01 Explain the study by Asch

Solomon Asch conducted a laboratory experiment to investigate conformity. He used a line judgment task, where 123 American male students were asked to match a standard line to one of three comparison lines. Each participant was placed in a group with confederates (actors) who deliberately gave the same incorrect answer on critical trials. The real participant was always seated near the end, so they heard most of the confederates' answers before responding. Asch measured how often the participant conformed to the group's incorrect response.

 

Finding 1: In Asch's original study, 32% of responses were incorrect due to conformity, and 74% of participants conformed at least once.

✅ This tells us…
This shows that people are likely to conform to a group, even when they know the group is wrong. It suggests that normative social influence plays a key role in conformity, as participants may have conformed to fit in or avoid standing out.

Finding 2: Conformity rates were 3% with one confederate, 12.8% with two confederates, and 32% with three. Further increases in group size had little effect.

✅ This tells us…
This suggests that group size affects conformity, but only up to a certain point. The presence of three confederates creates the strongest pressure to conform, but increasing the group size beyond this does not significantly raise conformity levels.

Finding 3: When a confederate consistently gave the correct answer, conformity dropped to 5%. When a confederate gave a different incorrect answer, conformity dropped to 9%.

✅ This tells us…
This demonstrates the importance of unanimity in conformity. When even one other person disagrees with the majority, participants feel more confident in resisting conformity, reducing the overall conformity rate.

Finding 4: When the task was made more difficult by making the line lengths more similar, conformity increased.

✅ This tells us…
This suggests that task difficulty affects conformity. When a task becomes more ambiguous, people are more likely to conform due to informational social influence, relying on others for guidance when they are uncertain.

03 AO3 Evaluation (PBWC Paragraphs)

Evaluation 1: Lacks Population Validity

Point: One limitation of Asch’s study is its low population validity.
Because: He only tested male American college students in the 1950s.
Why: This means the results may not apply to women or people from collectivist cultures, where conformity might be higher.
Counterargument: However, later research has found similar conformity patterns across different groups, suggesting some level of generalisability.

Evaluation 2: Ethical Issues

Point: A weakness of Asch’s research is that it raises ethical concerns.
Because: Participants were deceived—they were unaware that the other members of the group were confederates.
Why: This may have caused stress or embarrassment, which goes against ethical guidelines for protection from harm.
Counterargument: However, without deception, the study would not have been valid, as participants would have behaved differently if they knew the true aim.

Evaluation 3: Lacks Ecological Validity

Point: Another limitation is that Asch’s study has low ecological validity.
Because: It was conducted in an artificial laboratory setting, using an unrealistic task (judging line lengths).
Why: This means the findings may not reflect real-life conformity in more meaningful situations, such as peer pressure or workplace decisions.
Counterargument: However, the controlled environment allowed Asch to isolate variables, making the study highly replicable and reliable.

 

04 Apply Your Knowledge (4-mark Question - Daniel's Behaviour)

Daniel conformed to his friends' choice of phone brand due to normative social influence, as he wanted to fit in with the group. This demonstrates the effect of group size on conformity—when multiple people agree, individuals are more likely to follow. However, when the decision was about the phone case colour, Daniel resisted conformity. This suggests that task difficulty plays a role—he was confident in his own choice, reducing the need to rely on others.

 

05 Essay Plan: Discuss what research has told us about variables that affect conformity (16 marks)

AO1: Description of Research (6 marks)

• Define conformity and introduce Asch’s research.
• Group Size: Conformity increased with more confederates, but beyond three, it made little difference.
• Unanimity: When a confederate disagreed with the majority, conformity dropped significantly.
• Task Difficulty: More ambiguous tasks led to higher conformity due to informational social influence.

AO3: Evaluation (10 marks)

• Strength 1: Research support from Lucas et al. (2006) on informational social influence in difficult tasks.
• Strength 2: Practical applications in understanding social pressure and group influence.
• Weakness 1: Lacks temporal validity—1950s America may not reflect modern behaviour.
• Weakness 2: Ethical concerns—deception and psychological distress in Asch’s study.

 

16-Mark Model Answer

Research has provided valuable insights into the variables that affect conformity, particularly through the work of Asch (1951). His study explored how group size, unanimity, and task difficulty influence an individual’s likelihood of conforming to a majority. In his original line judgment experiment, 32% of participants conformed to the incorrect answer, and 74% conformed at least once. This suggests that people often conform to fit in with the group, demonstrating normative social influence.

One key factor affecting conformity is group size. Asch found that when there was only one confederate, conformity was just 3%, but with two confederates, it increased to 12.8%. When three confederates were present, conformity rose to 32%, but adding more confederates had little further impact. This suggests that a majority of three is enough to exert significant social pressure. Another important factor is unanimity. Asch found that when one confederate gave the correct answer, conformity dropped to 5%, and when a confederate gave a different wrong answer, conformity was 9%. This highlights the importance of dissent in reducing conformity. Finally, task difficulty also plays a role. Asch found that when the differences between line lengths were less obvious, conformity increased. This suggests that when a task is more ambiguous, individuals rely more on others for guidance, demonstrating informational social influence.

One strength of research into variables affecting conformity is that it has been supported by further studies. For example, Lucas et al. (2006) found that when students were given a difficult maths task, they conformed more, supporting Asch’s findings on task difficulty and informational social influence (Point). This is because when a task is harder, individuals look to others for guidance (Because). This suggests that Asch’s findings are valid and applicable beyond simple perceptual tasks (Why). However, Lucas et al. also found that individuals with greater maths ability conformed less, suggesting that personal confidence can affect conformity levels (Counterargument).

Another strength is that research into conformity has real-world applications. Understanding how group size, unanimity, and task difficulty influence conformity helps explain social pressures in education, workplaces, and health behaviours (Point). For example, it can be used to reduce peer pressure in schools or encourage independence in workplace decision-making (Because). This suggests that research has practical benefits in promoting critical thinking and resistance to social influence (Why). However, Asch’s study was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting, which may not reflect real-world situations where decisions are more complex (Counterargument).

One limitation of Asch’s research is that it lacks temporal validity. His study was conducted in 1950s America, a time of strong social conformity (Point). Because of this, people may have been more likely to conform due to social expectations (Because). This suggests that his findings may not apply to modern societies, where individualism is more encouraged (Why). However, Perrin and Spencer (1980) found that engineering students in the UK showed lower conformity rates, suggesting that the role of conformity depends on cultural and historical context (Counterargument).

Finally, ethical concerns limit the usefulness of Asch’s research. Participants were deceived, as they did not know the true aim of the study (Point). Because of this, they may have experienced psychological distress or embarrassment when disagreeing with the majority (Because). This raises concerns about whether the study was ethically justified (Why). However, deception was necessary to obtain valid results, as participants would have behaved differently if they had known the study’s true purpose (Counterargument).

In conclusion, research has shown that group size, unanimity, and task difficulty all influence conformity, with larger groups and difficult tasks increasing social influence. While Asch’s study provides strong evidence for these variables, its relevance to modern society and ethical issues must be considered. Nonetheless, it remains a valuable contribution to our understanding of social influence.

 

Check out the 

Social Influence with the Yum Yum Mama Interactive Revision Workbook