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
Asch Conformity Experiments: Line Study
Exploring how social pressure influences our decisions and perceptions.
By Author Kendra Cherry, MS.Ed.
Categories Social Psychology
In this article
Will people conform to the group’s opinions, even if they disagree? That was the question behind one of the most famous experiments in psychology history. The Asch conformity experiments were a series of studies by social psychologist Solomon Asch during the 1950s. In the studies, Asch sought to learn more about how social pressure could lead to conformity .
In the studies, people were asked to choose a line that matched the length of another line. When the others in the group chose the incorrect line, participants would often conform to the rest of the group, even though they were clearly wrong.
The experiments are classic studies in social psychology, offering important insights into when and why people conform to group norms and pressures.
Key Takeaways: The Asch conformity experiments demonstrated that people often conform to group opinions, even when they know the group is wrong. Factors such as the desire for social acceptance and uncertainty in decision-making contribute to conformity. Group size, status, and whether responses are public or private influence the likelihood of conforming. Despite criticism, Asch’s experiments significantly impacted the understanding of social behavior and group influence in psychology.
The Asch Experiments
In the main version of the experiment, Asch told the participants that they were taking part in a vision test. Each participant was then placed in a group of people who were actually confederates in the study. In other words, they were actors who were involved in the experiment.
The group was shown a line on a card and then another card with several lines of varying lengths. They were asked to pick the line that matched the first line.
It was a simple task. When asked on their own, almost all participants were able to easily perform the task correctly. When they were in the group, and the confederates gave the wrong answers, the participants were often go along with the group.
Results of the Asch Conformity Experiments
The results of the Asch conformity experiments were startling. They revealed that a staggering 75% of the participants conformed to the group at least once. Even more surprising, about 25% never conformed, while 5% conformed every single time.
For the control group, where people faced no social pressure, incorrect responses were given less than 1% of the time.
Explanations for the Results
What explains the high rates of conformity in Asch’s experiments? There are several important psychological factors at work. The reasons people went along with the group even when they knew the others were wrong come down to several reasons:
Normative Social Influence
People have a desire for social acceptance. They want to fit in with the group and prefer not to stand out. By agreeing with the rest of the group, they increase the likelihood of being liked and accepted by others.
The fear of embarrassment can also play a role. Being the only one to voice a different answer comes with the risk of appearing foolish or being ridiculed. Even if people knew they were right, fear of social disapproval caused them to conform.
Informational Social Influence
When making decisions under uncertainty, people often look to other people as a source of information. If other people say one thing is correct, people often assume that others know something they don’t, which is why they conform.
Self-doubt in these situations can also play a role. Once others started choosing the wrong answer, the participants may have started to question their response and wondered if they had overlooked something.
Other Factors That Can Influence Conformity
There are also a number of other factors that can affect the likelihood that people with conform like they did Asch conformity experiments.
These include:
- Group size : Conformity usually increases with group size, at least up to a certain point. When 3 to 5 people are present, there is a lot of pressure to conform. When the number of people exceeds that, conformity typically starts to decline.
- Status : People are more likely to conform if the others in the group are seen as having a higher status, more authority, or greater expertise.
- Privacy of responses : People are more inclined to conform if their responses are public. When responses are private, conformity rates drop.
- Uncertainty and difficulty : If the task is ambiguous or difficult, people are less likely to trust their own judgment. They will often look to others for information and assurance, which increases conformity.
- Group unity : Conformity is higher in very cohesive groups. The stronger the bonds between group members, the more likely people are to conform.
In a 2023 replication of Asch’s conformity experiment, researchers found an error rate of 33%, similar to the one in Asch’s original study. They found that offering monetary incentives helped reduce errors but didn’t eliminate the effects of social influence. The study also found that social influence impacted political opinions, leading to a conformity rate of 38% (Franzen & Mader, 2023).
The study also examined how Big Five personality factors might be linked to conformity. While openness was associated with susceptibility to group pressure, other personality traits were not significantly connected.
One 2018 experiment found that the social delivery of information caused 33% of participants to change their political opinions (Mallinson & Hatemi, 2018).
Critiques of the Asch Conformity Experiments
While influential, the Asch experiments were not without criticism. Some of the main criticisms hinge on the following:
- The impact of demand characteristics : Some critics suggest that some participants may have suspected the study’s real intentions and behaved to meet the experimenter’s expectations.
- Lack of relevance in the real world : Critics also suggest that the experimental setup needed to be more contrived and accurately reflect real-world situations where conformity might occur.
- Cultural factors : The time and place of the experiments (the United States and during the 1950s) may also have contributed to the high conformity rates. During that time, conformity to American norms and values was highly valued. Such characteristics may not be universal to other places and periods.
- Simplified approach: While Asch’s experiments demonstrate one aspect of conformity (normative social influence), they don’t address the many other factors that can contribute to this behavior in real-world settings.
Impact and Contributions of the Asch Conformity Experiments
Asch’s conformity experiments had a major impact on the field of psychology. They helped inspire further research on conformity, compliance, and obedience.
The studies demonstrated that conformity is not just about fear of punishment ; it often comes from a deep psychological need for acceptance and group harmony.
These findings have influenced a wide range of fields, from understanding peer pressure and decision-making in groups to exploring the dynamics of social behavior in various cultural and political contexts. Asch’s experiments remain a cornerstone in social psychology , shaping how we think about the relationships between individual judgment and group influence.
EXPERT PICKS: WHAT TO READ NEXT Classic Psychological Experiments : Explore other well-known psychology experiments. The Robbers Cave Experiment : What would happen if you pitted two groups of kids against one another? Learn more about what researchers discovered. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development : This theory explores the stages and factors that play a role in the development of moral behavior. What Is the Ingroup Bias? People tend to favor those who are in their own social groups, which can affect how they respond to people who are different from them.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority . Psychological Monographs: General and Applied , 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
Franzen, A., & Mader, S. (2023). The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch experiment . PloS one , 18 (11), e0294325. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294325
Levine J. M. (1999). Solomon Asch’s legacy for group research . Personality and Social Psychology Review : An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc , 3 (4), 358–364. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0304_5
Mallinson, D. J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2018). The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change . PloS One , 13 (5), e0196600. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196600
- Science, Tech, Math ›
- Social Sciences ›
- Sociology ›
- Recommended Reading ›
The Asch Conformity Experiments
What Solomon Asch Demonstrated About Social Pressure
- Recommended Reading
- Key Concepts
- Major Sociologists
- News & Issues
- Research, Samples, and Statistics
- Archaeology
The Asch Conformity Experiments, conducted by psychologist Solomon Asch in the 1950s, demonstrated the power of conformity in groups and showed that even simple objective facts cannot withstand the distorting pressure of group influence.
The Experiment
In the experiments, groups of male university students were asked to participate in a perception test. In reality, all but one of the participants were "confederates" (collaborators with the experimenter who only pretended to be participants). The study was about how the remaining student would react to the behavior of the other "participants."
The participants of the experiment (the subject as well as the confederates) were seated in a classroom and were presented with a card with a simple vertical black line drawn on it. Then, they were given a second card with three lines of varying length labeled "A," "B," and "C." One line on the second card was the same length as that on the first, and the other two lines were obviously longer and shorter.
Participants were asked to state out loud in front of each other which line, A, B, or C, matched the length of the line on the first card. In each experimental case, the confederates answered first, and the real participant was seated so that he would answer last. In some cases, the confederates answered correctly, while in others, the answered incorrectly.
Asch's goal was to see if the real participant would be pressured to answer incorrectly in the instances when the Confederates did so, or whether their belief in their own perception and correctness would outweigh the social pressure provided by the responses of the other group members.
Asch found that one-third of real participants gave the same wrong answers as the Confederates at least half the time. Forty percent gave some wrong answers, and only one-fourth gave correct answers in defiance of the pressure to conform to the wrong answers provided by the group.
In interviews he conducted following the trials, Asch found that those that answered incorrectly, in conformance with the group, believed that the answers given by the Confederates were correct, some thought that they were suffering a lapse in perception for originally thinking an answer that differed from the group, while others admitted that they knew that they had the correct answer, but conformed to the incorrect answer because they didn't want to break from the majority.
The Asch experiments have been repeated many times over the years with students and non-students, old and young, and in groups of different sizes and different settings. The results are consistently the same with one-third to one-half of the participants making a judgment contrary to fact, yet in conformity with the group, demonstrating the strong power of social influences.
Connection to Sociology
The results of Asch's experiment resonate with what we know to be true about the nature of social forces and norms in our lives. The behavior and expectations of others shape how we think and act on a daily basis because what we observe among others teaches us what is normal , and expected of us. The results of the study also raise interesting questions and concerns about how knowledge is constructed and disseminated, and how we can address social problems that stem from conformity, among others.
Updated by Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D.
- An Overview of the Book Democracy in America
- The Social Transformation of American Medicine
- McDonaldization: Definition and Overview of the Concept
- Understanding Durkheim's Division of Labor
- Émile Durkheim: "Suicide: A Study in Sociology"
- Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point"
- The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
- Definition of the Sociological Imagination and Overview of the Book
- Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity
- The Main Points of "The Communist Manifesto"
- Overview of The History of Sexuality
- A Book Overview: "The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit Of Capitalism"
- Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools
- 15 Major Sociological Studies and Publications
- Learn About Various Sanctions in Forcing Compliance With Social Norms
- Understanding Resocialization in Sociology
Asch Study Reimagined: Navigating the Labyrinth of Conformity in the Contemporary Mind
Summary: A recent study replicates and extends Solomon Asch’s famous conformity experiments, revealing intriguing insights about human behavior.
The research demonstrates that monetary incentives reduce conformity errors in line-judging tasks, though social influence remains a factor. It also extends Asch’s findings to political opinions, showing a significant rate of conformity.
Interestingly, the study finds that openness, but not other personality traits like intelligence or self-esteem, is inversely related to conformity, challenging long-held assumptions about social influence.
- The study replicated Asch’s experiment with 210 participants, finding a 33% error rate in standard line-judging tasks and a 25% error rate when monetary incentives were involved.
- When examining political opinions, the conformity rate was 38%, suggesting that social influence extends beyond simple perceptual tasks to more complex beliefs.
- Among various personality traits studied, only ‘openness’ from the Big Five was found to be significantly related to lower susceptibility to conformity, contrary to expectations about traits like intelligence or self-esteem.
Source: Neuroscience News
In the realm of social psychology, few experiments have garnered as much attention and debate as Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments from the 1950s. These groundbreaking studies highlighted the compelling power of social influence, showing how individuals could be swayed by group opinions even against their own senses.
Fast-forward to the present, a recent study seeks to revisit these pivotal experiments, offering fresh insights into the dynamics of conformity in today’s context.
The primary aim of the new research was fourfold: to replicate Asch’s original experiment with a contemporary cohort, to assess the impact of monetary incentives on conformity, to extend the exploration of conformity to the domain of political opinions, and to investigate the relationship between various personality traits and the propensity to conform.
Conducted with 210 participants, the study meticulously replicated Asch’s original line-judging task, while introducing nuanced variations to probe deeper into the psychological underpinnings of conformity.
One of the study’s most compelling findings was the persistent influence of social pressure, even when monetary incentives were introduced. While financial rewards did reduce the error rate from 33% to 25% in line-judging tasks, the fact that a significant proportion of participants still conformed to the group’s incorrect judgment underscores the robustness of social influence.
This finding adds a new layer to our understanding of conformity, suggesting that human behavior in group contexts is not solely driven by rational, self-interested calculations but is also significantly influenced by the desire to align with social norms.
Expanding the scope of Asch’s work, the study also ventured into the realm of political opinions. The researchers found a conformity rate of 38%, indicating that social influence extends beyond simple perceptual tasks to the more complex territory of beliefs and opinions.
This extension is particularly relevant in our current era, where political discourse is increasingly polarized and influenced by group dynamics. The findings suggest that the social environment can significantly shape political views, raising important questions about the formation of public opinion and the role of social conformity in political decision-making.
Another intriguing aspect of the study was its exploration of the relationship between personality traits and susceptibility to conformity. Contrary to what one might expect, the research found that traits like intelligence, self-esteem, and the need for social approval were not convincingly related to conformity. The only exception was ‘openness’ from the Big Five personality traits, which showed an inverse relationship with conformity.
This challenges some traditional assumptions about the types of personalities that are more likely to conform and suggests that a willingness to entertain new ideas and experiences might actually buffer against social pressure.
The study also raises critical questions about the universality of Asch’s findings. While the original experiments were predominantly conducted with American student samples, this research, along with other international studies, suggests that the influence of groups on individual judgment is a universal phenomenon, prevalent across different cultures and contexts.
This universality speaks to the fundamental nature of social influence in human psychology and underscores its relevance across diverse social and cultural landscapes.
However, the study is not without limitations. The sample, composed predominantly of students, highlights the need for further research with more diverse participant pools.
Additionally, the study’s participants were strangers, leaving open the question of whether group pressure would be stronger or weaker among acquaintances or friends.
Furthermore, the study’s use of relatively moderate and general political statements raises the question of whether the findings would hold true for more extreme or divisive opinions.
Despite these limitations, the study offers a compelling modern reexamination of Asch’s conformity experiments. It not only reaffirms the enduring power of social influence but also extends our understanding of how this influence manifests in the context of political opinions and the role of personality traits in susceptibility to conformity.
The findings have far-reaching implications for various domains, from understanding group dynamics in organizational settings to the shaping of public opinion in the political arena.
In conclusion, this study not only pays homage to a classic experiment but also propels it into the contemporary era, offering new insights and raising intriguing questions for future research.
It serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between individual psychology and social dynamics, a relationship that continues to fascinate and challenge researchers in the field of social psychology.
About this conformity and social neuroscience research news
Author: Neuroscience News Communications Source: Neuroscience News Contact: Neuroscience News Communications – Neuroscience News Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Open access. “ The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch experiment ” by Axel Franzen et al. PLOS ONE
The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch experiment
In this paper, we pursue four goals: First, we replicate the original Asch experiment with five confederates and one naïve subject in each group (N = 210).
Second, in a randomized trial we incentivize the decisions in the line experiment and demonstrate that monetary incentives lower the error rate, but that social influence is still at work.
Third, we confront subjects with different political statements and show that the power of social influence can be generalized to matters of political opinion.
Finally, we investigate whether intelligence, self-esteem, the need for social approval, and the Big Five are related to the susceptibility to provide conforming answers.
We find an error rate of 33% for the standard length-of-line experiment which replicates the original findings by Asch (1951, 1955, 1956). Furthermore, in the incentivized condition the error rate decreases to 25%.
For political opinions we find a conformity rate of 38%. However, besides openness, none of the investigated personality traits are convincingly related to the susceptibility of group pressure.
One thing I think is worth looking into is of those who showed the trait of openness, what percentage of them were ADHD or Autistic? It seems many people with ADHD or Autism exhibit openness, so I think it would be nice if it could be confirmed that these groups of people actually act as protection against society fully conforming to destructive ideas, because they are less likely to conform.
Comments are closed.
Optimism Boosted by Psilocybin, Hinting at Depression Relief
Immune Response Linked to Lewy Body Formation
Tracking Daily Habits’ Lasting Effects on the Brain
Pioneers in Neural Networks Win 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics
- Bipolar Disorder
- Therapy Center
- When To See a Therapist
- Types of Therapy
- Best Online Therapy
- Best Couples Therapy
- Managing Stress
- Sleep and Dreaming
- Understanding Emotions
- Self-Improvement
- Healthy Relationships
- Student Resources
- Personality Types
- Guided Meditations
- Verywell Mind Insights
- 2024 Verywell Mind 25
- Mental Health in the Classroom
- Editorial Process
- Meet Our Review Board
- Crisis Support
The Most Famous Social Psychology Experiments Ever Performed
Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."
Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.
Social experiments often seek to answer questions about how people behave in groups or how the presence of others impacts individual behavior. Over the years, social psychologists have explored these questions by conducting experiments .
The results of some of the most famous social psychology experiments remain relevant (and often quite controversial) today. Such experiments give us valuable information about human behavior and how group influence can impact our actions in social situations.
At a Glance
Some of the most famous social psychology experiments include Asch's conformity experiments, Bandura's Bobo doll experiments, the Stanford prison experiment, and Milgram's obedience experiments. Some of these studies are quite controversial for various reasons, including how they were conducted, serious ethical concerns, and what their results suggested.
The Asch Conformity Experiments
What do you do when you know you're right but the rest of the group disagrees with you? Do you bow to group pressure?
In a series of famous experiments conducted during the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch demonstrated that people would give the wrong answer on a test to fit in with the rest of the group.
In Asch's famous conformity experiments , people were shown a line and then asked to select a line of a matching length from a group of three. Asch also placed confederates in the group who would intentionally choose the wrong lines.
The results revealed that when other people picked the wrong line, participants were likely to conform and give the same answers as the rest of the group.
What the Results Revealed
While we might like to believe that we would resist group pressure (especially when we know the group is wrong), Asch's results revealed that people are surprisingly susceptible to conformity .
Not only did Asch's experiment teach us a great deal about the power of conformity, but it also inspired a whole host of additional research on how people conform and obey, including Milgram's infamous obedience experiments.
The Bobo Doll Experiment
Does watching violence on television cause children to behave more aggressively? In a series of experiments conducted during the early 1960s, psychologist Albert Bandura set out to investigate the impact of observed aggression on children's behavior.
In his Bobo doll experiments , children would watch an adult interacting with a Bobo doll. In one condition, the adult model behaved passively toward the doll, but in another, the adult would kick, punch, strike, and yell at the doll.
The results revealed that children who watched the adult model behave violently toward the doll were likelier to imitate the aggressive behavior later on.
The Impact of Bandura's Social Psychology Experiment
The debate over the degree to which violence on television, movies, gaming, and other media influences children's behavior continues to rage on today, so it perhaps comes as no surprise that Bandura's findings are still so relevant.
The experiment has also helped inspire hundreds of additional studies exploring the impacts of observed aggression and violence.
The Stanford Prison Experiment
During the early 1970s, Philip Zimbardo set up a fake prison in the basement of the Stanford Psychology Department, recruited participants to play prisoners and guards, and played the role of the prison warden.
The experiment was designed to look at the effect that a prison environment would have on behavior, but it quickly became one of the most famous and controversial experiments of all time.
Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford prison experiment was initially slated to last a full two weeks. It ended after just six days. Why? Because the participants became so enmeshed in their assumed roles, the guards became almost sadistically abusive, and the prisoners became anxious, depressed, and emotionally disturbed.
While the Stanford prison experiment was designed to look at prison behavior, it has since become an emblem of how powerfully people are influenced by situations.
Ethical Concerns
Part of the notoriety stems from the study's treatment of the participants. The subjects were placed in a situation that created considerable psychological distress. So much so that the study had to be halted less than halfway through the experiment.
The study has long been upheld as an example of how people yield to the situation, but critics have suggested that the participants' behavior may have been unduly influenced by Zimbardo himself in his capacity as the mock prison's "warden."
Recent Criticisms
The Stanford prison experiment has long been controversial due to the serious ethical concerns of the research, but more recent evidence casts serious doubts on the study's scientific merits.
An examination of study records indicates participants faked their behavior to either get out of the experiment or "help" prove the researcher's hypothesis. The experimenters also appear to have encouraged certain behaviors to help foster more abusive behavior.
The Milgram Experiments
Following the trial of Adolph Eichmann for war crimes committed during World War II, psychologist Stanley Milgram wanted to better understand why people obey. "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" Milgram wondered.
The results of Milgram's controversial obedience experiments were astonishing and continue to be both thought-provoking and controversial today.
What the Social Psychology Experiment Involved
The study involved ordering participants to deliver increasingly painful shocks to another person. While the victim was simply a confederate pretending to be injured, the participants fully believed that they were giving electrical shocks to the other person.
Even when the victim was protesting or complaining of a heart condition, 65% of the participants continued to deliver painful, possibly fatal shocks on the experimenter's orders.
Obviously, no one wants to believe that they are capable of inflicting pain or torture on another human being simply on the orders of an authority figure. The results of the obedience experiments are disturbing because they reveal that people are much more obedient than they may believe.
Controversy and Recent Criticisms
The study is also controversial because it suffers from ethical concerns, primarily the psychological distress it created for the participants. More recent findings suggest that other problems question the study's findings.
Some participants were coerced into continuing against their wishes. Many participants appeared to have guessed that the learner was faking their responses, and other variations showed that many participants refused to continue the shocks.
What This Means For You
There are many interesting and famous social psychology experiments that can reveal a lot about our understanding of social behavior and influence. However, it is important to be aware of the controversies, limitations, and criticisms of these studies. More recent research may reflect differing results. In some cases, the re-evaluation of classic studies has revealed serious ethical and methodological flaws that call the results into question.
Jeon, HL. The environmental factor within the Solomon Asch Line Test . International Journal of Social Science and Humanity. 2014;4(4):264-268. doi:10.7763/IJSSH.2014.V4.360
Bandura and Bobo . Association for Psychological Science.
Zimbardo, G. The Stanford Prison Experiment: a simulation study on the psychology of imprisonment .
Le Texier T. Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. Am Psychol. 2019;74(7):823-839. doi:10.1037/amp0000401
Blum B. The lifespan of a lie . Medium .
Baker PC. Electric Schlock: Did Stanley Milgram's famous obedience experiments prove anything? Pacific Standard .
Perry G. Deception and illusion in Milgram's accounts of the obedience experiments . Theory Appl Ethics . 2013;2(2):79-92.
By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."
IMAGES
VIDEO