The Asch experiment focused on examining the power of conformity in groups. It constitutes a series of studies carried out in 1951. This experiment was based on the study of social psychology.
To carry out the study, a group of students was encouraged to participate in a vision test. However, unbeknownst to them, they were taking part in a psychological study.
Control subjects also participated in the experiment, that is, people who were aware that they were participating in a psychological study and who, in addition, acted as accomplices of the experimenter.
At present, Asch's experiment is one of the best-known social psychology studies in the world and the results obtained have had a high impact on social psychology and group psychology.
In this article, Asch's experiment is explained, the procedure followed and the tests that were carried out are discussed, and the results obtained through this study are reviewed.
Basis of Asch's experiment
Asch's experiment is one of the most famous and well-known studies in the field of social psychology. This was designed and developed by Solomon Asch and its main objective was to test how peer pressure can change people's behavior.
In this sense, Asch's experiment is directly related to the experiments conducted at Stanford prison and the Milgram experiments. These two studies examined the social influence on the individual behavior of each subject.
More specifically, Asch's experiment tries to show how human beings with totally normal conditions can feel pressured to such an extent that the pressure itself leads them to modify their behavior and even their thoughts and convictions.
In this sense, Asch's experiment shows that peer pressure can influence a subject's judgment and personal behavior.
Approach
Asch's experiment was developed by bringing a group of 7 to 9 students together in a classroom.
The participants had been told that they would take a vision test, so they would have to carefully observe a series of images.
More specifically, upon arriving at the classroom, the experimenter indicated to the students that the experiment would consist of comparing a series of pairs of lines.
Each subject would be shown two cards, in one a vertical line would appear and in the other three vertical lines of different lengths. Each participant had to indicate which of the three lines on the second card was the same length as the line on the first card.
Despite the fact that the experiment had about 9 participants, in reality, all of them except one were control subjects. That is, they were accomplices of the researcher, whose conduct was aimed at testing the hypotheses of the experiment and, therefore, at exerting social pressure on the remaining participant (critical subject).
Process
The experiment began by showing the cards to the participants. All of them visualized the same card with one line and another card with three lines.
The study was designed in such a way that the critical subject had to choose which was the line of identical length to that of the other card once the other participants (accomplices) had made their assessment.
In total, the experiment consisted of 18 different comparisons of which the accomplices were instructed to give an incorrect answer in twelve of them.
In the first two cards, both the accomplices and the critical subject answered correctly, indicating the line on the card that was identical in length to the line on the other card.
However, from the third test, the accomplices began to intentionally indicate an incorrect answer. In this third comparison, the critical subject differed from the others and expressed the correct assessment, being surprised by the rest of the incorrect answers.
In the fourth comparison, the pattern was maintained and the accomplices unanimously determined an incorrect answer. In this case, the critical subject showed notable bewilderment but was able to make the correct answer.
During the other 10 comparisons, the accomplices maintained their behavior pattern, always making an incorrect answer on the cards. From that moment on, the critical subject began to eventually give in to pressure and also indicate an incorrect answer.
Results
The aforementioned experiment was repeated with 123 different participants (critical subjects).
In the results, it was observed that under normal circumstances the participants gave a wrong answer 1% of the time, so the task was not difficult.
However, when social pressure appeared, participants were carried away by the incorrect opinion of others 36.8% of the time.
Likewise, although the majority of critical subjects (more than half) answered correctly, many of them experienced high discomfort and 33% of them agreed with the majority point of view when at least three accomplices were present.
On the other hand, when the accomplices did not issue a unanimous judgment, the percentage of correctness of the critical subject increased notably compared to when all the accomplices agreed on an incorrect answer.
In contrast, when subjects performed the same task without being exposed to other people's opinion, they had no problem determining the correct answer.
Thus, Asch's experiment revealed the high potential that social pressure presents on human judgment and personal behavior.
An important difference between Asch's experiment and the also well-known Milgram experiment lies in the attribution of wrong behaviors.
In Asch's experiment, subjects attributed their wrong responses to defects in their visual ability or poor judgment (internal attribution). Instead, in Milgram's experiment, the participants blamed the experimenter's attitude and behavior (external attribution).
References
- Asch, SE (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole no. 416).
- Bond, R., & Smith, P. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111-137.
- Lorge, I. (1936). Prestige, suggestion, and attitudes, Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 386–402.
- Miller, NE & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Moore, HT (1921). The comparative influence of majority and expert opinion, American Journal of Psychology, 32, 16–20.