Recreating the asch experiment
|
In 1951, Solomon Asch performed an experiment testing the strength of group conformity. Ten participants sat in a row stating which line of three possible choices matched the line on the left. Nine of the participants were actors.
Solomon Asch found that participants went along with the group 37% of the time during the trials. When interviewed, the real participants admitted to agreeing with the group consensus for different reasons including:
However, when the real participants were given a secret partner, conforming to the group consensus dropped to 5% of the time. |
My Results
There were many factors that influenced the outcome of my recreation of the Solomon Asch experiment. Having to work around the equipment in my classroom forced me to form the participants in a "U" shape, where some chose to sit apart from others. I also did not want to make it obvious who I had chosen to be my actors (who include Bryanna, Bradleigh, Leo, Pierce, and Shanna - though Lexie had agreed, but forgotten) so I allow my actors to choose where they would like to be seated. You may have noticed in the above video that when the participants went against the group norm, the others would briefly looked at them startled therefore making the rebel feel discomfort. Although I had asked my actors to do the same, they had forgotten and not done it at all.
These flaws to my experiment influenced my results severely. Throughout four trials, I only recall one person conforming to the group norm that was set by my actors. There were also those who wanted to rebel simply for the sake of rebelling* - as I noticed they would hesitate when answering then choose the line that hardly anyone had chosen before.
In the one case where a participant had conformed to the group norm I noticed they had also hesitated like the rebel. When they finally decided to answer, they sounded questionable - unsure if what they were saying were true or not, but willing enough to say it.
I also had noticed that the previously mentioned conformer (besides the one time she had conformed) had always said what the supposed-to-be-but-turned-out-not-to-instead actor before them had said. This must be similar to the secret partner given to the participant in the Solomon Asch experiment. Although the partner in the 1951 experiment was meant to ensure the participant's initial idea about the lines, I believe that in this case for my experiment the participant was simply stating what the person before her had said, as the questionable tone was somewhat noticeable.
All in all, my experiment was not necessarily successful on the grand scale, but in the case stated above it could be evaluated as conformity in my perspective.
These flaws to my experiment influenced my results severely. Throughout four trials, I only recall one person conforming to the group norm that was set by my actors. There were also those who wanted to rebel simply for the sake of rebelling* - as I noticed they would hesitate when answering then choose the line that hardly anyone had chosen before.
In the one case where a participant had conformed to the group norm I noticed they had also hesitated like the rebel. When they finally decided to answer, they sounded questionable - unsure if what they were saying were true or not, but willing enough to say it.
I also had noticed that the previously mentioned conformer (besides the one time she had conformed) had always said what the supposed-to-be-but-turned-out-not-to-instead actor before them had said. This must be similar to the secret partner given to the participant in the Solomon Asch experiment. Although the partner in the 1951 experiment was meant to ensure the participant's initial idea about the lines, I believe that in this case for my experiment the participant was simply stating what the person before her had said, as the questionable tone was somewhat noticeable.
All in all, my experiment was not necessarily successful on the grand scale, but in the case stated above it could be evaluated as conformity in my perspective.