Conformity: Sherif and Asch’s re-search Flashcards
Sherif’s conformity experiment
Sherif(1935) conformity and the auto kinetic effect(ambiguous task)
Sherif(1935) method
1) This was a laboratory experiment with a repeated measures design. Sherif used a visual illusion called the auto kinetic effect- stationary spot of light, viewed in a dark room, appears to move
2) Participants were falsely told that the experimenter would move the light.
3) They had to estimate how far the light moved.
4) In the first phase, individual participants made repeated estimates.
5) They were out into a group of three people, where they made their estimate with others present.
6) They were then retested individually
Sherif(1935) results
When participants were alone, they developed their own stable estimates(personal norms), which varied widely between participants.Once participants were in a group, the estimates tended to converge and become more alike.
When they were retested individually on their own, the estimates were more like the group estimates, than the original guesses.
Sherif(1935) conclusions
Participants were influenced by the estimates of other people, and a group norm developed.
Estimates converged, because participants used information from others to help them - they were affected by informational social influence.
Sheriff(1935) evaluation positives
Laboratory experiment - strict control of variables
Could establish cause and effect - results unlikely to be affected by other variables
Replicable
Repeated measures design - participant variables that could have affected the results remained consistent
Sheriff(1935) evaluation flaws
Not realistic - participants asked to judge the movement of a light that wasn’t moving
Artificial situation - lacks ecological validity
Male sample - limited, cannot generalise
Deception - the participants were told the light was moving, when it wasn’t
Number of participants - Asch(1951,1955)
123 American male undergraduates
Method(Asch 1951,1955)
Asch carried out a laboratory experiment with an independent group design. Participants were tested individually with a group of six and eight confederates. The naive participant wasn’t aware of this:
Participants were shown two cards at a time. One had a ‘standard white line’ and the other had three ‘comparison lines’. One line was correct, two were significantly
disproportional. Participants had to say out loud which comparison line(1,2 or 3) matched the standard line.
Each group contained only one real participant - the others were confederates(who acted like real participants, but were really helping the experimenter). The real participant always went last or last but one, so they heard the others’ answers before giving theirs.
Control group: judged the line lengths in isolation.
In the first few trials, all the confederates gave the right answers, but then started making errors. Altogether each participant took part in 18 trials and on 12 critical trials ,the confederates all gave the same wrong answer.
Results - Asch(1951,55)
The naive participant gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time.
In the control trials, participants gave the wrong answer 0.7% of the time. Overall, 25% of the participants didn’t conform on any trials .
In the control trials, participants gave the wrong answer 0.7% of the time.
In the critical trials, participants conformed to the majority 37% of the time. 75% conformed at least once.
Afterwards, some participants said they didn’t really believe their answers, but didn’t want to look different.
Asch- Participants were influenced by situational factors
Due to the social situation a person is in.
Sometimes, we are influenced by dispositional factors - due to the person’s internal characteristics.
To investigate the situational factors(group size, social support and task difficulty), Asch repeated his study.
How does group size affect participants
Small majorities are easier to resist than larger ones, but the influence does not keep increasing with the size of the majority.
With two confederates, only 14% of participants conformed.
With three confederates, conformity rose to 31.8%.
How did social support affect conformity levels among participants?
A dissenter who gave the correct answer led conformity to the majority to drop to 5.5%.
A dissenter who gave a different incorrect answer led conformity to the majority to drop to 9%.
This suggests when you have social support, you are likely to be more confident in giving your own personal answer or opinion.
Impact of task difficulty on Asch’s research
Asch changed the length of the lines- with stimulus and comparison lines more similar in length.
Conformity increased in these conditions, because the situation became more ambiguous and ISI plays a greater role when the task becomes harder
