Factors affecting conformity

Research found as majority group size increases, so does influcnce, however only up to a certain point:
 - Asch found w/ only one confederate, conformity was only 3%
 - W/ 2 confederates, this raised to 13%
 - Up to 15 confederates -> no further increase on conformity, w/ conformity highest when there was a 3-5 person majority
 - Meta-analysis by Bond + Smith of 133 studies similar to Asch's found conformity peaked at 4-5 confederates
 - Campbell + Fairey argued effect of group size dependent on type of conformity task. When task related to personal preference, an increase in group size -> greater conformity due to participants wanting to fit in. However, when task involved an actual correct answer, only up tp 2 other confederted were needed for optimum conformity

When all confederates gave same incorrect response, conformity was as high as 33%.

Asch investigated how important unanimity was by introducing confederates that would go against the majority + give correct answer.

Placed a confederate 2nd to last before real participant was able to give their answer, + instructed this confederate to give correct answer. Other confederate gave incorrect reponse out loud. Results found conformity fropped to 5.5%. If confederate went against both real participant + other confederate, conformity still dropped to 9%.

Concluded breaking unanimity through simply having different point of view was enough to reduce conformity regardless of whether they supported the real participant or not.

Research found conformity increases as difficulty of task increases + correct answer becomes less obvious. Suggests that as individuals look to others for guidance on what correct response is, ISI becomes dominant force.

Asch showed this by increasing task difficulty of "line expreiment" by making lines similar to one another in length. Results saw conformity increase in most circumstances, except in those who were deemed to have high levels of self-efficacy.

Lucas et al found that influence of task difficulty moderated by self-efficacy of individuals who were confident in their own abilities even when task difficulty was very high.

This demonstrated how situational variable eg task difficulty + individual differences eg self-efficacy play a key role in determining conformity in individuals

Bond (2005) - limitation of research is studies only used limited range of majority sizes - investigators quick to accept majority size of 3 sufficient for mac influence - Bond points out no studies other than Asch used majority size greater than 9 + other studies range of majority sizes narrower, between 2 + 4. Suggests don't know much about effect of larger majority sizes.

Problem Asch's study - would have been diff for confederates to act convincingly when giving wrong answer - lower validity. Mori + Arai (2010) - used technique where partipants wore glasses w/ special polarising filters - 3 participants identical glasses, 4th diff set w/ diff filter. Each saw same thing, but one saw diff. Higher validity. 

123 US male undergrads. Seated round table, looked at 3 lines diff lengths. Took turns to call out which thought was same length as 'standard' line, real participant always answering second to last. Although obvious solutuion, on 12 of 18 trials (critical trials), confederates instructed to five same incorrect answer. 

12 critical trials, average conformity rate 33%. Asch also discovered individual diffs in conformity rates. 1/4 participants never conformed on any of critical trials, 1/20 conformed in all 12 critical trials. To confirm stimulus lines were unambigious, Asch conducted control condition w/o distraction of confederate. In this condition, found participants made mistakes 1% of times, but couldn't explain this in main study. Studied participants afterwards, found majority who conformed had continued to privately trust own perceptions + judgements, but changed public behaviour, gave incorrect answers to avoid disapproval.