asch's conformity experiment definition

Asch Conformity Experiments

Title: The Asch Conformity Experiments: An Exploration of Social Influence and Group Dynamics

Introduction.

The Asch Conformity Experiments, conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s, are seminal studies in social psychology that illuminate the power of conformity within group settings. These experiments highlight how individuals often conform to majority opinions, even when they contradict their own senses and perceptions. This paper aims to define, explain, and explore the sociological implications of the Asch experiments, providing a detailed analysis of the phenomena of conformity, group dynamics, and social influence.

Definition of Key Concepts

• Conformity : Conformity refers to the process of aligning one’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to match the norms or standards of a group. It is a social influence that can often compromise personal beliefs or perceptions in favor of group consensus.
• Social Influence : This involves the effect that the words, actions, or mere presence of other people have on our thoughts, feelings, attitudes, or behavior. It encompasses a broad range of phenomena, including conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, and persuasion.
• Group Dynamics : This term describes the systemic behaviors and psychological processes that occur within a social group or between social groups. It involves the ways individuals interact and form relationships, impacting the group’s structure and function.

The Asch Experiments Explained

Solomon Asch’s experiments were cleverly designed to measure the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform. In his most famous study, participants were placed in a group with confederates (individuals who were in on the experiment) and asked to match line lengths. Each participant had to state aloud which comparison line (A, B, or C) matched the length of a target line. Unbeknownst to the real participant, the confederates were instructed to unanimously choose an incorrect line for certain trials.

Remarkably, about one-third of the participants conformed to the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials, demonstrating the strong influence of group pressure on individual judgment. These results suggest that the tendency to conform is powerful, often compelling individuals to forsake their own perceptions to align with the group’s consensus.

Sociological Perspective

From a sociological perspective, the Asch experiments underscore the profound impact of social norms and the fear of deviance on individual behavior. Conformity serves as a social mechanism that promotes social cohesion and stability, facilitating predictable interactions within a community or group. However, this can also suppress individuality and promote uniformity, potentially leading to dysfunctional or unjust group decisions.

Examples and Implications

Consider a workplace where the majority of employees agree with a flawed business strategy because they perceive that dissent might lead to isolation or retaliation. Such scenarios illustrate how conformity can lead to poor group decisions, emphasizing the need for mechanisms that promote healthy dissent and diversity of thought.

Further, the impact of the Asch experiments extends into understanding phenomena such as group polarization and groupthink, where isolated groups may make extreme or irrational decisions as a result of their internal dynamics and the suppression of dissenting opinions.

The Asch Conformity Experiments offer invaluable insights into the mechanisms of social influence and group dynamics, revealing both the strengths and pitfalls of social conformity. They serve as a cautionary tale about the limits of social influence, highlighting the need for fostering environments where healthy dissent is respected and encouraged. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for leaders, educators, policymakers, and individuals who navigate complex social environments daily.

Sociological Implications

In conclusion, the legacy of Solomon Asch’s work continues to influence contemporary social psychology and sociology , providing a critical lens through which to examine the interplay between individual autonomy and social conformity. By studying these dynamics, we can better equip societies to balance conformity and individuality, leading to more robust and adaptive social systems.

Related Posts:

• Applied Social Psychology Definition & Explanation
• Attribution Theory Definition & Explanation
• Anthrozoology Definition and Explanation
• Age Definition & Explanation
• Autonomy of Sociology Definition & Explanation
• Autonomous Man & Plastic Man Definition & Explanation
• Appropriation Definition & Explanation
• Action Research Definition & Explanation
• Class Consciousness Definition & Explanation
• Anthropology Definition & Explanation

• Science, Tech, Math ›
• Social Sciences ›
• Sociology ›
• Recommended Reading ›

The Asch Conformity Experiments

What Solomon Asch Demonstrated About Social Pressure

• Recommended Reading
• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• News & Issues
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Archaeology

The Asch Conformity Experiments, conducted by psychologist Solomon Asch in the 1950s, demonstrated the power of conformity in groups and showed that even simple objective facts cannot withstand the distorting pressure of group influence.

The Experiment

In the experiments, groups of male university students were asked to participate in a perception test. In reality, all but one of the participants were "confederates" (collaborators with the experimenter who only pretended to be participants). The study was about how the remaining student would react to the behavior of the other "participants."

The participants of the experiment (the subject as well as the confederates) were seated in a classroom and were presented with a card with a simple vertical black line drawn on it. Then, they were given a second card with three lines of varying length labeled "A," "B," and "C." One line on the second card was the same length as that on the first, and the other two lines were obviously longer and shorter.

Participants were asked to state out loud in front of each other which line, A, B, or C, matched the length of the line on the first card. In each experimental case, the confederates answered first, and the real participant was seated so that he would answer last. In some cases, the confederates answered correctly, while in others, the answered incorrectly.

Asch's goal was to see if the real participant would be pressured to answer incorrectly in the instances when the Confederates did so, or whether their belief in their own perception and correctness would outweigh the social pressure provided by the responses of the other group members.

Asch found that one-third of real participants gave the same wrong answers as the Confederates at least half the time. Forty percent gave some wrong answers, and only one-fourth gave correct answers in defiance of the pressure to conform to the wrong answers provided by the group.

In interviews he conducted following the trials, Asch found that those that answered incorrectly, in conformance with the group, believed that the answers given by the Confederates were correct, some thought that they were suffering a lapse in perception for originally thinking an answer that differed from the group, while others admitted that they knew that they had the correct answer, but conformed to the incorrect answer because they didn't want to break from the majority.

The Asch experiments have been repeated many times over the years with students and non-students, old and young, and in groups of different sizes and different settings. The results are consistently the same with one-third to one-half of the participants making a judgment contrary to fact, yet in conformity with the group, demonstrating the strong power of social influences.

Connection to Sociology

The results of Asch's experiment resonate with what we know to be true about the nature of social forces and norms in our lives. The behavior and expectations of others shape how we think and act on a daily basis because what we observe among others teaches us what is normal , and expected of us. The results of the study also raise interesting questions and concerns about how knowledge is constructed and disseminated, and how we can address social problems that stem from conformity, among others.

Updated  by Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D.

• An Overview of the Book Democracy in America
• The Social Transformation of American Medicine
• McDonaldization: Definition and Overview of the Concept
• Understanding Durkheim's Division of Labor
• Émile Durkheim: "Suicide: A Study in Sociology"
• Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point"
• The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
• Definition of the Sociological Imagination and Overview of the Book
• Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity
• The Main Points of "The Communist Manifesto"
• Overview of The History of Sexuality
• A Book Overview: "The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit Of Capitalism"
• Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools
• 15 Major Sociological Studies and Publications
• Learn About Various Sanctions in Forcing Compliance With Social Norms
• Understanding Resocialization in Sociology

• General Categories
• Mental Health
• IQ and Intelligence
• Bipolar Disorder

Solomon Asch’s Conformity Experiments: Redefining Social Psychology

In a series of groundbreaking experiments, Solomon Asch challenged the prevailing notions of individuality and independence, forever altering our understanding of the power of social influence on human behavior. His work, conducted in the mid-20th century, sent shockwaves through the field of psychology and continues to resonate with researchers and laypeople alike. But who was this man who dared to question our assumptions about human nature, and what drove him to explore the depths of social conformity?

Solomon Eliot Asch was born in Warsaw, Poland, in 1907 and immigrated to the United States with his family as a young child. Growing up in a vibrant immigrant community in New York City, Asch developed a keen interest in human behavior and social dynamics from an early age. This fascination would eventually lead him to pursue a career in psychology, where he would make his most significant contributions to the field.

Asch’s work in social psychology was nothing short of revolutionary. His Asch Conformity Experiments: Revolutionizing Social Psychology became a cornerstone of the discipline, inspiring countless studies and sparking debates that continue to this day. But what exactly did these experiments entail, and why were they so groundbreaking?

The Asch Conformity Experiments: A Closer Look

Picture this: You’re sitting in a room with a group of strangers, participating in what you believe to be a simple visual perception test. The experimenter shows you a series of cards, each with a single line on the left and three lines of varying lengths on the right. Your task? To match the line on the left with its identical counterpart on the right. Easy peasy, right?

But here’s the twist: Unbeknownst to you, everyone else in the room is in on the experiment. They’re confederates, instructed to give the wrong answer on certain trials. As the experiment progresses, you find yourself in an increasingly uncomfortable position. Do you trust your own eyes, or do you go along with the group?

This was the ingenious setup of Asch’s conformity experiments. By creating a situation where the correct answer was obvious, yet the majority consistently gave an incorrect response, Asch was able to measure the power of social pressure on individual judgment.

The results were staggering. On average, participants conformed to the incorrect group judgment in about 37% of the critical trials. That’s more than one-third of the time! But what’s even more fascinating is the wide range of individual differences observed. Some participants never conformed, stubbornly sticking to their guns throughout the experiment. Others caved to the group pressure on nearly every trial.

Unpacking the Results: What Makes Us Conform?

Asch’s findings raised a multitude of questions about the nature of conformity and the factors that influence it. Why did some people resist the group pressure while others succumbed? What was going through the minds of those who conformed?

Through post-experiment interviews, Asch discovered that participants who conformed fell into two main categories. Some genuinely believed that the group must be right and doubted their own perception. Others knew they were correct but went along with the group to avoid standing out or being perceived as difficult.

These insights led Asch to develop the concept of “social pressure,” a term that has since become a staple in social psychology. He argued that the need to belong and the fear of social rejection could be powerful enough to override even our most basic perceptions of reality.

But Asch’s work didn’t stop there. He was also interested in the factors that could mitigate conformity. For instance, he found that having just one dissenting voice in the group dramatically reduced conformity rates. This finding highlighted the importance of diversity and independent thinking in group decision-making processes.

Beyond Conformity: Asch’s Broader Contributions

While the conformity experiments are undoubtedly Asch’s most famous work, his Solomon Asch’s Contributions to Psychology: Pioneering Social Conformity Research extended far beyond this single line of inquiry. He made significant contributions to our understanding of impression formation, social perception, and the nature of attitudes.

For example, Asch’s work on impression formation demonstrated that we tend to form coherent impressions of others based on limited information, often giving disproportionate weight to certain traits. This research laid the groundwork for later studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in social judgment.

Asch’s theories also had a profound impact on other researchers in the field. His work inspired a generation of social psychologists, including Stanley Milgram, whose infamous obedience experiments took the exploration of social influence to new and controversial heights. The Milgram Experiment: A Landmark Study in Social Psychology owes much to Asch’s pioneering work on conformity.

Critiques and Controversies: The Other Side of the Coin

As with any influential body of work, Asch’s experiments have not been without their critics. Some researchers have questioned the ecological validity of the studies, arguing that the artificial laboratory setting may not accurately reflect real-world conformity pressures.

Others have pointed out potential cultural biases in Asch’s work. The experiments were conducted primarily with American college students in the 1950s, a demographic that may not be representative of broader human behavior across cultures and time periods.

Replication attempts have also yielded mixed results. While some studies have successfully reproduced Asch’s findings, others have found lower rates of conformity, particularly in more individualistic cultures. This has led to ongoing debates about the universality of conformity pressures and the role of cultural factors in shaping social influence.

Despite these critiques, the core insights from Asch’s work remain highly relevant today. In an era of social media echo chambers and polarized public discourse, understanding the dynamics of social influence and the potential for groupthink is more important than ever.

The Asch Effect: From Laboratory to Real World

The phenomenon observed in Asch’s experiments has come to be known as the Asch Effect Psychology: Unraveling Social Conformity in Group Dynamics . This term refers to the tendency for individuals to conform to the majority opinion, even when it contradicts their own perceptions or beliefs.

The Asch Effect has been observed in a wide range of real-world contexts, from workplace decision-making to jury deliberations. It helps explain why people might go along with unethical practices in organizations or why witnesses might alter their testimony based on what others have said.

Understanding the Asch Effect can also be empowering. By recognizing the power of social pressure, we can develop strategies to resist it when necessary. This might involve seeking out diverse perspectives, cultivating independent thinking skills, or creating environments that encourage dissent and open dialogue.

The Legacy of Solomon Asch: Continuing Influence

More than half a century after his groundbreaking experiments, Solomon Asch’s work continues to shape our understanding of social behavior. His research has influenced fields as diverse as marketing, political science, and organizational behavior.

In the realm of psychology, Asch’s work has inspired countless studies exploring various aspects of social influence. Researchers have examined how conformity pressures operate in online environments, how they affect decision-making in high-stakes situations, and how they interact with individual personality traits.

One particularly interesting line of research has focused on the concept of Consensual Validation in Psychology: How Social Agreement Shapes Our Reality . This idea, which builds on Asch’s work, suggests that we often rely on social consensus to validate our perceptions and beliefs about reality.

Looking to the Future: New Frontiers in Conformity Research

As we move further into the 21st century, new technologies are opening up exciting possibilities for conformity research. Virtual reality environments, for instance, allow researchers to create immersive social situations that would be difficult or impossible to replicate in traditional laboratory settings.

Neuroscientific approaches are also shedding new light on the brain mechanisms underlying conformity. Brain imaging studies have begun to reveal the neural correlates of social influence, providing a deeper understanding of how social pressure affects our cognitive processes.

At the same time, the rise of social media and online communities has created new contexts for studying social influence. How does conformity operate in virtual environments? How do social media algorithms that create “filter bubbles” affect our susceptibility to group influence? These are just a few of the questions that contemporary researchers are grappling with.

The Enduring Relevance of Asch’s Work

In an age of “fake news,” social media echo chambers, and increasingly polarized public discourse, the insights from Asch’s work are more relevant than ever. Understanding the power of social influence can help us navigate these complex information landscapes more effectively.

Moreover, Asch’s work reminds us of the delicate balance between social cohesion and individual autonomy. While conformity can serve important social functions, helping to maintain group harmony and facilitate cooperation, it can also lead to the suppression of diverse viewpoints and critical thinking.

As we face global challenges that require collective action – from climate change to public health crises – understanding how to harness the power of social influence for positive ends while safeguarding individual agency becomes increasingly crucial.

Conclusion: The Lasting Impact of a Psychological Pioneer

Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments stand as a testament to the power of innovative research to reshape our understanding of human nature. By challenging prevailing assumptions about individuality and independence, Asch opened up new avenues for exploring the complex interplay between individual psychology and social dynamics.

His work continues to inspire researchers, spark debates, and inform practical applications across a wide range of fields. From the boardroom to the classroom, from online communities to international diplomacy, the insights gleaned from Asch’s experiments help us navigate the complex social world we inhabit.

As we look to the future, it’s clear that the questions Asch grappled with – about conformity, independence, and the nature of social reality – will remain central to our understanding of human behavior. In an increasingly interconnected world, where the pressures of social influence are ever-present, Asch’s work serves as both a warning and a guide, reminding us of the power of the group while affirming the importance of independent thought.

In the end, perhaps the most enduring legacy of Solomon Asch is not just the specific findings of his experiments, but the spirit of inquiry and the willingness to challenge conventional wisdom that characterized his approach to psychology. As we continue to explore the complexities of human social behavior, we would do well to emulate Asch’s curiosity, creativity, and commitment to uncovering the truth, wherever it may lead.

References:

1. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

2. Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111-137.

3. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.

4. Jetten, J., & Hornsey, M. J. (2014). Deviance and dissent in groups. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 461-485.

5. Levine, J. M. (1999). Solomon Asch’s legacy for group research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 358-364.

6. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.

7. Moscovici, S., & Personnaz, B. (1980). Studies in social influence: V. Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(3), 270-282.

8. Nail, P. R., MacDonald, G., & Levy, D. A. (2000). Proposal of a four-dimensional model of social response. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 454-470.

9. Smith, J. R., & Haslam, S. A. (Eds.). (2017). Social psychology: Revisiting the classic studies. Sage.

10. Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House.

Was this article helpful?

Would you like to add any comments (optional), leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

Related Resources

Presidential Brain Conditions: Historical Cases and Their Impact on Leadership

Survey Research in Psychology: Methods, Applications, and Limitations

Psychology Behind Bragging: Unraveling the Motives and Impact of Self-Promotion

Collectivism in Psychology: Understanding Its Definition and Impact on Human…

Peace Psychology: Fostering Harmony in a Complex World

Realistic Conflict Theory in Psychology: Exploring Intergroup Tensions and Resolutions

False Consensus Effect: Understanding Its Impact on Social Psychology

New Year’s Resolutions Failure: The Psychology Behind Unfulfilled Goals

Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding…

Personal Agency Psychology: Empowering Your Choices and Actions

Explore Psychology

Psychology Articles, Study Guides, and Resources

Asch Conformity Experiments: Line Study

Exploring how social pressure influences our decisions and perceptions.

In this article

Will people conform to the group’s opinions, even if they disagree? That was the question behind one of the most famous experiments in psychology history. The Asch conformity experiments were a series of studies by social psychologist Solomon Asch during the 1950s. In the studies, Asch sought to learn more about how social pressure could lead to conformity .

In the studies, people were asked to choose a line that matched the length of another line. When the others in the group chose the incorrect line, participants would often conform to the rest of the group, even though they were clearly wrong.

The experiments are classic studies in social psychology, offering important insights into when and why people conform to group norms and pressures.

Key Takeaways: The Asch conformity experiments demonstrated that people often conform to group opinions, even when they know the group is wrong. Factors such as the desire for social acceptance and uncertainty in decision-making contribute to conformity. Group size, status, and whether responses are public or private influence the likelihood of conforming. Despite criticism, Asch’s experiments significantly impacted the understanding of social behavior and group influence in psychology.

The Asch Experiments

In the main version of the experiment, Asch told the participants that they were taking part in a vision test. Each participant was then placed in a group of people who were actually confederates in the study. In other words, they were actors who were involved in the experiment.

The group was shown a line on a card and then another card with several lines of varying lengths. They were asked to pick the line that matched the first line.

It was a simple task. When asked on their own, almost all participants were able to easily perform the task correctly. When they were in the group, and the confederates gave the wrong answers, the participants were often go along with the group.

Results of the Asch Conformity Experiments

The results of the Asch conformity experiments were startling. They revealed that a staggering 75% of the participants conformed to the group at least once. Even more surprising, about 25% never conformed, while 5% conformed every single time.

For the control group, where people faced no social pressure, incorrect responses were given less than 1% of the time.

Explanations for the Results

What explains the high rates of conformity in Asch’s experiments? There are several important psychological factors at work. The reasons people went along with the group even when they knew the others were wrong come down to several reasons:

Normative Social Influence

People have a desire for social acceptance. They want to fit in with the group and prefer not to stand out. By agreeing with the rest of the group, they increase the likelihood of being liked and accepted by others.

The fear of embarrassment can also play a role. Being the only one to voice a different answer comes with the risk of appearing foolish or being ridiculed. Even if people knew they were right, fear of social disapproval caused them to conform.

Informational Social Influence

When making decisions under uncertainty, people often look to other people as a source of information. If other people say one thing is correct, people often assume that others know something they don’t, which is why they conform.

Self-doubt in these situations can also play a role. Once others started choosing the wrong answer, the participants may have started to question their response and wondered if they had overlooked something.

Other Factors That Can Influence Conformity

There are also a number of other factors that can affect the likelihood that people with conform like they did Asch conformity experiments.

These include:

• Group size : Conformity usually increases with group size, at least up to a certain point. When 3 to 5 people are present, there is a lot of pressure to conform. When the number of people exceeds that, conformity typically starts to decline.
• Status : People are more likely to conform if the others in the group are seen as having a higher status, more authority, or greater expertise.
• Privacy of responses : People are more inclined to conform if their responses are public. When responses are private, conformity rates drop.
• Uncertainty and difficulty : If the task is ambiguous or difficult, people are less likely to trust their own judgment. They will often look to others for information and assurance, which increases conformity.
• Group unity : Conformity is higher in very cohesive groups. The stronger the bonds between group members, the more likely people are to conform.

In a 2023 replication of Asch’s conformity experiment, researchers found an error rate of 33%, similar to the one in Asch’s original study. They found that offering monetary incentives helped reduce errors but didn’t eliminate the effects of social influence. The study also found that social influence impacted political opinions, leading to a conformity rate of 38% (Franzen & Mader, 2023).

The study also examined how Big Five personality factors might be linked to conformity. While openness was associated with susceptibility to group pressure, other personality traits were not significantly connected.

One 2018 experiment found that the social delivery of information caused 33% of participants to change their political opinions (Mallinson & Hatemi, 2018).

Critiques of the Asch Conformity Experiments

While influential, the Asch experiments were not without criticism. Some of the main criticisms hinge on the following:

• The impact of demand characteristics : Some critics suggest that some participants may have suspected the study’s real intentions and behaved to meet the experimenter’s expectations.
• Lack of relevance in the real world : Critics also suggest that the experimental setup needed to be more contrived and accurately reflect real-world situations where conformity might occur.
• Cultural factors : The time and place of the experiments (the United States and during the 1950s) may also have contributed to the high conformity rates. During that time, conformity to American norms and values was highly valued. Such characteristics may not be universal to other places and periods.
• Simplified approach: While Asch’s experiments demonstrate one aspect of conformity (normative social influence), they don’t address the many other factors that can contribute to this behavior in real-world settings.

Impact and Contributions of the Asch Conformity Experiments

Asch’s conformity experiments had a major impact on the field of psychology. They helped inspire further research on conformity, compliance, and obedience.

The studies demonstrated that conformity is not just about fear of punishment ; it often comes from a deep psychological need for acceptance and group harmony.

These findings have influenced a wide range of fields, from understanding peer pressure and decision-making in groups to exploring the dynamics of social behavior in various cultural and political contexts. Asch’s experiments remain a cornerstone in social psychology , shaping how we think about the relationships between individual judgment and group influence.

EXPERT PICKS: WHAT TO READ NEXT Classic Psychological Experiments : Explore other well-known psychology experiments. The Robbers Cave Experiment : What would happen if you pitted two groups of kids against one another? Learn more about what researchers discovered. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development : This theory explores the stages and factors that play a role in the development of moral behavior. What Is the Ingroup Bias? People tend to favor those who are in their own social groups, which can affect how they respond to people who are different from them.

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority . Psychological Monographs: General and Applied , 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

Franzen, A., & Mader, S. (2023). The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch experiment . PloS one , 18 (11), e0294325. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294325

Levine J. M. (1999). Solomon Asch’s legacy for group research . Personality and Social Psychology Review : An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc , 3 (4), 358–364. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0304_5

Mallinson, D. J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2018). The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change . PloS One , 13 (5), e0196600. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196600

Editor-in-Chief

Kendra Cherry, MS.Ed., is a writer, editor, psychosocial therapist, and founder of Explore Psychology, an online psychology resource. She is a Senior Writer for Verywell Mind and is the author of the Everything Psychology Book (Adams Media).

Related Articles:

The Robbers Cave Experiment: Realistic Conflict Theory

Psychologist Muzafer Sherif suggested that conflict between groups was the result of competition for limited resources. To put this theory to the test, he conducted a series of experiments that are today referred to as the Robbers Cave Experiment. In this article, learn more about what happened in the Robbers Cave Experiment and the conclusions…

Social Clock: How Society’s Timelines Create Pressure

A social clock is a cultural timetable of societal expectations for when certain goals should be met at different stages of life. 

Autocratic Leadership Characteristics and Effects

Autocratic leadership involves the leader taking complete control, not accepting input, and expecting others to follow without question.

What Is Prosocial Behavior? Meaning and Examples

Prosocial behavior involves actions that are designed to help other people or to benefit society as a whole. Examples of prosocial behaviors include being kind, comforting, generous, or helpful. When people engage in prosocial behaviors, they often do so because they are concerned, compassionate, and empathetic. They want to ensure others have what they need,…

5 Main Styles of Leadership

Styles of leadership involves how a person governs, directs, and motivates followers. Researchers have proposed several different types of leadership styles over the last 50 or so years. Leaders often utilize such styles in business, politics, technology, and other major fields. Psychologists have found that leadership styles can have a meaningful impact on how well…

Who Was Kitty Genovese?

Kitty Genovese was a woman murdered outside her Queens, New York apartment in 1964. False reports initially suggested that neighbors had witnessed the crime yet failed to report what they saw. The case captured the public’s attention and the interest of psychology researchers, who coined the term “bystander effect” to explain why people are less…

The Asch Line Study (+3 Conformity Experiments)

Sheep. Complicit. Doormat. There are a lot of negative connotations associated with conformity, especially in the United States. Individualist societies push back on "going along with what everyone is doing." And yet, we conform more than we think. According to studies like the Asch Line Study, humans have a natural tendency to conform.

The Asch Line Study is one of the most well-known experiments in modern psychology, but it's not without its faults. Keep reading to learn about how the Asch Line Study worked, its criticisms, and similar experiments!

How Did the Asch Line Study Work?

In his famous “Line Experiment”, Asch showed his subjects a picture of a vertical line followed by three lines of different lengths, one of which was obviously the same length as the first one. He then asked subjects to identify which line was the same length as the first line.

Solomon Asch used 123 male college students as his subjects, and told them that his experiment was simply a ‘vision test’. For his control group, Asch just had his subjects go through his 18 questions on their own.

However, for his experimental group, he had his subjects answer each of the same 18 questions in a group of around a dozen people, where the first 11 people intentionally said obviously incorrect answers one after another, with the final respondee being the actual subject of the experiment.

Who was Solomon Asch?

Solomon E. Asch was a pioneer in social psychology. He was born in Poland in 1907 and moved to the United States in 1920. Asch received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1932 and went on to perform some famous psychological experiments about conformity in the 1950s.

One of these studies is known as the “Asch Line Experiment”, where he found evidence supporting the idea that humans will conform to and accept the ideas of others around them, even if those ideas are obviously false. This study is one of the most influential studies in social psychology .

Findings of Asch's Conformity Study

​ Asch found that his subjects indeed were more likely to give a false response after the other members of their group (the actors) gave false responses. As shown in this ‘Table 1’ from his experiment, during 18 trials, the ‘Majority Error’ column shows no error when the group response was the correct response, such as in Trial #1.

However, when the entire group intentionally gave a false answer (these situations are designated with an * under the “Group Response” column), the ‘Majority Error’ did exist and was slanted toward the opinion of the group.

For example, if the group answered with a line that was too long, such as in Trial #3, the ‘Majority Error’ column shows that the subjects generally estimated the line to be longer than it really was (denoted with a ‘+’), and vice-versa for when the group answered with a line that was too short, such as in Trial #4.

As for his control group, Asch found that people generally said the correct answer when they did not have a group of actors saying answers before them.

Interviewing the Participants

​ After the experiment, Asch revealed the true experiment to his subjects and interviewed them. Some subjects had become very agitated during the experiment, wondering why they kept disagreeing with the group. When the group pressed one particular subject on why he thought that he was correct and the entire group was wrong, he replied defiantly, exclaiming: “You're probably right, but you may be wrong!”

Other subjects admitted during the interview that they changed their answers after hearing others in their group reply differently. One was recorded saying, “If I’d been the first I probably would have responded differently.” Another subject admitted, “...at times I had the feeling: 'to heck with it, I'll go along with the rest.' "

Conclusions from the Asch Line Study

​ Asch found that his subjects often changed their answers when they heard the rest of the group unanimously giving a different response.

After the interviews, Asch concluded in his study that his subjects conformed to the opinions of the group for three different reasons:

Distortion of perception due to the stress of group pressure: This group of subjects always agreed with the group and said during the interview that they wholeheartedly believed that their obviously incorrect answers were correct. Asch concluded that the stress of group pressure had distorted their perception.

Distortion of judgment: This was the most common outcome, where subjects assumed that their individual answers were incorrect after seeing the rest of the group answer differently, so they changed their answer to align with the group.

Distortion of action: These subjects never doubted that they were correct and the group was wrong, but out of fear of being perceived as different, they suppressed their opinions and intentionally lied when it was their turn to give an answer.

Asch Line Study vs. Milgram Experiment

Both the Asch Line Study and the Milgram Experiment look at conformity, obedience, and the negative effects of going along with the majority opinion. Those negative effects are slightly awkward, like in the Asch Line Study, or dangerous, like in the Milgram Experiment. Both experiments were conducted in the Post-WWII world as a response to the conformity that was required for Nazi Germany to gain power. The premise of Asch's study was not nearly as dramatic. Milgram's was. 

To test conformity, Milgram and his researchers instructed participants to press a button. Participants believed that the buttons would shock another "participant" in a chair, who was really an actor. (No one was shocked.) The study continued as long as participants continued to shock the participant at increasingly dangerous levels. The participants knew that they could cause serious harm to the person in the chair. Yet, many obeyed.

Further Experiments and Variations

Solomon Asch didn't just conduct one experiment and move on. He replicated his experiment with new factors, including:

• Changing the size of the actor group
• Switching to a non-unanimous actor group
• Having a unanimous actor group, except for one actor who sticks to the correct response no matter what the group or subject says
• Instructing the one actor who gives the correct response come in late
• Having one actor decide to change their answer from the group’s answer to the subject’s answer

There are also many reproductions and replications of this study online. Not all of them come to the same conclusions! Read through the following texts to get a sense of how other psychologists approached this subject:

• Mori K, Arai M. No need to fake it: reproduction of the Asch experiment without confederates. Int J Psychol. 2010 Oct 1;45(5):390-7. doi: 10.1080/00207591003774485. PMID: 22044061.

Why Is The Asch Line Study Ethnocentric? And Other Criticisms

​ One big issue with the Asch line study is that the subjects were all white male college students between the ages of 17 and 25, with a mean age of 20. Since the experiment only shows results for this small and specific group of people, it alone cannot be applied to other groups such as women or older men.

Experimenter Bias in the Asch Line Study

Only choosing subjects from one demographic is a form of Experimenter Bias . Of course, researchers can use one demographic if they are specifically studying that demographic. But Asch was not just looking at young, white men. If he had expanded his research to include more participants, he may have produced different answers.

We assume Asch did not go about his study with the intention of being biased. That's the tricky thing about biases. They sneak up on us! Even the way that we share information about psychology research is the result of bias. Reporter bias is the tendency to highlight certain studies due to their results. The Asch Line Study produced fascinating results. Therefore, psychology professors, reporters, and students find it fascinating and continue to share this concept. They don't always share the full story, though.

Did you know that 95% of the participants actually defied the majority at least once during the experiment? Most textbooks don't report that. Nor did they report that the interviewees knew that they were right all along! Leaving out this key information is not Asch's fault. But it should give you, a psychology student, some pause. One thing that we should take away from this study is that we have a natural tendency to conform. This tendency also takes place when we draw conclusions from famous studies! Be critical as you learn about these famous studies and look to the source if possible.

Further Criticisms of the Asch Line Study

Does the Asch Line Study stand the test of time? Not exactly. If we look at what was happening in 1950s society, we can see why Asch got his results. Young white men in the early 1950s may have responded differently to this experiment than young white men would today. In the United States, which is where this experiment was performed, the mid-1950s was a historic turning point in terms of rejecting conformity. Youth were pushing toward a more free-thinking society. This experiment was performed right around the time that the movement was just starting to blossom, so the subjects had not grown up in the middle of this new anti-conformist movement. Had Asch performed this experiment a decade later with youth who more highly valued free-thinking, he may have come across very different results.

Another thing to note is that, at least in the United States, education has evolved with this movement of encouraging free-thinking. Teachers today tell students to question everything, and many schools reject ideas of conformity. This could once again mean that, if done again today, Asch would have found very different results with this experiment.

Another problem with this experiment is that, since subjects were not told it was a psychological experiment until after it was over, subjects may have gone through emotional and psychological pain during what they thought was just a simple ‘vision test’.

Finally, it’s good to remember that the ‘Asch Line Experiment’ is just that: an experiment where people looked at lines. This can be hard to apply to other situations because humans in group settings are rarely faced with questions that have one such obvious and clear answer, as was the case in this experiment.

Related posts:

• Solomon Asch (Psychologist Biography)
• 40+ Famous Psychologists (Images + Biographies)
• Stanley Milgram (Psychologist Biography)
• Experimenter Bias (Definition + Examples)
• The Monster Study (Summary, Results, and Ethical Issues)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

12.4 Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Explain the Asch effect
• Define conformity and types of social influence
• Describe Stanley Milgram’s experiment and its implications
• Define groupthink, social facilitation, and social loafing

In this section, we discuss additional ways in which people influence others. The topics of conformity, social influence, obedience, and group processes demonstrate the power of the social situation to change our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. We begin this section with a discussion of a famous social psychology experiment that demonstrated how susceptible humans are to outside social pressures.

Solomon Asch conducted several experiments in the 1950s to determine how people are affected by the thoughts and behaviors of other people. In one study, a group of participants was shown a series of printed line segments of different lengths: a, b, and c ( Figure 12.17 ). Participants were then shown a fourth line segment: x. They were asked to identify which line segment from the first group (a, b, or c) most closely resembled the fourth line segment in length.

Each group of participants had only one true, naïve subject. The remaining members of the group were confederates of the researcher. A confederate is a person who is aware of the experiment and works for the researcher. Confederates are used to manipulate social situations as part of the research design, and the true, naïve participants believe that confederates are, like them, uninformed participants in the experiment. In Asch’s study, the confederates identified a line segment that was obviously shorter than the target line—a wrong answer. The naïve participant then had to identify aloud the line segment that best matched the target line segment.

How often do you think the true participant aligned with the confederates’ response? That is, how often do you think the group influenced the participant, and the participant gave the wrong answer? Asch (1955) found that 76% of participants conformed to group pressure at least once by indicating the incorrect line. Conformity is the change in a person’s behavior to go along with the group, even if he does not agree with the group. Why would people give the wrong answer? What factors would increase or decrease someone giving in or conforming to group pressure?

The Asch effect is the influence of the group majority on an individual’s judgment.

What factors make a person more likely to yield to group pressure? Research shows that the size of the majority, the presence of another dissenter, and the public or relatively private nature of responses are key influences on conformity.

• The size of the majority: The greater the number of people in the majority, the more likely an individual will conform. There is, however, an upper limit: a point where adding more members does not increase conformity. In Asch’s study, conformity increased with the number of people in the majority—up to seven individuals. At numbers beyond seven, conformity leveled off and decreased slightly (Asch, 1955).
• The presence of another dissenter: If there is at least one dissenter, conformity rates drop to near zero (Asch, 1955).
• The public or private nature of the responses: When responses are made publicly (in front of others), conformity is more likely; however, when responses are made privately (e.g., writing down the response), conformity is less likely (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).

The finding that conformity is more likely to occur when responses are public than when they are private is the reason government elections require voting in secret, so we are not coerced by others ( Figure 12.18 ). The Asch effect can be easily seen in children when they have to publicly vote for something. For example, if the teacher asks whether the children would rather have extra recess, no homework, or candy, once a few children vote, the rest will comply and go with the majority. In a different classroom, the majority might vote differently, and most of the children would comply with that majority. When someone’s vote changes if it is made in public versus private, this is known as compliance. Compliance can be a form of conformity. Compliance is going along with a request or demand, even if you do not agree with the request. In Asch’s studies, the participants complied by giving the wrong answers, but privately did not accept that the obvious wrong answers were correct.

Now that you have learned about the Asch line experiments, why do you think the participants conformed? The correct answer to the line segment question was obvious, and it was an easy task. Researchers have categorized the motivation to conform into two types: normative social influence and informational social influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).

In normative social influence , people conform to the group norm to fit in, to feel good, and to be accepted by the group. However, with informational social influence , people conform because they believe the group is competent and has the correct information, particularly when the task or situation is ambiguous. What type of social influence was operating in the Asch conformity studies? Since the line judgment task was unambiguous, participants did not need to rely on the group for information. Instead, participants complied to fit in and avoid ridicule, an instance of normative social influence.

An example of informational social influence may be what to do in an emergency situation. Imagine that you are in a movie theater watching a film and what seems to be smoke comes in the theater from under the emergency exit door. You are not certain that it is smoke—it might be a special effect for the movie, such as a fog machine. When you are uncertain you will tend to look at the behavior of others in the theater. If other people show concern and get up to leave, you are likely to do the same. However, if others seem unconcerned, you are likely to stay put and continue watching the movie ( Figure 12.19 ).

How would you have behaved if you were a participant in Asch’s study? Many students say they would not conform, that the study is outdated, and that people nowadays are more independent. To some extent this may be true. Research suggests that overall rates of conformity may have reduced since the time of Asch’s research. Furthermore, efforts to replicate Asch’s study have made it clear that many factors determine how likely it is that someone will demonstrate conformity to the group. These factors include the participant’s age, gender, and socio-cultural background (Bond & Smith, 1996; Larsen, 1990; Walker & Andrade, 1996).

Link to Learning

Watch this video of a replication of the Asch experiment to learn more.

Stanley Milgram’s Experiment

Conformity is one effect of the influence of others on our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Another form of social influence is obedience to authority. Obedience is the change of an individual’s behavior to comply with a demand by an authority figure. People often comply with the request because they are concerned about a consequence if they do not comply. To demonstrate this phenomenon, we review another classic social psychology experiment.

Stanley Milgram was a social psychology professor at Yale who was influenced by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal. Eichmann’s defense for the atrocities he committed was that he was “just following orders.” Milgram (1963) wanted to test the validity of this defense, so he designed an experiment and initially recruited 40 men for his experiment. The volunteer participants were led to believe that they were participating in a study to improve learning and memory. The participants were told that they were to teach other students (learners) correct answers to a series of test items. The participants were shown how to use a device that they were told delivered electric shocks of different intensities to the learners. The participants were told to shock the learners if they gave a wrong answer to a test item—that the shock would help them to learn. The participants believed they gave the learners shocks, which increased in 15-volt increments, all the way up to 450 volts. The participants did not know that the learners were confederates and that the confederates did not actually receive shocks.

In response to a string of incorrect answers from the learners, the participants obediently and repeatedly shocked them. The confederate learners cried out for help, begged the participant teachers to stop, and even complained of heart trouble. Yet, when the researcher told the participant-teachers to continue the shock, 65% of the participants continued the shock to the maximum voltage and to the point that the learner became unresponsive ( Figure 12.20 ). What makes someone obey authority to the point of potentially causing serious harm to another person?

Several variations of the original Milgram experiment were conducted to test the boundaries of obedience. When certain features of the situation were changed, participants were less likely to continue to deliver shocks (Milgram, 1965). For example, when the setting of the experiment was moved to an off-campus office building, the percentage of participants who delivered the highest shock dropped to 48%. When the learner was in the same room as the teacher, the highest shock rate dropped to 40%. When the teachers’ and learners’ hands were touching, the highest shock rate dropped to 30%. When the researcher gave the orders by phone, the rate dropped to 23%. These variations show that when the humanity of the person being shocked was increased, obedience decreased. Similarly, when the authority of the experimenter decreased, so did obedience.

This case is still very applicable today. What does a person do if an authority figure orders something done? What if the person believes it is incorrect, or worse, unethical? In a study by Martin and Bull (2008), midwives privately filled out a questionnaire regarding best practices and expectations in delivering a baby. Then, a more senior midwife and supervisor asked the junior midwives to do something they had previously stated they were opposed to. Most of the junior midwives were obedient to authority, going against their own beliefs. Burger (2009) partially replicated this study. He found among a multicultural sample of women and men that their levels of obedience matched Milgram's research. Doliński et al. (2017) performed a replication of Burger's work in Poland and controlled for the gender of both participants and learners, and once again, results that were consistent with Milgram's original work were observed.

When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of people around us. Whether it is due to normative or informational social influence, groups have power to influence individuals. Another phenomenon of group conformity is groupthink. Groupthink is the modification of the opinions of members of a group to align with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In group situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of thought. This elimination of diverse opinions contributes to faulty decision by the group.

Groupthink in the U.S. Government

There have been several instances of groupthink in the U.S. government. One example occurred when the United States led a small coalition of nations to invade Iraq in March 2003. This invasion occurred because a small group of advisors and former President George W. Bush were convinced that Iraq represented a significant terrorism threat with a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction at its disposal. Although some of these individuals may have had some doubts about the credibility of the information available to them at the time, in the end, the group arrived at a consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and represented a significant threat to national security. It later came to light that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, but not until the invasion was well underway. As a result, 6000 American soldiers were killed and many more civilians died. How did the Bush administration arrive at their conclusions? View this video of Colin Powell, 10 years after his famous United Nations speech, discussing the information he had at the time that his decisions were based on. ("CNN Official Interview: Colin Powell now regrets UN speech about WMDs," 2010).

Do you see evidence of groupthink?

Why does groupthink occur? There are several causes of groupthink, which makes it preventable. When the group is highly cohesive, or has a strong sense of connection, maintaining group harmony may become more important to the group than making sound decisions. If the group leader is directive and makes his opinions known, this may discourage group members from disagreeing with the leader. If the group is isolated from hearing alternative or new viewpoints, groupthink may be more likely. How do you know when groupthink is occurring?

There are several symptoms of groupthink including the following:

• perceiving the group as invulnerable or invincible—believing it can do no wrong
• believing the group is morally correct
• self-censorship by group members, such as withholding information to avoid disrupting the group consensus
• the quashing of dissenting group members’ opinions
• the shielding of the group leader from dissenting views
• perceiving an illusion of unanimity among group members
• holding stereotypes or negative attitudes toward the out-group or others’ with differing viewpoints (Janis, 1972)

Given the causes and symptoms of groupthink, how can it be avoided? There are several strategies that can improve group decision making including seeking outside opinions, voting in private, having the leader withhold position statements until all group members have voiced their views, conducting research on all viewpoints, weighing the costs and benefits of all options, and developing a contingency plan (Janis, 1972; Mitchell & Eckstein, 2009).

Group Polarization

Another phenomenon that occurs within group settings is group polarization. Group polarization (Teger & Pruitt, 1967) is the strengthening of an original group attitude after the discussion of views within a group. That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint. Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition. Group polarization explains many actions taken by groups that would not be undertaken by individuals. Group polarization can be observed at political conventions, when platforms of the party are supported by individuals who, when not in a group, would decline to support them. Recently, some theorists have argued that group polarization may be partly responsible for the extreme political partisanship that seems ubiquitous in modern society. Given that people can self-select media outlets that are most consistent with their own political views, they are less likely to encounter opposing viewpoints. Over time, this leads to a strengthening of their own perspective and of hostile attitudes and behaviors towards those with different political ideals. Remarkably, political polarization leads to open levels of discrimination that are on par with, or perhaps exceed, racial discrimination (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015). A more everyday example is a group’s discussion of how attractive someone is. Does your opinion change if you find someone attractive, but your friends do not agree? If your friends vociferously agree, might you then find this person even more attractive?

Social traps refer to situations that arise when individuals or groups of individuals behave in ways that are not in their best interest and that may have negative, long-term consequences. However, once established, a social trap is very difficult to escape. For example, following World War II, the United States and the former Soviet Union engaged in a nuclear arms race. While the presence of nuclear weapons is not in either party's best interest, once the arms race began, each country felt the need to continue producing nuclear weapons to protect itself from the other.

Social Loafing

Imagine you were just assigned a group project with other students whom you barely know. Everyone in your group will get the same grade. Are you the type who will do most of the work, even though the final grade will be shared? Or are you more likely to do less work because you know others will pick up the slack? Social loafing involves a reduction in individual output on tasks where contributions are pooled. Because each individual's efforts are not evaluated, individuals can become less motivated to perform well. Karau and Williams (1993) and Simms and Nichols (2014) reviewed the research on social loafing and discerned when it was least likely to happen. The researchers noted that social loafing could be alleviated if, among other situations, individuals knew their work would be assessed by a manager (in a workplace setting) or instructor (in a classroom setting), or if a manager or instructor required group members to complete self-evaluations.

The likelihood of social loafing in student work groups increases as the size of the group increases (Shepperd & Taylor, 1999). According to Karau and Williams (1993), college students were the population most likely to engage in social loafing. Their study also found that women and participants from collectivistic cultures were less likely to engage in social loafing, explaining that their group orientation may account for this.

College students could work around social loafing or “free-riding” by suggesting to their professors use of a flocking method to form groups. Harding (2018) compared groups of students who had self-selected into groups for class to those who had been formed by flocking, which involves assigning students to groups who have similar schedules and motivations. Not only did she find that students reported less “free riding,” but that they also did better in the group assignments compared to those whose groups were self-selected.

Interestingly, the opposite of social loafing occurs when the task is complex and difficult (Bond & Titus, 1983; Geen, 1989). In a group setting, such as the student work group, if your individual performance cannot be evaluated, there is less pressure for you to do well, and thus less anxiety or physiological arousal (Latané, Williams, & Harkens, 1979). This puts you in a relaxed state in which you can perform your best, if you choose (Zajonc, 1965). If the task is a difficult one, many people feel motivated and believe that their group needs their input to do well on a challenging project (Jackson & Williams, 1985).

Deindividuation

Another way that being part of a group can affect behavior is exhibited in instances in which deindividuation occurs. Deindividuation refers to situations in which a person may feel a sense of anonymity and therefore a reduction in accountability and sense of self when among others. Deindividuation is often pointed to in cases in which mob or riot-like behaviors occur (Zimbardo, 1969), but research on the subject and the role that deindividuation plays in such behaviors has resulted in inconsistent results (as discussed in Granström, Guvå, Hylander, & Rosander, 2009).

Table 12.2 summarizes the types of social influence you have learned about in this chapter.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-4-conformity-compliance-and-obedience

© Sep 19, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

All Subjects

Persuasion Theory

Study guides for every class, that actually explain what's on your next test, asch's conformity experiments, from class:.

Asch's conformity experiments were a series of studies conducted in the 1950s by Solomon Asch that examined how individuals would conform to a group's incorrect answer in a simple task. The experiments highlighted the powerful influence of social pressure on individual judgment and decision-making, revealing that people often conform to group opinions even when they know those opinions are wrong.

congrats on reading the definition of Asch's Conformity Experiments . now let's actually learn it.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

• In the experiments, participants were asked to compare the lengths of lines, where confederates (actors) deliberately gave incorrect answers to see if the participant would conform.
• About 75% of participants conformed at least once, indicating strong pressure from the group, despite knowing the correct answer.
• Asch identified two main reasons for conformity: the desire to fit in (normative influence) and the belief that the group may be better informed (informational influence).
• The experiments showed that conformity decreased when participants were allowed to give their answers privately rather than publicly.
• Asch's findings highlighted important implications for understanding group behavior, decision-making processes, and the role of social norms in shaping individual actions.

Review Questions

• Asch's experiments clearly showed that social influence could lead individuals to conform to a group's incorrect judgments. When faced with unanimous incorrect answers from confederates, many participants changed their responses to align with the group despite knowing the correct answer. This illustrated how powerful group dynamics can overshadow personal beliefs and judgments, emphasizing the impact of social pressure on decision-making.
• Asch's findings suggest that individuals may compromise their own beliefs under social pressure, which can have significant implications in various settings such as workplaces, classrooms, or public decision-making processes. For example, groupthink can lead teams to make poor decisions as members prioritize consensus over critical thinking. Understanding these dynamics can help leaders create environments that encourage open dialogue and reduce negative conformity pressures.
• Asch's conformity experiments provide valuable insights into contemporary issues such as misinformation spread on social media platforms. The tendency for individuals to conform to majority opinions can exacerbate the acceptance and dissemination of false information, as people may prioritize fitting in over verifying facts. Analyzing this behavior through Asch's lens highlights the importance of fostering critical thinking skills and encouraging independent verification of information to combat the detrimental effects of conformity in today’s digital landscape.

Related terms

Social Influence : The process by which individuals change their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors as a result of real or imagined pressure from others.

Groupthink : A psychological phenomenon where the desire for harmony in a decision-making group leads to irrational or dysfunctional outcomes, often resulting in poor choices.

Normative Social Influence : A type of social influence that leads individuals to conform to be liked or accepted by a group, often resulting in public compliance but not necessarily private acceptance.

" Asch's Conformity Experiments " also found in:

Subjects ( 2 ).

• Cognitive Psychology
• Social Psychology

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

Ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Conformity - Asch (1951)

Last updated 6 Sept 2022

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Asch (1951) conducted one of the most famous laboratory experiments examining conformity. He wanted to examine the extent to which social pressure from a majority, could affect a person to conform.

Asch’s sample consisted of 50 male students from Swarthmore College in America, who believed they were taking part in a vision test. Asch used a line judgement task, where he placed on real naïve participants in a room with seven confederates (actors), who had agreed their answers in advance. The real participant was deceived and was led to believe that the other seven people were also real participants. The real participant always sat second to last.

In turn, each person had to say out loud which line (A, B or C) was most like the target line in length.

Unlike Jenness’ experiment , the correct answer was always obvious. Each participant completed 18 trials and the confederates gave the same incorrect answer on 12 trials, called critical trials. Asch wanted to see if the real participant would conform to the majority view, even when the answer was clearly incorrect.

Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, the real participants conformed to the incorrect answers on 32% of the critical trials. 74% of the participants conformed on at least one critical trial and 26% of the participants never conformed. Asch also used a control group, in which one real participant completed the same experiment without any confederates. He found that less than 1% of the participants gave an incorrect answer.

Asch interviewed his participants after the experiment to find out why they conformed. Most of the participants said that they knew their answers were incorrect, but they went along with the group in order to fit in, or because they thought they would be ridiculed. This confirms that participants conformed due to normative social influence and the desire to fit in.

Evaluation of Asch

Asch used a biased sample of 50 male students from Swarthmore College in America. Therefore, we cannot generalise the results to other populations, for example female students, and we are unable to conclude if female students would have conformed in a similar way to male students. As a result Asch’s sample lacks population validity and further research is required to determine whether males and females conform differently

Furthermore, it could be argued that Asch’s experiment has low levels of ecological validity . Asch’s test of conformity, a line judgement task, is an artificial task, which does not reflect conformity in everyday life. Consequently, we are unable to generalise the results of Asch to other real life situations, such as why people may start smoking or drinking around friends, and therefore these results are limited in their application to everyday life.

Finally, Asch’s research is ethically questionable. He broke several ethical guidelines , including: deception and protection from harm . Asch deliberately deceived his participants, saying that they were taking part in a vision test and not an experiment on conformity. Although it is seen as unethical to deceive participants, Asch’s experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results. If the participants were aware of the true aim they would have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently. In addition, Asch’s participants were not protected from psychological harm and many of the participants reporting feeling stressed when they disagreed with the majority. However, Asch interviewed all of his participants following the experiment to overcome this issue.

• Normative Social Influence
• Task Difficulty

You might also like

Ethics and psychology, role of social influence processes in social change, explanations for obedience - milgram (1963), ​misleading information – post-event discussion, free resource: creating evaluation burgers in the classroom.

12th January 2017

Conformity in Action: Why Our Friends Want Us to Drink?

18th January 2017

Conformity & Minority Influence: Example Answer Video for A Level SAM 2, Paper 1, Q3 (7 Marks)

Topic Videos

Explanations for Conformity Application Essay: Example Answer Video for A Level SAM 3, Paper 1, Q3 (16 Marks)

Our subjects.

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Understanding Conformity: Normative vs. Informational Social Influence

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Deutsch and Gerrard (1955) identified two reasons why people conform :

• Normative social influence prompts individuals to conform to group norms to fit in, gain acceptance, and feel good.
• Informational social influence leads people to conform, believing the group possesses competent and correct information, especially in ambiguous situations or tasks.

Normative Influence

Normative social influence is where a person conforms to fit in with the group because they don’t want to appear foolish or be left out.

The person conforms to group pressure because they are scared of being rejected by the group.

Normative social influence is usually associated with compliance, where a person changes their public behavior but not their private beliefs. This means any change of behavior is temporary.

The human need for affiliation and acceptance in social groups drives normative influence. It can cause individuals to adopt behaviors, attitudes, or values that they might not personally hold to fit in or to avoid disapproval from the group.

This theory plays a fundamental role in understanding group dynamics and social behavior, illustrating how the fear of social rejection can significantly influence individual behaviors and decisions.

• Peer Pressure : A person may feel pressured to smoke because the rest of their friends are. They conform to the group behavior, not out of personal desire but to gain acceptance and avoid social exclusion. Normative social influence tends to lead to compliance because the person smokes just for show, but deep down, they wish not to smoke.
• Fashion Trends : When people follow fashion trends that they don’t necessarily like, it shows the desire to fit in with societal expectations and the fear of standing out or being viewed as different, key aspects of normative social influence.
• Social Media Likes : The trend of posting content on social media that aligns with popular sentiment, even if it doesn’t reflect one’s true opinion, demonstrates the power of normative social influence, as individuals modify their behavior to meet the expectations of the online community and gain social approval.

Asch Line Study

In the experiment, participants were shown a target line and asked to select the line (out of three options) that matched its length.

However, each group was mostly comprised of confederates of the experimenter who intentionally selected the wrong line. The actual participant was placed last or near the end in the order of responses.

Despite the obvious answer, Asch found many participants conformed to the incorrect majority answer.

Even though participants knew the group’s choice was incorrect, they conformed to avoid the discomfort of disagreeing with the group or standing out.

When the participants were interviewed after the experiment, most said that they did not believe their conforming answers but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought “peculiar.

This study demonstrated the power of normative influence, as individuals were willing to contradict their senses to conform to the group.

Informational Influence

Informational social influence refers to the tendency to conform to what others are doing or saying because we perceive them as a source of accurate information, particularly in ambiguous or uncertain situations.

Informational social influence is where a person conforms because they have the desire to be right and look to others who they believe may have more information. People may experience an ambiguous (i.e., unclear) situation and socially compare their behavior with the group.

This type of conformity occurs when a person is unsure of a situation or lacks knowledge and is associated with internalization. This theory highlights how the desire to make correct or appropriate decisions can lead to social conformity.

Individuals publicly change their behavior to fit in with the group while agreeing with them privately. An internal (private) and external (public) change of behavior.

This is the deepest level of conformity, where the group’s beliefs become part of the individual’s belief system.

• Ambiguous Situations : An example of this is if someone was to go to a posh restaurant for the first time, they might be confronted with several forks and not know which one to use, so they might look to a nearby person to see what fork to use first.
• Emergency Situations : In emergencies, people often look to others to determine how to respond. If everyone else is calm, a person is likely to conclude that the situation isn’t serious, whereas if people are panicking, the person will likely perceive the situation as serious.
• Public Health Crises : During public health crises, people often rely on information from health officials, government leaders, and peers to determine how to protect themselves, reflecting informational social influence.
• Asking for Directions : When lost, people usually ask locals for directions as they are assumed to have accurate information about the area.
• Learning a New Job : When starting a new job, people often look to coworkers for cues on how to behave, especially when unsure of the rules or expectations.

Sherif’s Autokinetic Effect Experiment

In this classic study, participants were shown a stationary pinpoint of light in a dark room and asked to estimate how far the light moved.

When individuals made estimates in a group, their estimates converged, illustrating informational social influence as they used others’ estimates as a guide in an ambiguous situation.

Jenness’ Bean Jar Experiment

Jenness conducted a study on conformity where participants were asked to estimate the number of beans in a jar. Initially, each participant made an individual estimate, and then, they estimated it as a group.

His findings indicated that when the task was performed within a social group, participants’ estimates converged to a similar value, despite their initial individual estimates varying significantly.

This study effectively demonstrated the influence of the majority, proving that a group can impact individuals’ behaviors and beliefs.

This is likely an instance of informational social influence, as participants would be unsure about the actual number of beans in the jar.

Learning Check

Here are some real-life examples of conformity. For each one, identify the type of conformity that is happening. You should try to explain your answers .

• Sam has just started work in an office. On his second day there, his colleagues discussed asylum seekers coming to the UK. His colleagues thought that they received favorable treatment from the government and that this should stop. Sam doesn’t agree with this view, but when asked what he thought, he said his colleagues were right.
• Parvinder is a police officer. Her friends have remarked that when she is off duty, she is a relaxed and easygoing person, but when she is in uniform, she becomes much more serious and authoritative. It’s almost as if she was two different people.
• Emma is a student. When she first went to university, she made friends with a group of students who were passionate about animal rights. Emma didn’t have strong opinions on animal research then, but over the past few months, she has become very much against it. Now she has joined a campaign against animal research and has started attending public demonstrations with her friends.
• It is Jim’s first day of college, but he arrived late and missed the part where a lecturer told all the new students what they should do during induction. He sees a group of students filing off towards a corridor and decides to follow them.
• Jan and Norah have just finished their first year at university, living in a house with six other students. All the other students were very health conscious and ate only organic food. Jan had listened to their point of view, and now she also eats only organic food.
• Norah was happy to eat organic food while in the house, but when she went home for the holidays she ate whatever her mother cooked. Both girls conformed but for different reasons. Explain which type of conformity each girl was showing.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.)  Groups, leadership and men . Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955).  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment .  The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3) , 629.

Jenness, A. (1932). The role of discussion in changing opinion regarding a matter of fact.   The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 27, 279-296.

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception.  Archives of Psychology , 27(187).

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Biography of Psychologist Solomon Asch

Asch conducted influential experiments on conformity

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Cara Lustik is a fact-checker and copywriter.

Birth and Death

• Asch's Conformity Experiments

Contributions to Psychology

Selected publications.

Solomon Asch was a pioneering 20th century social psychologist who is perhaps best remembered for his research on the psychology of conformity . Asch took a Gestalt approach to the study of social behavior, suggesting that social acts needed to be viewed in terms of their setting. His famous conformity experiment demonstrated that people would change their response due to social pressure in order to conform to the rest of the group.

"The human mind is an organ for the discovery of truths rather than of falsehoods." —Solomon Asch

• Solomon Eliot Asch was born September 14, 1907, in Warsaw, Poland.
• He died February 20, 1996, in Haverford, Pennsylvania at the age of 88.

Solomon Asch was born in Warsaw but emigrated to the United States in 1920 at the age of 13. His family lived in the Lower East Side of Manhattan and he learned English by reading the works of Charles Dickens.

Asch attended the College of the City of New York and graduated with his bachelor's degree in 1928. He then went to Columbia University, where he was mentored by Max Wertheimer and earned his master's degree in 1930 and his PhD in 1932.

Asch's Conformity Experiments

During the early years of World War II when Hitler was at the height of power, Solomon Asch began studying the impact of propaganda and indoctrination while he was a professor at Brooklyn College's psychology department. He also served as a professor for 19 years at Swarthmore College, where he worked with renowned Gestalt psychologist Wolfgang Köhler.

Asch is one of many psychology researchers who generated new ideas about human psychology in response to the events of World War II. Others include Victor Frankl, the father of logotherapy .

It was during the 1950s when Asch became famous for his series of experiments (known as the Asch conformity experiments ) that demonstrated the effects of social pressure on conformity. Just how far would people go to conform to others in a group? Asch's research demonstrated that participants were surprisingly likely to conform to a group, even when they personally believed that the group was incorrect. From 1966 to 1972, Asch held the title of director and distinguished professor of psychology at the Institute for Cognitive Studies at Rutgers University.

Solomon Asch is considered a pioneer of social psychology and Gestalt psychology. His conformity experiments demonstrated the power of social influence and still serve as a source of inspiration for social psychology researchers today. Understanding why people conform and under what circumstances they will go against their own convictions to fit in with the crowd not only helps psychologists understand when conformity is likely to occur but also what can be done to prevent it.

Asch also supervised Stanley Milgram's Ph.D. at Harvard University and inspired Milgram's own highly influential research on obedience . Milgram's work helped demonstrate how far people would go to obey an order from an authority figure.

While Asch's work illustrated how peer pressure influences social behavior (often in negative ways), Asch still believed that people tended to behave decently towards each other. The power of situations and group pressure, however, could often lead to less than ideal behavior and decision-making.

In a 2002 review of some of the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century, Asch was ranked as the 41st most-frequently cited psychologist.

Below are some of Asch's most important published works. His most prominent publications are from the 1950s and the time of his experiments in conformity.

• Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment . In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership, and men . Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
• Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure . Scientific American , 193, 31-35.
• Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority . Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole no. 416).
• Asch, SE (1987). Social Psychology . Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198521723

Morgan TJ, Laland KN. The biological bases of conformity .  Front Neurosci . 2012;6:87. doi:10.3389/fnins.2012.00087

Asch SE. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments . In: Guetzkow H, ed.,  Groups, leadership and men; research in human relations. Pittsburgh PA: Carnegie Press; 1951.

 Swarthmore College.  1951 Psychologist Solomon Asch's Famous Experiments .

University of Pennsylvania. Death of Solomon Asch . Almanac. 1996 ;42:23

McCauley C, Rozin P. Solomon Asch: Scientist and humanist . In: Kimble GA, Wertheimer M, eds.,  Portraits of pioneers in psychology, Vol. 5. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2003.

Milgram S. Behavioral study of obedience .  J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1963;67 (4), 371–378. doi:10.1037/h0040525

Haggbloom SJ, Warnick R, Warnick JE, et al. The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century .  Review of General Psychology . 2002;6(2):139-152. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139

Rock, Irvin, ed. The Legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in Cognition and Social Psychology . Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0805804404; 1990.

• Stout, D. Solomon Asch Is Dead at 88; A Leading Social Psychologist. The New York Times ; 1996.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."