Asch 1951- line judgement task
the method, results and evaluation of Asch's 1951 line judgement study
- Created by: tiaayana
- Created on: 24-05-20 15:45
View mindmap
- Asch, 1951
- aim of the study:
- looking at normative social influence; would people conform if the answer was unambiguous?
- method:
- a group of 5-7 participants with one naive subject (a male, American student) and the rest were confederates
- participants were presented a standard line and three comparison lines
- they were then asked which line matched the standard line length the most, with all the confederates giving the same wrong answer on 12/18 trials
- after hearing the confederates' wrong answer, the naive subject then had to answer aloud
- they were then asked which line matched the standard line length the most, with all the confederates giving the same wrong answer on 12/18 trials
- participants were presented a standard line and three comparison lines
- a group of 5-7 participants with one naive subject (a male, American student) and the rest were confederates
- results:
- real participants conformed on 32% of of the critical trials (where confederates gave the wrong answers)
- and 75% of participants conformed to the group's pressure on at least one trial
- real participants conformed on 32% of of the critical trials (where confederates gave the wrong answers)
- variations:
- group size
- the bigger the majority, the more people conformed, but only up to a certian point
- with one confederate in the group, conformity was 3%, with two others it was 13% and with three or more it was 32%
- conformity didn't increase much after 4/5- this is considered the optimal group size
- Brown and Byrne, 1997, suggests that people may suspect collusion if the majority rises above three or four
- conformity didn't increase much after 4/5- this is considered the optimal group size
- with one confederate in the group, conformity was 3%, with two others it was 13% and with three or more it was 32%
- the bigger the majority, the more people conformed, but only up to a certian point
- unanimity
- a person is more likely to conform when all members of the group give the same answer
- Asch, 1951, found that the presence of just one dissenter could reduce conformity by 80%
- this was irrelevant of whether it was the correct answer or the other incorrect answer
- Asch, 1951, found that the presence of just one dissenter could reduce conformity by 80%
- a person is more likely to conform when all members of the group give the same answer
- task difficulty
- when the answer was more ambiguous, conformity increased
- when we are uncertain, we look to others for confirmation- informational social influence
- when the answer was more ambiguous, conformity increased
- answer in private
- when the nature of the response was private, conformity decreased to 12%
- this is due to decreased group pressure and no fear of rejection from the group; normative social influence is less powerful
- when the nature of the response was private, conformity decreased to 12%
- group size
- evaluation:
- laboratory setting
- variables were strictly controlled
- easily repeatable
- influence of extraneous variables were minimised
- artificial situation
- low ecological validity
- conforming had no consequences
- deception
- participants weren't aware of confederates
- they were told it was a study of line perception- unable to give informed consent
- participants may have felt embarrassed when the true nature of the study was revealed which could've put them through some form of psychological harm
- however, Asch did debrief at the end
- low ecological validity
- Androcentric sample
- participants were only men, women conform differently (Larsen et al., 1979) so results can't be generalised
- lacks population validity
- participants were only men, women conform differently (Larsen et al., 1979) so results can't be generalised
- familiarity of the group
- participants didn't know each other
- Sogon, 1984, found conformity was higher when the majority was friends of the participants
- participants didn't know each other
- temporal validity
- the social climate has changed and Larsen, 197, found a lower conformity rate when he replicated Asch's study
- cultural bias
- All participants were male
- Smith & Bond, 1996, did a meta-analysis of repeats of Asch's study and found cultural differences between and within cultures
- All participants were male
- laboratory setting
- related studies:
- Asch, 1951- participants who were more confident in their answer didn't conform
- Perrin & Spencer, 1980, carried out Asch's experiment on engineering students and conformity rates weren't as high
- may be because engineering students were more confident in their decision-making abilities, or they may be more familiar with measurements than the general population
- Perrin & Spencer, 1980, carried out Asch's experiment on engineering students and conformity rates weren't as high
- Rosander, 2011- used social media to investigate task difficulty in conformity
- logic and general knowledge questions were answered but participants could see online confederates had given answers questions (half were wrong)
- participants conformed to wrong answers and conformity increased with more difficult questions
- this study demonstrates Asch's research is still relevant and the desire to conform still occurs even when not face to face
- participants conformed to wrong answers and conformity increased with more difficult questions
- logic and general knowledge questions were answered but participants could see online confederates had given answers questions (half were wrong)
- Asch, 1951- participants who were more confident in their answer didn't conform
- aim of the study:
Comments
No comments have yet been made