Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract
Thirty-five participants completed a color recognition task, which was refined during a
series of pretests to achieve a better than chance accuracy rate. The subjects were divided
into 3 conditions, which differed only by the manner in which they responded: a blank
sheet of paper, a paper with responses already filled in, and a paper written in a group
setting. While the effects of conformity among the three conditions did not differ
the relationship between normative and informational influence found in group behavior.
Forty years ago, Milgram et al (1963) established the importance of any study on
conformity with his findings that a majority of individuals would obey an authoritarian
influence, finding that 75% of people would conform to an obviously incorrect majority
at least once. Participants were ushered into a room with seven confederates of the study.
They were seated such that they were always the second-to-last in the row, so they would
know the answers of six of their peers before they themselves answered. Over eighteen
trials, they were asked to view a slide depicting four lines or varying length. It was their
job to determine which of the three lines on the right were the same as the line on the left.
The task varied in ambiguity, but in twelve of the eighteen trials, the confederates were
instructed to give a consistent and incorrect answer. That is, if Line 1 was the same as
Line 2 in the particular slide, they would all answer Line 3. All answers were given
aloud, so that subjects were keenly aware of the answers given by their peers.
In the control experiment, where no confederates were present, only one percent
students made at least one error. This suggests that these students were susceptible to
conforming at least some of the time when faced with an overwhelming majority.
Leading researchers in the field have since distinguished between two forms of
(1955), subjects were given a similar task to that employed by Asch, but were separated
into three conditions. The first condition involved a face-to-face interaction, whereby
subjects gave their answers in a situation where they could see (and be seen) by the
confederates. The second condition added on a group goal, so that the subject felt they
were working as part of a team with the confederates to win a prize for the team with the
best score. A third condition removed the visual interaction of the first group, but
In the group goal condition, subjects produced the greatest number of errors,
suggesting that people will conform most when faced with a present and attentive
majority (48%). The conformity was least in the anonymous activity (23%), suggesting
that group influence is weakest when the group is obscured. The truly interesting finding,
however, was that subjects who responded in the anonymous condition still demonstrated
It seemed then that there were two powers at play here rather than one. First, there
was obviously a strong influence caused by the face-to-face interaction. Second, there
also appeared to be some influence caused by the answers themselves. These findings led
Deutsch and Gerard to propose two new terms to describe group conformity. In
normative influence, an individual will avoid taking a minority position because they fear
being isolated and scorned by the group. In informational influence, however, this
individual joins the majority with the thought that “truth lies in numbers”. They see the
answers of the majority as a fact that supports their answer, which may or may not
(1996) found that subjects were likely to conform to responses given by a single
confederate, despite the correctness of their initial response. In a follow-up to this study,
Wright et al (2000) found that this finding extends to the recognition of images seen
previously, and does not depend on the contributions of a confederate. Two subjects were
given individual photobooks filled with different cars, and were asked to work together
on a recognition task. Unbeknownst to the subjects, their photobooks were not the same,
so there were many instances where their recognition of a particular car would not have
been seen before by the other subject. However, during discussion, it was found that
those that spoke first were most likely to be successful in “converting” the opinions of the
other, despite the fact that they may have not seen that particular car. This finding
recognition experiment conducted by Reysen (in press), subjects were convinced that
their responses entered into a computer would be seen by a fellow participant, and they
would likewise be able to view their answers. The setup was illusionary, however, since
the answers being fed back to the terminal were computed using a simple algorithm.
However, it was found that subjects still conformed to the answers provided by this
“virtual confederate”.
Walther et al. (2002) took this a step further by placing four subjects in a room
with computers. Each participant was given the impression that they would be seeing the
answers of everyone else in the group; however, this was illusionary, as all participants
acted independently and saw the answers provided by a computer program. Subjects were
then presented with a variety of slides, and their task was to recall these slides afterward.
The slides were varied in salience, in that some pictures were of items from the same
lexical class (example: hammer, wrench, saw, etc), while others were completely
disparate (example: cat, house, mountain, etc). This resulted in the more distinctive slides
being recalled with greater accuracy. It was also discovered that subjects demonstrated
far less conformity for incorrect answers on slides that were most salient; that is, the surer
they were of the answer, the less they were likely to conform.
For the present study, the experimenters wished to distinguish between normative
and informational influence using a less salient task than that employed in experiments
by Asch, and Deutsch and Gerard. It was hypothesized that such a method would increase
conformity over these original studies. To this end, we developed a color identification
and recall task, whereby subjects were shown a series of colored slides, and then asked to
recall the color of the first slide. According to theories on the serial position effect of
memory, this task of recalling the first slide should be easier than remembering the other
slides (Murdock 1962). To distinguish between the two different types of influence, a 3-
group design was formed. In the control group C, subjects were individually presented
with the task, and were asked to write their answers on a sheet of paper. In group A, the
conditions were the same except that the answer sheet already had bogus answers from
“past participants” indicating the same incorrect answer. In group B, subjects were placed
in a room with four experimental confederates, and wrote down their answer on a sheet
containing the confederates’ incorrect responses. It was proposed that such a design
would result in a visible increase in conformity, with group C being the lowest, followed
Method
Participants
Thirty-five volunteers were selected from the UC Berkeley campus. Group C had
Groups C and A, two experimenters approached individual patrons of Pat Brown’s café,
soliciting subjects by describing the general procedure and time involved. Participation in
describing the general procedure and offering them an incentive for their participation.
Participation for Group B required approximately 10 minutes and subjects were rewarded
with a candy bar if requested. The data from one subject in Group B had to be
disregarded due to the fact that he arrived when one of the confederates was out of the
Apparatus
The slides were presented using a Dell Latitude D600 Pentium-M 1.8Ghz laptop
running Windows XP SP2, with 1GB of RAM, and an ATI Radeon 9000 Mobility 32MB
video card set at 32-bit color. The built-in SXGA+ (1400x1050) LCD screen was set to
the highest brightness setting, which was judged during our pretests to be sufficiently
visible in our two test environments. Microsoft Powerpoint 2003 was used to generate
and display the slides. Colors were selected using the FOCOLTONE® Solid Matte color
wheel provided by Adobe Systems. Four bright, primary colors were chosen for the
slides, all were judged during the pretest to have enough visual saliency to be
presented as white text on a black background. The answer sheets in all three groups were
identical with the exception of the differing treatments used in Group A/B.
Procedure
Subjects in Groups C (control) and A were selected during two mid-day (11am –
1pm) sessions at Pat Browns café on the north side of the UC Berkeley campus. Subjects
were chosen non-systematically from the patrons inside the café. Though gender was not
overtly recorded in this study, an attempt was made to recruit an equal number of males
and, if they accepted, another experimenter brought over the laptop system and answer
sheet and set them up on the table the subject was sitting at. The first experimenter then
advised the subject to read the instructions on the screen carefully, and then both
presented on the laptop screen for fifteen seconds prior the test. The test itself consisted
of twelve slides, three each of the four colors. Each slide was shown on the screen for
two seconds, without any additional delay between them. The order of the slides was
chosen non-systematically and was the same across all subjects and groups, though no
two of the same color slides ever appeared back-to-back. The first color was blue,
At the conclusion of the slides, the subjects were instructed to locate the answer
sheet and write down their answer to the question prompt that appeared on that sheet. For
all subjects and groups, the prompt was: “What was the color of the first slide?”.
In Group C, this answer sheet was blank (Figure 1), in Group A, it contained the
responses of four fake previous participants (Figure 2), each having “answered” red.
These answer sheets were shuffled, so the experimenters did not know the subject’s group
assignment until after they returned the sheet. Subsequent to subjects indicating they
were done, the experimenters retrieved the laptop and answer sheet, and debriefed them if
requested.
Subjects in Group B were selected during one mid-day session (10am to 2pm)
session in Dwinelle Hall. They were drawn non-systematically from those in or around
the Dwinelle quad. One experimenter approached potential subjects with the guise that
she needed one more subject for her experiment, to fill the place of a no-show. Each was
The participants were led by the experimenter to a small room in Dwinelle Hall,
where four confederates were already waiting. The chair closest to the door was left
empty for the subject to sit in. The experimenter then shut off the lights and read the
instructions from the laptop screen aloud to the five now seated around the table.
Following the slide display, a blank answer sheet was passed around from left to right,
with each confederate answering red. That way, the subject was the final person to write
down their answer. At the conclusion of their writing down their answer, the subjects
were debriefed.
Most subjects in Group B were debriefed due to the involved nature of the
activity; subjects in the other two conditions were less likely to ask for a debriefing, so
they were simply thanked at the conclusion of their participation. Those who asked to be
debriefed were told that we were studying group conformity for a Psychology 101
Analyses
The data were analyzed using a chi square (χ2), with the level of significance set to 0.05.
Results
Our null hypothesis was that our treatment would have no effect on the data in each of the
three conditions (μC=μA=μB). Our alternative hypothesis was that our conformity
treatment would have some effect on the mean number of correct subject answers among
the three groups (μC≠μA≠μB). In order to reject the null hypothesis, at the level of
significance stated above, and using our degrees of freedom (df) of 2, the χ2 critical value
is a minimum of 5.99.
For our expected and observed frequencies, we compared the number of subjects
who responded “red”, the incorrect answer used for our conformity treatment. A
significant value in this statistic could indicate that our subjects conformed to the
information presented to them in groups A and B. However, the χ2 value obtained was
In addition, we compared the number of subjects who responded blue, the correct
answer. A significant value in this statistic would show that the mean of each group
differs significantly, and could indicate that subjects in each group differed in their level
of confidence in their answers. Here again, however, our χ2 value of 5.484 was below the
critical value of 5.99 required for rejecting the null hypothesis. According to these results
we have failed to reject our null hypothesis and must assume that the treatments we
employed to induce conformity did not have a significant effect on the answers given by
our subjects.
Discussion
While we ere unable to reject our null hypothesis, this was very likely the result of
having too few participants in our three groups, rather than an inherent flaw in the design
of the study. This was a limitation of the resources available to us, as students.
Though it did not reach the .05 level, we did note an unexpected finding in that
more subjects indicated the correct answer in Group B than in Group C. There are two
possible explanations for this finding. First, the conditions inside Dwinelle Hall were far
more ideal than Pat Brown’s café. Not only was the room darker, allowing for a better
view of the screen, but the overall environment was less distracting. It is entirely possible
that students in Groups C and A were distracted by the commotion in the busy café
environment, and thus did not attend to the slides as well as those in Group B. Though
also not a significant finding, this would explain why Group C exhibited a higher overall
conformity to answering “Red”; Deutsch and Gerard’s study clearly demonstrates that
those who paid less attention to the stimulus were more likely to conform to the
responses of confederates.
Additionally, it is possible that our Group B environment was too informal and
relaxed. Fairey (1986) examined the relationship between self-doubt and attention to the
condition, those with high self-doubt would pay less attention to the stimulus than those
with low self-doubt. The reverse was true for subjects in the low-group-pressure
condition, where high-self-doubters paid more attention to the stimulus than those with
low self-doubt. In the present study, Group B could definitely be considered a low-
pressure group because of the lack of any punishments for an incorrect answer. Subjects
in this group may have also been fairly apprehensive about the experience, considering
that they were given few instructions and entered into a room already filled with other
“subjects”. It is likely that the low-stress environment, ideal viewing conditions, and the
conformity.
We were keenly aware that holding Groups C and A in a different location than
Group B would have a detrimental effect on our results. Ideally, we would have preferred
to conduct all our experiments in Dwinelle Hall, but the difficulties in securing a room
for any significant amount of time proved troublesome. To control for the many
confounds caused by this discrepancy, future experimenters with more time and resources
group, it is possible that our subjects viewed themselves less as a part of a group and
more as an individual against a group. For normative influence to take place, Turner
(1978) suggests that individuals must identify with a group through some means. Most
often experimentally, this takes shape as a shared group reward of performance, though
group identity can be established through many other social factors. However, the scope
of the current experiment did not allow us to adequately foster such a group identity, and
thus, it is likely that subjects in Group B exhibited less cohesion because they simply did
not trust the other group members, nor feel it important to filter their answer to align with
the group consensus. As a contrasting example, Asch established group trust by running
the same subjects and experimental cohorts across many different trials, allowing the
cohorts to build trust and demonstrate expertise in the minds of the subjects. A more
elaborate version of the current study might increase the number of trials in all groups to
not representative of the population at large. A study conducted by Pasupathi (1999), for
example, found that older individuals generally showed less social influence on a task
involving judgments of geometric shapes and emotional faces, than their younger
counterparts. Bond and Smith (1996) also found that the tendency toward social
conformity has declined in the US since the 1950’s (when Asch’s groundbreaking study
the potential findings of our study, is their other finding that conformity differs across
nations; individuals raised in more collectivist nations exhibit a greater predisposition for
conforming.
results, this experimental design is a worthwhile and effective exploration of the effects
of conformity within groups. As one subject asked of the experimenter before being
Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of
judgments, in Brown, Rupert (2000) Group Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Press.
Bond, R. and Smith, P.B. (1996) Culture and Conformity: A meta-analysis of studies
using Asch’s line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111-37.
Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H.B. (1955) A study of normative and informational social
influence upon individual judgement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51,
629-36.
Fairey, Patricia J. (1986). Conformity and attention to the stimulus: Some temporal and
contextual dynamics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 315-24.
Murdock, B.B. (1962) The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 64, 482-8.
Reysen, M.B. (in press) The effects of conformity on recognition judgements. Memory.
Schneider, D.M., and Watkins, M.J. (1996) Response conformity in recognition testing.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3 (4), 481-5.
Turner, J.C. (1978) Social categorization and social discrimination in the minimal group
paradigm, in Brown, Rupert (2000) Group Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Press.
Walther, Eva et al. (2002) Conformity effects in memory as a function of group size,
dissenters, and uncertainty. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 793-810.