asch's conformity experiment definition

Solomon Asch Conformity Line Experiment Study

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:

Solomon Asch experimented with investigating the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform .

He believed the main problem with Sherif’s (1935) conformity experiment was that there was no correct answer to the ambiguous autokinetic experiment.  How could we be sure that a person conformed when there was no correct answer?

Asch (1951) devised what is now regarded as a classic experiment in social psychology, whereby there was an obvious answer to a line judgment task.

If the participant gave an incorrect answer, it would be clear that this was due to group pressure.

Experimental Procedure

Asch used a lab experiment to study conformity, whereby 50 male students from Swarthmore College in the USA participated in a ‘vision test.’

Using a line judgment task, Asch put a naive participant in a room with seven confederates/stooges. The confederates had agreed in advance what their responses would be when presented with the line task.

The real participant did not know this and was led to believe that the other seven confederates/stooges were also real participants like themselves.

Each person in the room had to state aloud which comparison line (A, B or C) was most like the target line. The answer was always obvious.  The real participant sat at the end of the row and gave his or her answer last.

At the start, all participants (including the confederates) gave the correct answers. However, after a few rounds, the confederates started to provide unanimously incorrect answers.

There were 18 trials in total, and the confederates gave the wrong answer on 12 trials (called the critical trials).  Asch was interested to see if the real participant would conform to the majority view.

Asch’s experiment also had a control condition where there were no confederates, only a “real participant.”

Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed with the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials.

Over the 12 critical trials, about 75% of participants conformed at least once, and 25% of participants never conformed.

In the control group , with no pressure to conform to confederates, less than 1% of participants gave the wrong answer.

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

A few of them said that they did believe the group’s answers were correct.

Apparently, people conform for two main reasons: because they want to fit in with the group ( normative influence ) and because they believe the group is better informed than they are ( informational influence ).

Critical Evaluation

One limitation of the study is that is used a biased sample. All the participants were male students who all belonged to the same age group. This means that the study lacks population validity and that the results cannot be generalized to females or older groups of people.

Another problem is that the experiment used an artificial task to measure conformity – judging line lengths. How often are we faced with making a judgment like the one Asch used, where the answer is plain to see?

This means that the study has low ecological validity and the results cannot be generalized to other real-life situations of conformity. Asch replied that he wanted to investigate a situation where the participants could be in no doubt what the correct answer was. In so doing he could explore the true limits of social influence.

Some critics thought the high levels of conformity found by Asch were a reflection of American, 1950’s culture and told us more about the historical and cultural climate of the USA in the 1950s than then they did about the phenomena of conformity.

In the 1950s America was very conservative, involved in an anti-communist witch-hunt (which became known as McCarthyism) against anyone who was thought to hold sympathetic left-wing views.

Perrin and Spencer

Conformity to American values was expected. Support for this comes from studies in the 1970s and 1980s that show lower conformity rates (e.g., Perrin & Spencer, 1980).

Perrin and Spencer (1980) suggested that the Asch effect was a “child of its time.” They carried out an exact replication of the original Asch experiment using engineering, mathematics, and chemistry students as subjects. They found that in only one out of 396 trials did an observer join the erroneous majority.

Perrin and Spencer argue that a cultural change has taken place in the value placed on conformity and obedience and in the position of students.

In America in the 1950s, students were unobtrusive members of society, whereas now, they occupy a free questioning role.

However, one problem in comparing this study with Asch is that very different types of participants are used. Perrin and Spencer used science and engineering students who might be expected to be more independent by training when it came to making perceptual judgments.

Finally, there are ethical issues : participants were not protected from psychological stress which may occur if they disagreed with the majority.

Evidence that participants in Asch-type situations are highly emotional was obtained by Back et al. (1963) who found that participants in the Asch situation had greatly increased levels of autonomic arousal.

This finding also suggests that they were in a conflict situation, finding it hard to decide whether to report what they saw or to conform to the opinion of others.

Asch also deceived the student volunteers claiming they were taking part in a “vision” test; the real purpose was to see how the “naive” participant would react to the behavior of the confederates. However, deception was necessary to produce valid results.

The clip below is not from the original experiment in 1951, but an acted version for television from the 1970s.

Factors Affecting Conformity

In further trials, Asch (1952, 1956) changed the procedure (i.e., independent variables) to investigate which situational factors influenced the level of conformity (dependent variable).

His results and conclusions are given below:

Asch (1956) found that group size influenced whether subjects conformed. The bigger the majority group (no of confederates), the more people conformed, but only up to a certain point.

With one other person (i.e., confederate) in the group conformity was 3%, with two others it increased to 13%, and with three or more it was 32% (or 1/3).

Optimum conformity effects (32%) were found with a majority of 3. Increasing the size of the majority beyond three did not increase the levels of conformity found. Brown and Byrne (1997) suggest that people might suspect collusion if the majority rises beyond three or four.

According to Hogg & Vaughan (1995), the most robust finding is that conformity reaches its full extent with 3-5 person majority, with additional members having little effect.

Lack of Group Unanimity / Presence of an Ally

The study also found that when any one individual differed from the majority, the power of conformity significantly decreased.

This showed that even a small dissent can reduce the power of a larger group, providing an important insight into how individuals can resist social pressure.

As conformity drops off with five members or more, it may be that it’s the unanimity of the group (the confederates all agree with each other) which is more important than the size of the group.

In another variation of the original experiment, Asch broke up the unanimity (total agreement) of the group by introducing a dissenting confederate.

Asch (1956) found that even the presence of just one confederate that goes against the majority choice can reduce conformity by as much as 80%.

For example, in the original experiment, 32% of participants conformed on the critical trials, whereas when one confederate gave the correct answer on all the critical trials conformity dropped to 5%.

This was supported in a study by Allen and Levine (1968). In their version of the experiment, they introduced a dissenting (disagreeing) confederate wearing thick-rimmed glasses – thus suggesting he was slightly visually impaired.

Even with this seemingly incompetent dissenter, conformity dropped from 97% to 64%. Clearly, the presence of an ally decreases conformity.

The absence of group unanimity lowers overall conformity as participants feel less need for social approval of the group (re: normative conformity).

Difficulty of Task

When the (comparison) lines (e.g., A, B, C) were made more similar in length it was harder to judge the correct answer and conformity increased.

When we are uncertain, it seems we look to others for confirmation. The more difficult the task, the greater the conformity.

Answer in Private

When participants were allowed to answer in private (so the rest of the group does not know their response), conformity decreased.

This is because there are fewer group pressures and normative influence is not as powerful, as there is no fear of rejection from the group.

Frequently Asked Questions

How has the asch conformity line experiment influenced our understanding of conformity.

The Asch conformity line experiment has shown that people are susceptible to conforming to group norms even when those norms are clearly incorrect. This experiment has significantly impacted our understanding of social influence and conformity, highlighting the powerful influence of group pressure on individual behavior.

It has helped researchers to understand the importance of social norms and group dynamics in shaping our beliefs and behaviors and has had a significant impact on the study of social psychology.

What are some real-world examples of conformity?

Examples of conformity in everyday life include following fashion trends, conforming to workplace norms, and adopting the beliefs and values of a particular social group. Other examples include conforming to peer pressure, following cultural traditions and customs, and conforming to societal expectations regarding gender roles and behavior.

Conformity can have both positive and negative effects on individuals and society, depending on the behavior’s context and consequences.

What are some of the negative effects of conformity?

Conformity can have negative effects on individuals and society. It can limit creativity and independent thinking, promote harmful social norms and practices, and prevent personal growth and self-expression.

Conforming to a group can also lead to “groupthink,” where the group prioritizes conformity over critical thinking and decision-making, which can result in poor choices.

Moreover, conformity can spread false information and harmful behavior within a group, as individuals may be afraid to challenge the group’s beliefs or actions.

How does conformity differ from obedience?

Conformity involves adjusting one’s behavior or beliefs to align with the norms of a group, even if those beliefs or behaviors are not consistent with one’s personal views. Obedience , on the other hand, involves following the orders or commands of an authority figure, often without question or critical thinking.

While conformity and obedience involve social influence, obedience is usually a response to an explicit request or demand from an authority figure, whereas conformity is a response to implicit social pressure from a group.

What is the Asch effect?

The Asch Effect is a term coined from the Asch Conformity Experiments conducted by Solomon Asch. It refers to the influence of a group majority on an individual’s judgment or behavior, such that the individual may conform to perceived group norms even when those norms are obviously incorrect or counter to the individual’s initial judgment.

This effect underscores the power of social pressure and the strong human tendency towards conformity in group settings.

What is Solomon Asch’s contribution to psychology?

Solomon Asch significantly contributed to psychology through his studies on social pressure and conformity.

His famous conformity experiments in the 1950s demonstrated how individuals often conform to the majority view, even when clearly incorrect.

His work has been fundamental to understanding social influence and group dynamics’ power in shaping individual behaviors and perceptions.

Allen, V. L., & Levine, J. M. (1968). Social support, dissent and conformity. Sociometry , 138-149.

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. (1952). Group forces in the modification and distortion of judgments.

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.

Back, K. W., Bogdonoff, M. D., Shaw, D. M., & Klein, R. F. (1963). An interpretation of experimental conformity through physiological measures. Behavioral Science, 8(1) , 34.

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.

Longman, W., Vaughan, G., & Hogg, M. (1995). Introduction to social psychology .

Perrin, S., & Spencer, C. (1980). The Asch effect: a child of its time? Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 32, 405-406.

Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension . New York: Harper & Row.

Asch Conformity Experiments: Line Study

Categories Social Psychology

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.

Table of Contents

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.

Related reading:

• Classic Psychological Experiments
• The Robbers Cave Experiment
• Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
• What Is the Ingroup Bias?

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

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

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

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
• Anthrozoology Definition and Explanation
• Age Definition & Explanation
• Appropriation Definition & Explanation
• Class Consciousness Definition & Explanation
• Action Research Definition & Explanation
• Atomism Definition & Explanation
• Arranged Marriage Definition & Explanation
• Anticipatory Socialization Definition and Explanation
• Anthropology Definition & Explanation

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

© Jun 26, 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

Asch's Conformity experiment

Asch's Conformity experiment is a classic social psychology experiment conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s. It demonstrated how individuals tend to conform to group norms, even if those norms go against their own judgment or beliefs.

Related terms

Groupthink : This term refers to the phenomenon where members of a group prioritize harmony and consensus over critical thinking, often resulting in poor decision-making.

Obedience : This term describes compliance with an authority figure's commands or orders, even if they violate personal conscience.

Peer pressure : Peer pressure is when individuals feel influenced by their peers to conform to certain behaviors, beliefs, or attitudes in order to fit in or avoid rejection.

" Asch's Conformity experiment " appears in:

Practice questions ( 2 ).

• Which scenario exemplifies unethical use of Asch's Conformity experiment?
• Which alternative perspective challenges the Asch's conformity experiment by emphasizing individualistic cultures?

© 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.

Decoding Conformity: Alternatives and Consequences in Asch’s Experiments

Table of Contents

Have you ever agreed with a group despite your own differing opinion, simply to avoid standing out? This phenomenon is at the heart of Asch’s conformity experiments, a classic study in social psychology . Solomon Asch ’s experiments from the 1950s still resonate today, revealing the powerful influence of social pressure on our decisions. In this exploration, we’ll unravel the intricate dance between conformity and independence, and the consequences that come with the choices we make under the watchful eye of society.

The Asch Conformity Experiments Explained

Solomon Asch’s experiments placed participants in a group setting where they were asked to compare the length of lines. Unbeknownst to the subject, the group was comprised of actors instructed to give incorrect answers. The true test was whether the subject would conform to the group’s wrong consensus or trust their own perception. The results were startling, with a significant number of participants choosing to conform to the incorrect majority.

The Conflict of Choice: Conformity vs. Independence

Participants in Asch’s study faced a dilemma: conform to the majority and avoid the discomfort of being different, or uphold their independence by trusting their senses despite potential ostracism. This conflict mirrors everyday situations where social influence is at play. Whether it’s following fashion trends or adhering to group ideologies, the tension between fitting in and standing out is a fundamental aspect of human behavior.

Conformity: The Path of Least Resistance

• Fear of Rejection : The discomfort of potential social rejection often leads individuals to conform.
• Desire for Harmony : Aiming for group harmony, individuals may silence their dissenting opinions.
• Uncertainty : In ambiguous situations, looking to others can provide a sense of guidance.

Independence: The Road Less Traveled

• Trust in Perception : Relying on one’s senses can be empowering, affirming self-confidence and judgment.
• Social Costs : Standing against the group may lead to isolation or marginalization.
• personal integrity or individuality.">Long\-term Benefits : Upholding personal integrity can build resilience and foster leadership qualities.

Insights into Human Behavior

The Asch experiments are more than a psychological curiosity; they offer profound insights into human social behavior. Conformity can be seen as a social survival tactic , while independent thought often drives innovation and progress. Understanding this dynamic helps us navigate complex social landscape s, from the workplace to social movements .

Social Pressure in Action

Social pressure is omnipresent, shaping decisions in subtle and overt ways. It can influence voting behavior, consumer choices, and even moral judgments. Recognizing the mechanisms of social influence is the first step toward mindful decision\-making .

The Value of Independent Thought

While conformity often gets a bad rap, independent thought is celebrated as a hallmark of progress. It’s the force behind challenging the status quo , fostering critical thinking , and leading societal change. Encouraging independence can cultivate creativity and innovation in various domains.

Navigating the Social Maze: Strategies for Balancing Conformity and Independence

Finding the balance between conforming for social cohesion and asserting independence for personal integrity is a delicate act. Here are some strategies to navigate this social maze:

Cultivating Self-Awareness

• Reflection : Regularly reflect on decisions to determine if they’re a result of personal belief or social pressure.
• Self-Confidence : Building self-confidence can reduce the need for external validation.

Developing Critical Thinking

• Questioning Norms : Learn to question social norms and consider the rationale behind them.
• Seeking Information : Gather diverse opinions and information to make well-informed decisions.

Choosing Your Battles

• Prioritization : Not all situations require taking a stand. Choose the moments when independence is most valuable.
• Impact Assessment : Consider the potential impact of conformity versus independence on personal and social levels.

The legacy of Asch’s conformity experiments endures because it shines a light on the human condition. Our choices, whether swayed by the group or guided by our convictions, define us and the society we live in. By understanding the dynamics of conformity and independence, we can better navigate the social pressures that shape our lives and make decisions that align with our values and beliefs.

What do you think? Have you ever found yourself conforming to a group against your better judgment? How do you strike a balance between fitting in and standing out? Share your experiences and thoughts on the fine line between conformity and independence.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Submit a Comment 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.

Submit Comment

Social Psychology

1 Definition, Concept and Research Methods in Social Psychology

• Definition and Concept of Social Psychology
• Research Methods in Social Psychology
• Experimental Methods
• Non-Experimental Methods
• Other Research Methods
• Research Ethics

2 Historical Perspective of Social Psychology, Social Psychology and Other Related Disciplines

• Historical Perspective
• Landmarks in the History of Social Psychology
• Social Psychology and Other Related Disciplines
• Significance of Social Psychology Today

3 Social and Person Perception – Definition, Description and Functional Factors

• Social Cognition – Description and Nature
• Social Perception – Definition
• Understanding Temporary States
• Understanding of the Most Permanent or Lasting Characteristics – Attributions
• Impression Formation
• Implicit Personality Theory
• Person Perception
• Social Categorisation

4 Cognitive Basis and Dynamics of Social Perception and Person Perception

• Cognitive and Motivational Basis of Social and Person Perception
• Bias in Attribution
• Role of Emotions and Motivation in Information Processing
• Motivated Person Perception
• Effect of Cognitive and Emotional States

5 Definition, Concept, Description, Characteristic of Attitude

• Defining Attitudes
• Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs
• Formation of Attitudes
• Functions of Attitudes

6 Components of Attitude

• ABCs of Attitudes
• Properties of Attitudes

7 Predicting Behaviour from Attitude

• Relationship between Attitude and Behaviour
• Attitudes Predict Behaviour
• Attitudes Determine Behaviour?
• Behaviour Determine Attitudes

8 Effecting Attitudinal Change and Cognitive Dissonance Theory, Compliance of Self-perception Theory, Self-affirmation

• Self Presentation
• Cognitive Dissonance
• Self Perception
• Self Affirmation

9 Introduction to Groups- Definition, Characteristics and Types of Groups

• Groups-Definition Meaning and Concepts
• Characteristics Features of Group
• Types of Group
• The Role of Groups

10 Group Process- Social Facilitation, Social Loafing, Group Interaction, Group Polarization and Group Mind

• Social Facilitation
• Social Loafing
• Group Interaction
• Group Polarization

11 Group Behaviour- Influence of Norms, Status and Roles; Introduction to Crowd Behavioural Theory, Crowd Psychology (Classical and Convergence Theories)

• Human Behaviour in Groups
• Influence of Norms Status and Roles
• Crowd Behavioural Theory
• Crowd Psychology

12 Crowd Psychology- Collective Consciousness and Collective Hysteria

• Crowd: Definition and Characteristics
• Crowd Psychology: Definition and Characteristics
• Collective Behaviour
• Collective Hysteria

13 Definition of Norms, Social Norms, Need and Characteristics Features of Norms

• Meaning of Norms
• Types of Norms
• Violation of Social Norms
• Need and Importance of Social Norms
• Characteristic Features of Social Norms

14 Norm Formation, Factors Influencing Norms, Enforcement of Norms, Norm Formation and Social Conformity

• Norm Formation
• Factors Influencing Norm Formation
• Enforcement of Norms
• Social Conformity

15 Autokinetic Experiment in Norm Formation

• Autokinetic Effect
• Sherif’s Experiment
• Salient Features of Sherif’s Autokinetic Experiments
• Critical Appraisal
• Related Latest Research on Norm Formation

16 Norms and Conformity- Asch’s Line of Length Experiments

• Solomon E. Asch – A Leading Social Psychologist
• Line and Length Experiments
• Alternatives Available with Probable Consequences
• Explanation of the Yielding Behaviour
• Variants in Asch’s Experiments
• Salient Features
• Related Research on Asch’s Findings

Share on Mastodon

Asch & Variables for Conformity ( AQA A Level Psychology )

Revision note.

Head of Humanities & Social Sciences

Asch & Variables for Conformity

Variables affecting conformity include group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch.

Asch 1951:  A classic study of conformity

Asch wanted to investigate whether people would conform to the majority in situations where an answer was obvious

• Participants were tested in groups of 6 to 8 
• Each group was presented with a standard line and three comparison lines
• Participants had to say aloud which comparison line matched the standard line in length
• In each group there was only one genuine (naive) participant the remaining were confederates
• The genuine participant was seated second to last and did not know the other participants were fake participants
• The fake confederate participants all gave the same incorrect answer
• Confederates were told to give the incorrect answer on 12 out of 18 trails
• Genuine participants conformed a third of the time
• 75% of the sample conformed to the majority on at least one trial
• 25% of participants never gave a wrong answer, which shows there were individual differences

Artificial situation and task 

• One limitation of Asch's reach is that it is artificial in both task and situation
• Participants may have gone along with what was expected as they knew they were in a research study (Demand Characteristics) 
• The task was trivial and did not impact the participants in their 'real life', which means there was no reason not to conform
• Findings do not generalise to real-world situations, especially where there could be important consequences to conformity

Limited application 

• Another limitation, Asch's participants were all men from the USA 
• Other research has suggested that women may be more conformist due to their concern with social relationships 
• The USA is an individualist culture (where people are concerned with themselves as the individual more so than in collectivist cultures where they are concerned with their social groups)
• Findings tell us little about how women or those from other cultures may confirm

Research support 

• One strength of Asch's research is it has been supported by other studies
• Lucas et al (2006) asked participants to solve easy and hard maths problems and found participants conformed to the wrong answer more often when the problems were hard
• This supports Asch's claim that task difficulty is one variable that effects conformity
• However, Lucas et al (2006) also found that conformity is more complex than suggested by Asch
• They found individual-level factors can influence conformity and those who were confident in their maths skills were less likely to conform
• Asch did not research the roles of individual factors 

Ethical issues

• The genuine (naive) participants were deceived as they thought the confederates were also participants
• However, it can be argued that this ethical cost does not outweigh the findings of the research

On a 16-mark question, you will be expected to describe Asch's study before evaluating it.

Keep this clear and concise to allow for the development of the evaluation.

You've read 0 of your 10 free revision notes

Get unlimited access.

to absolutely everything:

• Downloadable PDFs
• Unlimited Revision Notes
• Topic Questions
• Past Papers
• Model Answers
• Videos (Maths and Science)

Join the 100,000 + Students that ❤️ Save My Exams

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

Did this page help you?

Author: Jenna

Jenna studied at Cardiff University before training to become a science teacher at the University of Bath specialising in Biology (although she loves teaching all three sciences at GCSE level!). Teaching is her passion, and with 10 years experience teaching across a wide range of specifications – from GCSE and A Level Biology in the UK to IGCSE and IB Biology internationally – she knows what is required to pass those Biology exams.

• 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
• Sweepstakes
• 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

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."

• Mental Health
• Social Psychology
• Cognitive Science
• Psychopharmacology
• Neuroscience

Scientists revisit Solomon Asch’s classic conformity experiments — and are stunned by the results

(Photo credit: OpenAI's DALL·E)

In a compelling revival of a classic social psychology experiment, a new study has found that group pressure significantly influences individual decisions, not just in simple tasks but also in expressing political opinions. This modern replication and extension of Solomon Asch’s famed experiments of the 1950s provides new insights into human behavior. The findings appear in the journal PLOS One .

Over 70 years ago, Solomon Asch conducted a series of groundbreaking experiments that fundamentally changed our understanding of conformity. Asch’s experiment was straightforward but powerful. He invited individuals to participate in a group task where they had to match line lengths.

Unbeknownst to the main participant, the rest of the group were confederates — people in on the experiment. These confederates gave deliberately wrong answers to see if the participant would conform to the group’s incorrect consensus or trust their own judgment. Astonishingly, Asch found that a significant number of people chose to conform to the obviously wrong group decision rather than rely on their own perceptions.

Fast forward to the present, and researchers at the University of Bern decided to revisit and expand upon Asch’s seminal work. Their motivation was twofold. Firstly, they wanted to see if Asch’s findings, primarily conducted with American students, still held true in a different cultural and temporal context. Secondly, they were curious to explore the impact of monetary incentives on decisions and how this dynamic plays out in more complex decision-making areas like political opinions.

“The study of Solomon Asch is a classic study that has attracted a lot of attention for a long time in the social sciences,” explained study authors Axel Franzen and Sebastian Mader , a professor and a postdoctoral researcher, respectively, at the university’s Institute of Sociology . “The Asch experiment is part of the class ‘classical studies of empirical social research’ which we teach regularly at the University of Bern in Switzerland. Since the results of Asch look very impressive we were often wondering whether they still hold today or whether it is a phenomenon of the United States during the 1950s.

“There was also a lot of discussion about replicability in psychology and in the social sciences in general. Hence, we decided that it might be a good idea to conduct a replication of Asch. Moreover, we were sitting in our home offices during the COVID-19 pandemic observing many governments and many people thinking and doing the same thing. This inspired us to investigate conformity.

The researchers designed a three-part experiment involving 210 participants, mainly students from the University of Bern. The first part replicated Asch’s line length judgment task, with a twist. In addition to the original format (now the non-incentivized group), they introduced a group where correct answers were monetarily rewarded (the incentivized group).

In the second part, participants were presented with political statements and asked to express their agreement or disagreement, again in the presence of confederates who had predetermined responses. The final part involved an online questionnaire designed to measure various traits, including the Big Five personality dimensions, self-esteem, intelligence, and the need for social approval.

The study’s findings were striking in their similarity to Asch’s original results. In the non-incentivized group, the average error rate in the line judgment task was 33%, closely mirroring Asch’s findings. However, in the incentivized group, the error rate dropped to 25%. This suggests that while financial rewards can reduce the impact of group pressure, they do not eliminate it.

“When we started the study, we could not imagine to be able to replicate the original findings as close as it turned out,” Franzen and Mader told PsyPost. “We thought Asch’s findings were overstated. We also believed that providing incentives for correct answers would wipe out the conformity effect. Both did not happen. The replication turned out to be very close to the original results and providing monetary incentives did not eliminate the effect of social pressure.”

In terms of political opinions, the experiment revealed that group pressure significantly influenced participants’ responses to political statements. An average conformity rate of 38% was observed. This extension of Asch’s work into the realm of opinion demonstrates the broader applicability of his findings beyond simple perceptual tasks.

As for personality traits, the results indicated that openness was the only trait among the Big Five that had a significant correlation with conformity levels. Individuals who scored higher on the openness trait tended to conform less to the group’s incorrect answers in the line judgment task. This suggests that people who are more open-minded and independent in their thinking are less likely to be swayed by the opinions or judgments of others, even when faced with the pressure of a unanimous group decision.

Other traits, including intelligence, self-esteem, and the need for social approval, showed no substantial impact on the tendency to conform.

Regarding what people should take away from the findings, the researchers remarked: “Here we like to cite Mark Twain, ‘Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'”

While the study offers valuable insights, it’s important to note its limitations. Primarily, the participants were university students, which may not represent the broader population. Future research with more diverse demographics could provide a more comprehensive understanding of conformity across different social backgrounds and age groups.

Additionally, the study raises intriguing questions for further exploration. For instance, would the results hold in a group of friends or acquaintances rather than strangers? How might larger monetary incentives impact conformity? Would the findings be similar for more extreme or personally relevant political statements?

“Our research leaves much room for further studies: For example, we also used a student sample,” Franzen and Mader explained. “Hence, it would be nice to demonstrate the power of conformity with non-student samples. Such an extension would also allow to study the effect of age, education, social class, and occupations on the susceptibility to conformity. Furthermore, our monetary incentives were small, giving rise to the question whether lager incentives further decrease the level of conformity. There are also other forms of incentives, e.g. social reputation, which are interesting to study further.”

The study, “ The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch experiment “, was published November 29, 2023.

Gender inequality varies widely across U.S. states, linked to differences in #MeToo engagement

Researchers developed a state-level Gender Inequality Index to compare gender disparities across U.S. states. They found that gender inequality is linked to poorer health, financial well-being, life satisfaction, and lower engagement in the #MeToo movement.

Symbiosexuality: New study validates attraction to established couples as a real phenomenon

New research sheds light on symbiosexuality, a phenomenon where individuals are attracted to the dynamics within the established relationships of others. This surprising and often overlooked form of attraction challenges traditional views on human desire.

Surprisingly strong link found between political party affiliation and sleep quality

A study reveals that political party affiliation influences sleep quality, with Republicans in Arizona sleeping better than Democrats and Independents, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

People adopt anti-establishment attitudes when they feel threatened, study suggests

Four studies found that both realistic and symbolic threats predict anti-establishment attitudes, including conspiracy beliefs and populist views. The research suggests that generalized anxiety, regardless of its source, is linked to stronger anti-establishment sentiments.

Democrats rarely have Republicans as romantic partners and vice versa, study finds

A recent study found that politically dissimilar couples are rare in the U.S., with most partners sharing the same political views. Politically similar couples are more religious, politically extreme, and report slightly higher relationship quality than dissimilar couples.

People with dark personality traits are more likely to have irrational work beliefs

New research reveals that dark personality traits like Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy are linked to irrational work beliefs, such as fear of failure and obsessive control.

Trump’s Facebook posts tended to elicit positive emotions, even when they were antagonistic, study finds

A new study indicates that Facebook posts from populist politicians and hyper-partisan media elicit high levels of anger, except for Donald Trump, whose posts predominantly garnered positive reactions, including "love," despite often delivering antagonistic messages.

Narcissists, psychopaths, and sadists often believe they are morally superior

New research has found that individuals with traits like narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism often believe they are morally superior to others, despite engaging in immoral behavior.

STAY CONNECTED

Students with concentration issues turn to chatgpt and similar ai tools, study finds, high-intensity interval training might help with premature ejaculation, study reveals extreme surge in suicidal ideation following robin williams’ death, how artists’ unique cognitive skills enhance their drawing abilities, mothers adhering to healthy dietary patterns at lower risk of having children with autism, gut health tied to psychological resilience: new research reveals gut-brain stress connection.

• Privacy policy
• Terms and Conditions

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Remember Me

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Add New Playlist

- Select Visibility - Public Private

• Cognitive Science Research
• Mental Health Research
• Social Psychology Research
• Drug Research
• Relationship Research
• About PsyPost
• Privacy Policy