Eui Joon Kim

Evaluate research on conformity to group norms.

INTRODUCTION:
1. 2. One of the key ways that a society or culture passes down its values and behaviors to its members is through an indirect form of social influence called conformity Conformity is the tendency to adjust ones thoughts, feelings, or behavior in ways that are in agreement with those of a particular individual or group, or with accepted standards about how a person should behave in specific situations (group norms). 3. 4. This essay will evaluate two researches on conformity to group norms, Asch (1951) and Moscovici (1976). Although both studies on conformity to group norms are regarded with great importance within the realm of psychology, it is important to evaluate these studies concerning their strengths and weaknesses.

BODY ONE
Aschs (1951) Experimental investigation of conformity to the majority is one classic study of conformity to group norms Aim: To investigate whether perceived group pressure by a majority can influence a minority in an experimental set-up that is not ambiguous. Procedure: 1. 2. 3. Seven male college students were placed around two white cards. One card had three lines (A, B, C) and another had one line. They had to say out loud which of the three lines on the right had the same length as the line on the left. 4. There was one real participant (naive participant) in the experimental setup and six were confederates who were instructed to give unanimous wrong answers. 5. 6. Results: 1. About 75 per cent of the participants agreed with the confederates' incorrect responses at least once during the trials. This was done during 12 of the 18 trials in the experiment. A control group of 37 participants made the estimates alone for comparison.

Eui Joon Kim

2.

Asch found that a mean of 32 per cent of the participants agreed with incorrect responses in half or more of the trials.

3.

However, 24 per cent of the participants did not conform to any of the incorrect responses given by the confederates.

4.

In the control group 35 participants did not make a single error so in total 0.7% errors were made.

Strengths of Asch's study 1. A high degree of control ensures that a cause-effect relationship can be established between variables. 2. 3. Asch's results have been replicated several times so the results are reliable. The results of the experiment in terms of conformity rates can, to some extent, explain why people conform to social and cultural norms in real life. 4. Conformity may be universal to some degree but conformity rates vary cross-culturally.

Limitations of Asch's study 1. Laboratory experiments are artificial and somewhat difficult to generalize to real life (issues of ecological validity). 2. The experiment was conducted in the USA with male students as participants so this affects generalization. 3. The results can only explain how a majority may influence a minority but not the other way round. 4. The participants were deceived about the purpose of the experiment and they were exposed to embarrassing procedures. This raises ethical issues. This classic study has both strengths and weaknesses that show us the factors that influence conformity to group norms. Though the Asch paradigm has been successfully replicated in many variations, it is still important to take a critical look at the methodology of the study.

BODY TWO
Moscovici (1976)s aim is the complete opposite of Asch (1985)s as it studies the influence of the minority on the majority in conformity. Moscovici argues that traditional conformity research cannot

Eui Joon Kim

explain the minority influences on the majority, which have been observed in real life. The Moscovici et al. (1969) Blue-Green Study attempts to explain minority influence on the majority. Aim: To investigate the effects of a consistent minority on a majority. Procedure: 1. 2. a re-run of Aschs experiment, but in reverse. Instead of one subject amongst a majority of confederates, two confederates were placed together with four genuine participants. The participants were first given eye tests to ensure they were not color-blind. 3. 4. 5. 6. They were then placed in a group consisting of four participants and two confederates. They were shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of blue and asked to state the color of each slide out loud. In the first part of the experiment the two confederates answered green for each of the 36 slides. They were totally consistent in their responses. In the second part of the experiment they answered green 24 times and blue 12 times. In this case they were inconsistent in their answers. Results: 1. 2. 3. In condition one it was found that the consistent minority had an affect on the majority (8.42%) compared to an inconsistent minority (only 1.25% said green). A third (32%) of all participants judged the slide to be green at least once. Minorities can influence a majority, but not all the time and only when they behave in certain ways (e.g. consistent behavior style). Evaluation: Strengths: 1. A high degree of control ensures that a cause-effect relationship can be established between variables. 2. 3. Laboratory setting increased controls and replicabiilty. Contrast between several factors strengthen the argument that a consistent minority has a big effect on the majority. Weaknesses: 1. Moscovici used female students as participants (i.e. unrepresentative sample), so it would be wrong to generalize his result to all people they only tell us about the behavior of female students. 2. The artificiality of the task and the conduction of the experiment in the laboratory reduces its ecological validity

Eui Joon Kim

3.

The participants in laboratory experiments are rarely 'real groups'. More often than not they are a collection of students who do not know each other and will probably never meet again. They are very different from minority groups in the wider society who seek to change majority opinion.

4.

There might be a gender difference in the way that males and females respond to minority influence. Another critic could be that four people are not enough for a group and could not be considered as the majority.

Moscovici et al.s study is a study that shows how minority opinion can sway the majority to change its view. It uncovered an important element of conformity and offered and alternative view on the factors affecting it, but it is still not free from weaknesses and criticism.

CONCLUSION:
1. Both Asch (1985) and Moscovici (1976) considered important studies in learning about conformity to group norms, and so it is all the more important to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these studies. 2. Both studies had clear strengths of being having a high degree of control that enabled the establishment of a cause-and-effect relationship, but also had limitations in terms of generalizability because of the culture or gender of the participants was identical. 3. Nicholson et al. (1985) suggest that participants now tend to conform less in Asch-like experiments, which could indicate that levels of conformity are context-dependent and may change over time. 4. Although the two studies are great studies on conformity to group norms, one has to be careful when accepting the results of the studies.