpretation of experimental
conformity through physiological measures.

166
00:11:00.768 --> 00:11:04.251
Behavioral Science, 8(1), 34.

167
00:11:04.251 --> 00:11:10.473
Longman, W., Vaughan, G.,
& Hogg, M. (1995).

168
00:11:10.473 --> 00:11:12.876
Introduction to social psychology.

169
00:11:12.876 --> 00:11:17.274
Perrin, S., & Spencer, C. (1980).

170
00:11:17.274 --> 00:11:20.049
The Asch effect: a child of its time?

171
00:11:20.049 --> 00:11:26.741
Bulletin of the British
Psychological Society, 32, 405-406.

172
00:11:26.741 --> 00:11:32.362
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953).

173
00:11:32.362 --> 00:11:34.526
Groups in harmony and tension.

174
00:11:34.526 --> 00:11:36.447
New York: Harper & Row.

175
00:11:36.447 --> 00:11:40.155
How to reference this article:

176
00:11:40.155 --> 00:11:45.283
McLeod, S. A. (2018, Dec 28).

177
00:11:45.283 --> 00:11:48.051
Solomon Asch - Conformity Experiment.

178
00:11:58.333 --> 00:12:03.767
Simply Psychology's content is for
informational and educational purposes only.

179
00:12:03.767 --> 00:12:07.894
Our website is not intended to be a
substitute for professional medical

180
00:12:07.894 --> 00:12:10.824
advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

181
00:12:10.824 --> 00:12:14.246
© Simply Scholar Ltd - All rights reserved