By: Ashley Coleman
Classic Study of Conformity
Asch conducted an experiment to test whether individuals would conform, or follow a group’s response, during a simple decision-making task. In one experimental condition, a participant was placed in group of confederates (i.e., individuals who had been instructed to respond in a particular way). The task for each individual in the group was to identify which of three lines was the same height as the target line. The confederates first answered correctly, as did the participant. However, the confederate group then began to all agree on blatantly incorrect answers (in another condition, one confederate did not conform). Asch’s question was whether the participant would conform to the group, and respond with the same incorrect answer. Asch found that participants in the group condition who responded verbally were more likely to conform and provide the group’s incorrect answer. However, in the condition in which the participants wrote their responses after other group members responded aloud, individuals were much less likely to conform. In addition, participants who had at least one other non-conformer in the group were also less likely to conform. All participants were questioned after the experiment about the answers they gave and their explanations for doing so. The reasons cited varied from believing the group’s answer to wanting to avoid conflict with the group.
Interpretations of the Classic Study
Though Asch’s findings demonstrate that conformity occurs in a group setting, the explanations for why conformity occurs are not as clear. A big question involves whether individuals who conformed actually believed (or were persuaded) that the group answer was correct, or whether they conformed to fit in with the group, avoid group conflict, etc. Understanding that some individuals sometimes conform in a group setting does not explain why, under which specific conditions, or for which individuals conformity is likely to occur. Several variations of Asch’s original experiment have been studied to attempt to answer some of these questions.
More recent research has attempted to separate the components of conformity in order to better understand the underlying processes. For example, Zawadzka et al. (2016) found support for the idea that memory and metamemory are independent components related to conformity. That is, an individual’s response does not always match his or her perception of accuracy about the response. This research addresses one of the big questions about Asch’s original studies: individuals may respond in a certain way for reasons other than believing that the answer is correct. However, the explanation for why an individual would give an incorrect response in front of a group has been a long-standing topic of study.
Variations to the Classic Study
Several researchers have varied Asch’s classic experiment by altering the dynamics of the group. For example, Asch studied group size as a variable and determined that participants in larger groups were more susceptible to conforming. More recent research has replaced the human confederates with computers (Berns et al., 2005). Berns et al. (2005) found that participants were more susceptible to conforming when misinformation was given by peers than when misinformation was given by computers, indicating that the source of information as well as the dynamics of the group can influence conformity.
Still, other researchers have studied participant characteristics related to conformity. A meta-analysis conducted by Bond and Smith (1996) identified patterns of cultural differences, such that individuals from collectivist societies were more likely to conform than individuals from individualistic societies. However, Bond and Smith (1996) suggested that individuals from collectivist societies may only be more likely to conform to their “in group” (e.g., individuals from their societies) than an “out group” of strangers. This finding highlights the complexity of conformity research, as well as the difficulty associated with broad generalization of particular findings.
The Impact of Conformity Research
The studies presented in this blog demonstrate that the social factors which contribute to conformity are complex, and may include characteristics of the group as well as the participant. It seems that conformity is a dynamic process, and Asch’s original findings explain some, but not all, of the social influence on an individual’s decision to conform. However, Asch’s experiments yielded valuable data that still impact social policies today. For example, conformity studies demonstrate the importance of private ballot voting, since individuals are less likely to conform when given the option to respond privately instead of in front of a group. Given the importance of elections for democratic societies, knowledge about conformity is helpful for determining policies about how votes are cast by members of the society. In conclusion, conformity research is ongoing and important for understanding how individuals function in a society.
References
- Berns, G. S., Chappelow, J., Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Martin-Skurski, M. E., & Richards, J. (2005). Neurobiological correlates of social conformity and independence during mental rotation. Biological Psychiatry, 58(3), 245-253.
- Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111.
- Zawadzka, K., Krogulska, A., Button, R., Higham, P. A., & Hanczakowski, M. (2016). Memory, metamemory, and social cues: Between conformity and resistance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(2), 181-199.