Key Studies In Conformity Flashcards
Name 3 key studies about conformity
Jenness
Sherif
Asch
Describe Jenness study aim
To examine whether individuals will change their opinion in an ambiguous (unclear) situation, in response to group discussion.
Describe Jenness study method
Jenness used an ambiguous situation that involved a glass bottle filled with 811 white beans. His sample consisted of 26 students, who individually estimated how many beans that the glass bottle contained. Participants were then divided into groups of three and asked to provide a group estimate through discussion. Following the discussion, the participants were provided with another opportunity to individually estimate the number of beans, to see if they changed their original answer.
Describe Jenness study results and conclusion
Jenness found that nearly all participants changed their original answer when they were provided with another opportunity to estimate the number of beans in the glass bottle. On average, male participants changed their answers by 256 beans and female participants changed their answers by 382 beans. Furthermore, the range of the whole group went from 1,875 before the discussion to 474 afterward, a decrease of 75 per cent, which demonstrates the converging opinions of the participants, after their discussions.
Conclusion: These results suggest that individuals changed their initial estimate due to informational social influence, as they believed that the group estimates were more likely to be correct, in comparison to their own.
Describe sherif aim
Autokinetic Effect Experiment
Aim: Sherif (1935) conducted an experiment with the aim of demonstrating that people conform to group norms when they are put in an ambiguous (i.e. unclear) situation.
Sherif method
Method: Part 1 - Sherif used a lab experiment to study conformity. He used the autokinetic effect – this is where a small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion).
It was discovered that when participants were individually tested their estimates on how far the light moved varied considerably (e.g. from 20cm to 80cm).
The participants were then tested in groups of three. Sherif manipulated the composition of the group by putting together two people whose estimate of the light movement when alone was very similar, and one person whose estimate was very different. Each person in the group had to say aloud how far they thought the light had moved.
Part 2 of Sherif’s experiment – In a follow up experiment, Sherif started the participants in groups where they agree on a group answer. When individuals were taken from this group and did the experiment on their own their answers were very similar to the group norm. This suggests they had internalised the group norm, that is, taken it in as their own view.
Sherif result and conclusion
Results: for part 1 —> Sherif found that over numerous estimates (trials) of the movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate. The person whose estimate of movement was greatly different to the other two in the group conformed to the view of the other two.
Sherif said that this showed that people would always tend to conform. Rather than make individual judgments they tend to come to a group agreement.
Conclusion: The results show that when in an ambiguous situation (such as the autokinetic effect), a person will look to others (who know more / better) for guidance (i.e. adopt the group norm). They want to do the right thing, but may lack the appropriate information. Observing others can provide this information. This is an example of ISI known as informational social influence.
Why did asch do the expt
Asch believed that the main problem with Sherif’s (1935) conformity experiment was that there was no correct answer to the ambiguous autokinetic experiment. How could we be sure that a person conformed when there was no correct answer?
Asch (1951) devised what is now regarded as a classic experiment in social psychology, whereby there was an obvious answer to a line judgment task. If the participant gave an incorrect answer it would be clear that this was due to group pressure.
Asch aim
Solomon Asch (1951) conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform. In other words, to investigate the degree to which individuals would conform to a majority who gave obviously wrong answers in a non-ambiguous situation (in other words, when the answer was clear).
Asch procedure
Asch used a lab experiment to study conformity, whereby 123 male US undergraduates participated in a ‘vision test.’ Using a line judgment task, Asch put a naive participant in a room with up to eight confederates. The confederates had agreed in advance what their responses would be when presented with the line task. The real participant did not know this and was led to believe that the other seven participants were also real participants like themselves. Each person in the room had to state aloud which comparison line (A, B or C) was most like the target line. The answer was always obvious. The real participant sat at the end of the row (or one before the end) and gave his or her answer last.
There were 18 trials in total, and the confederates gave the wrong answer on 12 trials (called the critical trials). Asch was interested to see if the real participant would conform to the majority view. Asch’s experiment also had a control condition where there were no confederates, only a “real participant.”
Asch results and conclusion
Results: Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, in the critical trials, about one third (32 – 36%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed to the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials. In others words around 35% of participants conformed in the critical trials.
Also, over the 12 critical trials, about 75% of participants conformed at least once, and 25% of participants never conformed. In the control group, with no pressure to conform to confederates, less than 1% of participants gave the wrong answer.
Conclusion: Asch interviewed his participants after the experiment to find out why they conformed. Most of the participants said that they knew their answers were incorrect, but they went along with the group in order to fit in, or because they thought they would be ridiculed. This confirms that participants complied due to normative social influence and the desire to fit in publically without changing their private views.
Therefore Asch’s study showed compliance in terms of agreeing publically but not privately with the majority. Asch’s study also supported the normative social influence explanation of conformity because pps wanted to be liked and accepted rather than be right!
