Asch(1955) Flashcards
Methodology: reliability ?
Larsen repeated in 1974 and found much lower results similarly with Perrin and spencer (1980) they found that in 396 trials only one conformed. Suggesting it’s unreliable
Methodology: method? Strengths am weaknessess?
Laboratory so high levels if control and standardised procedures. Extraneous variables minimised and cause an effect relationship established.
However demand characterists they could guess they aims and say accordingly
Methodology: validity?
They could have been effected by the researcher conductinjng each trial (investigator effects) there may have been different results if the test reflected track life . Low in ecological validity as it doesn’t reflect real life.
They were infront of strangers also
Methodology: sampling?
Volunteer sample so a certain type of person could talk part. Sample biased as they were made up of just american students of a similar age.
Methodology: ethical issues?
Deception mislead on the aims and lied to about the confederates.
Informed consent: didn’t have because of mislead aims
However after debrief they were told their behaviour was normal
Alternative evidence?
Perrin and spencer(1980) contradicts only 1 in 396 conformed but they used science students.
Nicholson (1985) supports as 36% students conformed at least once.
Eagly (1978) develops found that women conform more that men because they’re more concerned with social relationship.
Bond and smith (1996) studied 133 students in 17 countries found that collectivist countries conformed more than individualistic ones proving Asch to be culturally bias.
Conformity definition?
A person is said to conform if they choose a course of action which is favoured by the majority of group members or is considered socially acceptable.
Aim of study?
Asch wanted to look at conformity in an unambiguous situation. So his experiment had a clear answer. The aim was it investigate the effects of group pressure on individuals in unambiguous situations.
Context? Jennness (1932)
ps were asked to individually estimate how many jelly beans were in a jar. Then gave a group estimate. They were interviewed individually and asked if they wanted to change their answer to the group one or stick with their own. Nearly all changed to the group one showing conformity.
Context? Sherif (1935)
Estimate how far a spot of light moved. Asked individually and then exposed to the estimates of two others. Different to jenness as they arrived at a group norm in their own violation. Estimates tended to converse to the group norm. Due to the ambiguous setting ps looked to others for a reasonable answer.
Procedure?
Ps: 123 make student volunteers from 3 American universities. 6-8 in each group.
Research method: lab experiment
Dependent variable: percentage of wrong answers
Outline: asked to take part in “vision experiment” one naive P and the rest confederates.
Two white cards one with standard line the other with three comparisons which they had to match up.
Task repeated 18 times
The naive participant was second to last in the line
Confederates have wrong answer 12 out of the 18 times. 12 = critical trial
After experiment ps were debriefed and interviewed about their response.
Procedure. Variations on it?
The size of the majority: the number of confederations that give the wrong answer
Truthful partner: someone else in the group doesn’t conform and gives the same answer as you.
Inaccurate partner: gives wrong answer but still doesn’t conform.
Partner who changes his mind: goes against the majority but eventually gives in and conforms
Findings?
Ps have the wrong answer 36.8% of the time.
25% of ps never conformed in any of the trials meaning 75% conformed at least once.
Some agreed with confederates in nearly every trial.
Those that did agree with the confederates believed “I am wrong they are right” or conformed so has “not to spoil the results”
Results with the varying study?
No effect on conformity when 1 confederate have wrong answer
13.6% with 2 and 31.8% with 3 after 3 conformity stayed the same.
With a truthful partner conformity reduced to 25%
With an inaccurate partner it reduced by a third
With a partner who changes his mind they did the same as them
Conclusions?
The results from both the baseline study and variations suggest there is a strong tendency to conform even in unambiguous situations
Conformity will increase with a majority of 2-3 confederates however tends to stay the same after 3
The presence if a partner decreases conformity even if they give a wrong answer
This study tells us independence is more important than conformity.
The pressure from the majority reduced when majority was smaller
