Social Influence
, LT1
Asch’s Experiment of Conformity
AIM: To investigate whether an individual will conform to the majority using an unambiguous task
PROCEDURE: RESULTS: EVALUATION
OPPOSING EVIDENCE: Perrin and Spencer (1980), repeated exp with engineering
123 male American pps, 36.8% conformed in the
critical trial students and found 1 conformed in 396 trials = conformity decreases with confidence =
individual pp with 6-8
decreases credibility
confederates
75% conformed at least once
MUNDANE REALISM: Artificial task = not everyday task = demand characteristics as it’s
Shown two large white cards
25% never conformed but not a real life situation = not generalisable to everyday life
one at a time, one with one
still felt doubt
standard line and the other UNETHICAL: Broke 3 BPS ethical guidelines; informed consent, no deception,
with three comparison lines protection from harm = unreplicable
CONCLUSION:
Asked to identify out loud HIGH RELIABILITY: Lab exp using artificial task which can be replicated and
which comparison line Asch effect - conform to standardised procedures = repeated to check for consistent results
matched with the standard majority even on
line unambiguous task. HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY: Unambiguous task = clear answer = testing what was
intended instead of the ability of the pp on completing the task
Naive pp seated second to last When debriefed said they
to hear everyone else’s conformed to avoid rejection
answers first, 12/18 critical (NSI)
trials VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITY
GROUP SIZE: UNANIMITY: DIFFICULTY: CONFIDENCE: GENDER:
3 conf made conformity go Adding in a dissenting pp More difficult = increases Perrin and Spencer (1980) Eagly and Carli (1981) found
from 14% (2 conf) to 31.8%. made conformity drop by conformity (reassurance) engineering students = inconsistent gender data.
Shows the majority below 3 is 25% due to increasing decreases conformity as they Women conform more due to
not significant but doesn't independence ISI effects conformity with are more confident increased pressure. Meta
need to be above 3 harder tasks analysis of 145 studies
, LT1
Asch’s Experiment of Conformity
AIM: To investigate whether an individual will conform to the majority using an unambiguous task
PROCEDURE: RESULTS: EVALUATION
OPPOSING EVIDENCE: Perrin and Spencer (1980), repeated exp with engineering
123 male American pps, 36.8% conformed in the
critical trial students and found 1 conformed in 396 trials = conformity decreases with confidence =
individual pp with 6-8
decreases credibility
confederates
75% conformed at least once
MUNDANE REALISM: Artificial task = not everyday task = demand characteristics as it’s
Shown two large white cards
25% never conformed but not a real life situation = not generalisable to everyday life
one at a time, one with one
still felt doubt
standard line and the other UNETHICAL: Broke 3 BPS ethical guidelines; informed consent, no deception,
with three comparison lines protection from harm = unreplicable
CONCLUSION:
Asked to identify out loud HIGH RELIABILITY: Lab exp using artificial task which can be replicated and
which comparison line Asch effect - conform to standardised procedures = repeated to check for consistent results
matched with the standard majority even on
line unambiguous task. HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY: Unambiguous task = clear answer = testing what was
intended instead of the ability of the pp on completing the task
Naive pp seated second to last When debriefed said they
to hear everyone else’s conformed to avoid rejection
answers first, 12/18 critical (NSI)
trials VARIABLES AFFECTING CONFORMITY
GROUP SIZE: UNANIMITY: DIFFICULTY: CONFIDENCE: GENDER:
3 conf made conformity go Adding in a dissenting pp More difficult = increases Perrin and Spencer (1980) Eagly and Carli (1981) found
from 14% (2 conf) to 31.8%. made conformity drop by conformity (reassurance) engineering students = inconsistent gender data.
Shows the majority below 3 is 25% due to increasing decreases conformity as they Women conform more due to
not significant but doesn't independence ISI effects conformity with are more confident increased pressure. Meta
need to be above 3 harder tasks analysis of 145 studies
