Social Influence
Conformity
Conformity:
Asch’s research:
Baseline Procedure
- 123 male participants judged line lengths. Confederates deliberately gave wrong answers.
Findings
- Naive participants conformed on 36.8% of trials 25% never conformed.
Variations:
Group size
- Asch varied group size from two to 16. Conformity increased up to three, then levelled off.
Unanimity
- Asch placed a confederate in the group. Conformity rate reduced.
Task difficulty
- Asch made line lengths more similar. Conformity increased when tasks were harder.
Evaluation:
Artificial situation and task
- Participants knew this was a study so they just played along with a trivial task (demand
characteristics).
Limited application
- Asch’s research was only conducted on American men.
Research support
- Lucas et al. found more conformity when maths problems were harder.
Counter point
- Conformity more complex, confident participants were less conforming.
Ethical issues
- Research may help avoid mindless conformity, but participants were deceived.
Types of Explanations
Types:
Internalisation
- Private and public acceptance of group norms.
Identification
- Change behaviour to be part of a group we identify with, may change privately too.
Compliance
- Go along with a group but no private change.
Explanations:
Conformity
Conformity:
Asch’s research:
Baseline Procedure
- 123 male participants judged line lengths. Confederates deliberately gave wrong answers.
Findings
- Naive participants conformed on 36.8% of trials 25% never conformed.
Variations:
Group size
- Asch varied group size from two to 16. Conformity increased up to three, then levelled off.
Unanimity
- Asch placed a confederate in the group. Conformity rate reduced.
Task difficulty
- Asch made line lengths more similar. Conformity increased when tasks were harder.
Evaluation:
Artificial situation and task
- Participants knew this was a study so they just played along with a trivial task (demand
characteristics).
Limited application
- Asch’s research was only conducted on American men.
Research support
- Lucas et al. found more conformity when maths problems were harder.
Counter point
- Conformity more complex, confident participants were less conforming.
Ethical issues
- Research may help avoid mindless conformity, but participants were deceived.
Types of Explanations
Types:
Internalisation
- Private and public acceptance of group norms.
Identification
- Change behaviour to be part of a group we identify with, may change privately too.
Compliance
- Go along with a group but no private change.
Explanations:
