variables affecting conformity Flashcards
what are the variables that affect conformity?
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty
what is the key study representing the variables that affect conformity?
asch 1956 line study
the procedure of asch’s study
123 male us undergraduates were asked to compare lines of different lengths and were instructed to identify which line matched a ‘standard’ line. on 12/18 trials, confederates deliberately gave the wrong answer. asch aimed to observe if real participants would conform to the incorrect majority or stick to their own judgement.
asch’s variations
he was further interested in the conditions that might lead to an increase or decrease in conformity. he investigated these by carrying out some variations of his original procedure.
findings of asch’s study
on the 12 critical trials, participants conformed to the incorrect response 33% of the time on average. asch noted varying individual conformity rates, with 25% never conforming, 50% conforming on 6 or more trials, and 5% conforming on all 12 trials.
post interviews
in a control condition without confederates, participants made mistakes only 1% of the time, confirming the clarity of the stimulus lines. post interviews revealed that most conforming participants privately trusted their perceptions but publicly gave incorrect answers to avoid disapproval, indicating compliance; normative social influence.
group size
he discovered that with three confederates, conformity to the incorrect answer reached 31.8%. additional confederates had minimalimpact, suggesting that a small majority is not enough for influence, while more than three confederates are unnecessary.
unanimity of the majority
introducing a dissenting confederate reduced conformity by 25% compared to when the majority was unanimous. the presence of a dissenter allowed the naive participant to exhibit more independent behaviour, indicating that the influence of the majority relies partly on unanimity within the group.
difficulty of the task
asch increased the difficulty of the line-judging task by making the lines more similar in length. conformity rose under these conditions, indicating that ISI becomes more significant when the task becomes harder. this is because ambiguity leads us too seek guidane from others and assume their correctness over our own judgements.
weakness
evaluation point
the variables affecting conformity, as evidenced by Asch’s research, highlight the nuanced nature of social influence.
while Asch’s findings demonstrated considerable conformity rates in certain conditions, such as when participants answered aloud in the presence of strangers, it’s crucial to acknowledge the role of situational factors.
weakness
evidence
Williams and Sogon (1984) found that conformity was even higher among groups of friends, challenging the assumption that conformity is solely driven by the desire to impress strangers. moreover, cultural differences significantly impact conformity rates, as demonstrated by Smith et al. (2006), who found variations between individualist and collectivist cultures.
supporting evidence
the average conformity rate was lower in individualist cultures, such as Europe and the US, compared to collectivist cultures in Africa, Asia, and South America. Markus and Kitayama (1991) propose that the higher levels of conformity in collectivist cultures stem from the societal value placed on conformity as a means of fostering social cohesion.
weakness II
evaluation point
its applicability across contexts and timeframes is subject to scrutiny. Perrin and Spencer’s (1980) replication with UK engineering students yielded minimal conformity, contrasting starkly with Asch’s original findings. this discrepancy prompts considerations of contextual influences and societal norms.
evidence
the original study occurred during the conformist climate of 1950s America, potentially fostering higher conformity rates. however, societal shifts since then may have diminished the prevalence of conformity in contemporary contexts. this temporal variability challenges the universality of the Asch effect, questioning its fundamental nature in human behavior.
evaluation
the divergence in conformity levels between engineering students and the original sample underscores the importance of individual and situational factors in shaping conformity responses.
