Asch (1955)

Asch (1955)

Basics
1. 1955
2. Conformity
3. Polish, moved to US, worked with Gestalt
4. Nature of Democracy, and group influence on individuals + majority-minority
5. Previous research by Thorndike
6. Also Sherif's (1951) auto kinetic effect conformity
The study
1. N=123, 7-9 people in each group (one participant)
2. 3 lines
3. 1st and 2nd trial, confederates give correct answers, but after 3rd all given obviously wrongly
4. 18 trials altogether
5. 12/18 trails were rigged with confederates being wrong
Results
1. 76% conformed at least once (24% didn't)
2. Everyone takes took the group judgement into account
3. All confused
4. Those that conformed felt they were the problem, not the group
Interpretation
1. Independence
  1. With confidence
  2. Without confidence
2. Yielding/Distortion
  1. Of Action
  2. Of Perception
  3. Of Judgement
Replications
1. Quality of the task
  1. Varying size of error
    1. Larger difference of lines, between 1-7''
      1. Hardly effected results
2. Quality of group opposition - size of majority
  1. Varied number of confederate opposition
    1. 1 - 15 confederates as majority
  2. Maximum number needed = 3.
  3. 1=3.6% wrong, 2=13.6%, 3=31.8%, 15=31.2%
3. Quality of opposition - type of support
  1. Varied type of support
  2. Support = 12.6%
  3. Support but wrong = 9%
  4. S departs = 10%
  5. S defects = 28%
4. Majority and minority size
  1. 9 confederates and 11 participants in a group
  2. Participants receive support from each other, becoming the majority
Debate and controversy
1. Minority influence
  1. Moscovici (1976) stated the confederate group to be a minority
  2. When thinking from the room view, group is the majority. However when seen with a world view, the group is a minority of people.
  3. Taschfelt's experimental vacuum - apps already seeing lab situation from their own world perspective, no blank slate.
2. Conformity bias
  1. Task content...
    1. No uncertainty Ross et al.
    2. Nothing to lose or gain by conforming, may act differently when resources at stake
    3. Personal relevance
  2. No opportunity to confer
    1. However, doesn't change much, used for justification instead of debate.
3. Generalisability
  1. Age
    1. Young children conform the most
  2. Gender
    1. Women tend to conform more
  3. Culture
    1. Collectivist culture conform more than individualist
  4. Time period
    1. Conformity decreased over time, better knowledge, but also affected by world events
Impact & Legacy
1. Findings support that groups are rational, however often used to prove the opposite.
2. Group deficit model
  1. Enshrined in physical and social reality testing (Festinger, 1950), and normative/informational influence
  2. Impact of groups is secondary and inferior, hence best avoided
  3. Social reality testing - objective distinction between internal (thoughts) and external (reality) things.
3. Deutsch & Gerard (1955)
  1. Normative vs informational influence
    1. Normative = conformity: Wanting to be accepted by group
    2. Informational = conversion: Motivation to be correct about a situation
    3. Recently re-examined: Turner (1981), Asch shows all reality testing is both influences.
      1. Referent informational theory
        Politeness
        Believe first confederate has vision impairment, others humour him to save embarrassment.
        Alernatives
        Mishearing/understanding the question, best to go with others
        Social desirability
        Don't want to ruin experiment

Nächster

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von abicat07 vor mehr als 9 Jahre