Experiments that show conformity:
Solomon Asch (1955)
He devised an experiment in which participants were presented with two cards. On one card was a single ‘standard’ line; on the other were three ‘comparison’ lines. Participants were asked to judge which of the comparison lines was equal in length to the standard line. In the experimental group were one participant and 6 to 8 confederates. The confederates all gave the same wrong answer. There was a 75% conformity rate of the participants, meaning that they gave the same answer as the confederates, showing that people do not want to stand out of the crowd.
Crutchfield (1955)
He devised a version of the Asch experiment that did not involve face-to-face communication, (faceless conformity). Each participant was placed in a separate booth, facing a screen, which displayed questions and what they believed were the answers of the other participants. The questions were simple, and the correct answer obvious. In around half the cases, the answers displayed were incorrect.
Each participant was lead to believe they were the last to answer, having seen the other answers.
Crutchfield in fact placed the answers there. Crutchfields results were similar to those of Asch. For example, on an Asch type perceptual task, the conformity level was 30%. This experiment indicates that pressure to conform can operate without face-to-face communication.
The background knowledge for the experiment will focus on the Crutchfield experiment carried out in 1955 for help in explaining conformity.
There is though, quite a large time difference with the study and my experiment. This will have to be taken into consideration when doing this experiment.
Even though this experiment was carried out many years ago, it explains conformity well and also it will be interesting to focus on any difference in conformity levels nowadays. Studies like the Crutchfield experiment (as already referred to in the background knowledge) which was carried out some time ago, shows a number of people willing to conform with others.
Both these experiments by Crutchfield and Asch show that people will go with a group norm and conform to other people who they might necessarily not even know.
My aim is to see if people will conform when confronted by a list that is obviously wrong or far stretched.
Experimental Hypothesis:
‘Participants will be influenced by a fictitious list on a faceless conformity task.’
Null Hypothesis:
‘Participants will not be influenced by a fictitious list on a faceless conformity task.’
METHOD.
Design
An experiment method was chosen for this study of faceless conformity. An experiment is an arrangement of conditions and procedures controlled by the researcher for the purpose of testing some hypothesis.
The experiment involved the manipulation of variables. The field experiment was chosen because of the ease to set up, also the large amount of participants available. Independent groups, which means that the participants are divided (into which group needs a participant) so that each group in the experiment utilised different people, was chosen. Repeated measures which involves using the same participants in both groups was not used because “order effects” could occur which would mean that the results would be void due to the participants knowing what is happening.
Order effects are experiences in one condition, which may influence behaviour in the next condition of the experiment, for example the participants may guess what the experiment is about. A field experiment was selected because unlike a laboratory experiment where you have to get your participants into a laboratory where it will take more time to complete, this can be done relatively quickly.
The variable that needs to be measurable by the researcher is the dependent variable. The dependant variable was to see whether participants conformed or not. This was measured by having a ‘cut off’ point for their estimates, so if over a certain amount, they conform. The variable that is manipulated by the researcher to see if it has an effect on the dependent variable is called the independent variable. The independent variable was whether or not my participants saw the false estimates or not. Variables other than the independent variable, which may affect the dependent variable, are called extraneous variables.
The main extraneous variables were participant and situational variables. For instance, if the participants were of a big age gap, the results would not be accurate because of the many differences such as maturity and willingness to conform. Also, if the area changed where the participants were asked, different people would feel different each time e.g. more or less relaxed around familiar surroundings. One way that this was overcome, was firstly to choose participants from the same age range, that being 16-19 year olds, and to conduct the research in the same place throughout which was in the refectory at a college.
Participants
Opportunity sampling was chosen for this experiment because of the large amount of people to be able to select from, therefore being able to choose. Also, it is quite a quick way to select participants for an experiment. The participants that were used, were people from a college (students of age 16-19). 10 males and 10 females, (20 total) were used. The first five male and female participants were put into the control group and other participants after them were put into the experimental group.
Apparatus and Material
The first and foremost piece of apparatus that was needed for this experiment was to be the container of pasta and the actual dried pasta. All that was done to prepare and create this was simply count out 130 dried pieces of pasta and put them into the container.
Also created, were standardised instructions and a consent form (Appendix 1+2) along with a guess sheet for the experimental group and a debriefing for both. (Appendix 3+4). Also used, was a computer to type up and print out all materials used making them clear and readable for the participants. Pens and a plain piece of paper for the control group to write their answers on were also provided.
Ethics
Before carrying out the experiment, ethical issues were addressed. The main ethical issue to deal with was the debriefing of the participants because of the small deception that occurs in my experiment. Before each participant took part in the experiment, it was made sure that they consented to doing a psychology experiment, (Appendix 1) and was made aware that they could withdraw at any time (protecting them from stress) while doing the experiment and also notified that their answers would stay confidential. When the participant had done the experiment, they were then debriefed and explained to, what the study was for, also telling them the real reason and answering any questions they had. (Appendix 4). This was mainly because participants need to be reassured after the experiment. To make sure that they didn’t feel under pressure, the experiment was completed alone and in a relaxed environment. They also need to know the full aims and that their responses are expected because conformity is a natural response.
Procedure
Before starting, the standardised instructions, consent forms, guess sheets, plain pieces of paper and debriefing sheets (all in appendices) not forgetting the pasta in a tub, which was hidden, were available to hand. Twenty people were then asked (10 male, 10 female) if they would take part in an experiment and to get their consent. The first 5 male and female that were available were put into the control group who did not have the guess sheet in front of them, merely a plain piece of paper in order to write their guess down. After looking at the container for 6 seconds, they wrote down their estimate. The next 5 male and females were then put into the experimental group, which were given the fictitious estimates on the guess sheets in front of them. After they had looked at the pasta for 6 seconds, they then wrote their guess down on the next line (line 13), therefore meaning every participant was number 13. When collected, the debriefing was then started.
The control and experimental group both had a different debriefing. (Appendix 4i and 4ii). Once read, any questions were answered, after which the participants were free to leave.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS.
Summary table of all calculations from results.
TABLE 1
*1 Without fictitious list
*2 With fictitious list
The bar chart on the next page shows the mean number of estimates made on a faceless conformity task.
The mean for this experiment was much closer to the made up estimates than the control, the made up being 217 and the experimental 173. The range however, was closer to the control than the made up, the control being 217 and the experimental 250.
The standard deviation was also quite large for the experimental group at 80.79 compared to 34.73 for the made up ones, although quite close to the control group at 63.85 for its standard deviation. One thing that was surprising at the results was the fact that in both the control and experimental, not one answer was replicated, thus not giving a mode for either.
The mode for the made up guesses was the same as the median, that being 200. The median for the experimental group was also closest to the made up guesses than the control, the median for the experimental group being 175.5 and 200 for the made up group.
The mean, median and mode were all similar for the fictitious list. People should have conformed to around 200 pieces of pasta in the container, as this was the largest quantity put down.
The cut off point for whether or not people conformed was at 126 pieces of pasta as this was the amount between the mean for the control and experimental group. If participants guessed over this amount, they conformed. From the raw data table 2, you can see that 70% of people conformed in this experiment.
The experimental group identified with the fictitious list more than the control group did.
DISCUSSION.
Participants who saw the list of false estimates were closer to the mean of the false estimates, therefore agreeing with the original hypothesis. It is now possible to reject the null hypothesis in favour of the experimental, this being
‘Participants will be influenced by a fictitious list on a faceless conformity task.’
Crutchfield’s study (1955) into faceless conformity has been supported by the results of this investigation due to the fact that the participants in that study conformed to a group norm.
Solomon Asch and his study into conformity (1955), has been supported by this experiment also. This is because the results from this experiment state that the reason for people conforming is basically because they don’t want to ‘stick out like a sore thumb’ or ‘rock the boat’, creating a case of public compliance rather than public acceptance.
There is at least one methodological limitation to this experiment. This would have to be the quite main point about where it was undertaken. In the refectory, participants will be surrounded by people they know and so therefore under some degree of demand characteristics to not seem unintelligent to their peers. To try and counter this effect, all participants in this study were taken to a certain part of the refectory that was the quietest, away from their peers and the majority of any other distractions. For future experiments, the use of a particular room or area away from people to undertake the experiment would be beneficial.
This would of course not account for things such as their particular mood at the time of the experiment. Their mood could cause effects such as the feeling that they just want to get it over and done with and so therefore will rush, not taking time and thinking about it.
Another factor that could have been a problem with this study is that there are many other people doing psychological experiments in the college. This causes problems because word gets around the college quite quickly and possible participants are then aware of experiments taking place. This could have an adverse effect on the results, as they understand what is expected of them.
To try and counter this for future experiments, before the start of the experiment it would be helpful to firstly ask the participant if they were on the psychology course and then secondly if they had done any experiment so far or knew of any.
If possible for further investigation, it would be interesting to study conformity on a larger scale with different surroundings to see the effects on people. For example, people’s conformity to laugh at something ‘supposedly’ funny on the screen at the cinema. Thing such as the audience and venue could be changed for different results. The results from this experiment help us to understand people’s emotions and the effect that peer pressure has on people. Also our ability to go with the group, even though it may be against our own wishes and beliefs.
In conclusion, this experiment suggests that certain situations will results in the conformity of people to avoid being labelled ‘the odd one out’. The fear of social rejection by peers helps to assure that conformity will be guaranteed.
Also, the matter of peer pressure is a large one where’s someone’s views can go unnoticed in order to achieve a groups aim or belief. Further research can be carried out to find out if certain types of people conform or not, or if it is just a wide norm undergone by everyone.
REFERENCES.
Rice,D; Haralambos,M; Jones,S; Foreman,N; Askam,W; Holland T. (2001).
Psychology In Focus. Lancashire: Causeway Press Ltd.