Key Studies
Conformity: Asch’s Research:
Study Name What it Procedure Findings and Evaluation of Study
was testing Conclusions
Asch (1951) Conformity Recruited 123 Naïve participants - Task and situation artificial which could
American male students. gave the wrong cause demand characteristics
Each was tested answer 36.8% of the - Trivial task with no meaning so does not
individually with a group time. There were generalise to everyday situations.
between 6 and 8 individual differences - Cultural differences in conformity. Smith
confederates. On each 25% of participants & Bond (1998) suggest China conformity
trial participants never gave a wrong would be higher than USA.
identified the length of answer. Most + Used a control to test participants were
a standard line. On the participants said conforming and not giving answers they
first few trails they conformed to believed to be true. Only 3 out of 720
confederates gave avoid rejection and were mistakes. This increases validity.
correct answers but continues to - Only tested men. Neto (1995) suggested
then all selected the privately trust their women may be more conformist.
same wrong answers. own opinions. - Williams &Sogon (1984) found conformity
Each participant higher with friends than strangers.
completed 18 trials, 12 - Ethical issues, naïve participants were
‘critical trials’ deceived. Believed the confederates were
confederates gave the genuine.
wrong answer. + Crutchfield (1955) did a similar study in
cubicles; each participant was told he was
the last to guess and other participants
answers were visible on a screen. Half of
the time participants were given incorrect
answers. Similar conformity to Asch was
found (30%). Makes Asch’s study more
reliable.
Asch (1955) Conformity Same experiment as his Group size ~ with 2 + Lucas et al. (2006) asked participants
first but with variables. confederates 13.6% asked to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths
Group size ~ number of conformity, with 3 problems. Participants given fake answers
confederates varied 31.8% adding more from 3 other students. Participants
between 1 and 15. made little conformed more often when problems
Unanimity ~ introduced difference. were harder.
a truthful confederate Unanimity ~ - Lucas et al. (2006) found participants
or a confederate who presence of a with high confidence in their maths abilities
was dissenting but dissenting conformed less on hard tasks than those
inaccurate. confederate reduced with low confidence. Situational variables
Task difficulty ~ made conformity whether can influence conformity.
the lies more similar in they were giving
length. correct answers or
not.
Task difficulty ~
conformity increased
when ask was more
difficult.
, Types and Explanations of Conformity:
Study Name What it Found
Lucas et al. (2006) Found more participants conformed to incorrect answers when the maths problems were
difficult. This was most true for students who rated their maths ability as poor. This supports
ISI.
Asch (1955) Found students were less conformist 28% than other participants 37%.
Perrin & Spencer Also found less conformity in students.
(1980)
Asch (1951) Asked participants why they agreed with the wrong answer. Some said they felt self-conscious
about giving the right answer and were afraid of disapproval. When participants were asked to
write answers down, conformity rates fell to 12.5%.
McGhee & Teevan Found students who were nAffiliators (have a greater need for social relationships) were more
(1967) likely to conform. The desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others.
Conformity to Social Roles:
Study Name What it Procedure Findings and Evaluation of Study
was testing Conclusions
Zimbardo et Conformity Recruited 24 Within 2 days + Control over key variables, emotionally
al. (1973) to social ‘emotionally stable’ prisoners rebelled, stable participants chosen and randomly
roles students, randomly guards harassed assigned roles. Behaviour was due to the
assigned them to the prisoners pressures of the situation and not their
role of guard or constantly personalities. This increases validity.
prisoner. Prisoners were enforced rules and - Banuazizi & Mohavedi (1975) suggested
arrested in their homes, punished even participants were play acting and their
delivered to the prison, slight performances reflected stereotypes of how
blind-folded, strip- misdemeanours. prisoners and guards were supposed to
searched, deloused and Guards were behave. One guard based his role on a
issued a uniform and enthusiastic about character from the film Cool Hand Luke,
number. Guards had their role, their prisoners rioted because they thought that’s
uniform, wooden club, behaviour what real prisoners did.
handcuffs, keys and threatened + McDermott (2019) says participants did
mirrored shades. prisoners’ behave as if prison was real to them. 90%
Prisoners had heavily psychological and of conversations were about prisoner life.
regulated daily routines, physical health. One ‘Prisoner 416’ says she believed the prison
there were 16 rules to prisoner went on was real.
follow enforced by hunger strike, - Fromm (1973) says Zimbardo may have
working shifts, 3 guards guards attempted exaggerated the power of social roles to
at a time. Guards were to force feed him. influence on behaviour. Only 1/3 of guards
told they had complete Study was stopped acted brutally the rest supported prisoners.
power over the after 6 days. 3 Zimbardo (2007) said guards sympathised,
prisoners e.g., deciding prisoners were offered cigarettes and reinstated privileges.
when they could go to released early Most guards were able to resist situational
the toilet. because they pressures to conform to a brutal role. This
showed signs of suggests Zimbardo overstated the
psychological conformity to social roles and understated
disturbance. the influence of dispositional factors such as
personality.
Conformity: Asch’s Research:
Study Name What it Procedure Findings and Evaluation of Study
was testing Conclusions
Asch (1951) Conformity Recruited 123 Naïve participants - Task and situation artificial which could
American male students. gave the wrong cause demand characteristics
Each was tested answer 36.8% of the - Trivial task with no meaning so does not
individually with a group time. There were generalise to everyday situations.
between 6 and 8 individual differences - Cultural differences in conformity. Smith
confederates. On each 25% of participants & Bond (1998) suggest China conformity
trial participants never gave a wrong would be higher than USA.
identified the length of answer. Most + Used a control to test participants were
a standard line. On the participants said conforming and not giving answers they
first few trails they conformed to believed to be true. Only 3 out of 720
confederates gave avoid rejection and were mistakes. This increases validity.
correct answers but continues to - Only tested men. Neto (1995) suggested
then all selected the privately trust their women may be more conformist.
same wrong answers. own opinions. - Williams &Sogon (1984) found conformity
Each participant higher with friends than strangers.
completed 18 trials, 12 - Ethical issues, naïve participants were
‘critical trials’ deceived. Believed the confederates were
confederates gave the genuine.
wrong answer. + Crutchfield (1955) did a similar study in
cubicles; each participant was told he was
the last to guess and other participants
answers were visible on a screen. Half of
the time participants were given incorrect
answers. Similar conformity to Asch was
found (30%). Makes Asch’s study more
reliable.
Asch (1955) Conformity Same experiment as his Group size ~ with 2 + Lucas et al. (2006) asked participants
first but with variables. confederates 13.6% asked to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths
Group size ~ number of conformity, with 3 problems. Participants given fake answers
confederates varied 31.8% adding more from 3 other students. Participants
between 1 and 15. made little conformed more often when problems
Unanimity ~ introduced difference. were harder.
a truthful confederate Unanimity ~ - Lucas et al. (2006) found participants
or a confederate who presence of a with high confidence in their maths abilities
was dissenting but dissenting conformed less on hard tasks than those
inaccurate. confederate reduced with low confidence. Situational variables
Task difficulty ~ made conformity whether can influence conformity.
the lies more similar in they were giving
length. correct answers or
not.
Task difficulty ~
conformity increased
when ask was more
difficult.
, Types and Explanations of Conformity:
Study Name What it Found
Lucas et al. (2006) Found more participants conformed to incorrect answers when the maths problems were
difficult. This was most true for students who rated their maths ability as poor. This supports
ISI.
Asch (1955) Found students were less conformist 28% than other participants 37%.
Perrin & Spencer Also found less conformity in students.
(1980)
Asch (1951) Asked participants why they agreed with the wrong answer. Some said they felt self-conscious
about giving the right answer and were afraid of disapproval. When participants were asked to
write answers down, conformity rates fell to 12.5%.
McGhee & Teevan Found students who were nAffiliators (have a greater need for social relationships) were more
(1967) likely to conform. The desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others.
Conformity to Social Roles:
Study Name What it Procedure Findings and Evaluation of Study
was testing Conclusions
Zimbardo et Conformity Recruited 24 Within 2 days + Control over key variables, emotionally
al. (1973) to social ‘emotionally stable’ prisoners rebelled, stable participants chosen and randomly
roles students, randomly guards harassed assigned roles. Behaviour was due to the
assigned them to the prisoners pressures of the situation and not their
role of guard or constantly personalities. This increases validity.
prisoner. Prisoners were enforced rules and - Banuazizi & Mohavedi (1975) suggested
arrested in their homes, punished even participants were play acting and their
delivered to the prison, slight performances reflected stereotypes of how
blind-folded, strip- misdemeanours. prisoners and guards were supposed to
searched, deloused and Guards were behave. One guard based his role on a
issued a uniform and enthusiastic about character from the film Cool Hand Luke,
number. Guards had their role, their prisoners rioted because they thought that’s
uniform, wooden club, behaviour what real prisoners did.
handcuffs, keys and threatened + McDermott (2019) says participants did
mirrored shades. prisoners’ behave as if prison was real to them. 90%
Prisoners had heavily psychological and of conversations were about prisoner life.
regulated daily routines, physical health. One ‘Prisoner 416’ says she believed the prison
there were 16 rules to prisoner went on was real.
follow enforced by hunger strike, - Fromm (1973) says Zimbardo may have
working shifts, 3 guards guards attempted exaggerated the power of social roles to
at a time. Guards were to force feed him. influence on behaviour. Only 1/3 of guards
told they had complete Study was stopped acted brutally the rest supported prisoners.
power over the after 6 days. 3 Zimbardo (2007) said guards sympathised,
prisoners e.g., deciding prisoners were offered cigarettes and reinstated privileges.
when they could go to released early Most guards were able to resist situational
the toilet. because they pressures to conform to a brutal role. This
showed signs of suggests Zimbardo overstated the
psychological conformity to social roles and understated
disturbance. the influence of dispositional factors such as
personality.
