asch conformity experiment examples

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.

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.

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

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

6.5C: The Asch Experiment- The Power of Peer Pressure

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 8114

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$

$ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$

$ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$

$ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

$ \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} $

The Asch conformity experiments were a series of studies conducted in the 1950s that demonstrated the power of conformity in groups.

Learning Objectives

Explain how the Asch experiment sought to measure conformity in groups
The Asch conformity experiments consisted of a group “vision test”, where study participants were found to be more likely to conform to obviously wrong answers if first given by other “participants”, who were actually working for the experimenter.
The experiment found that over a third of subjects conformed to giving a wrong answer.

In terms of gender, males show around half the effect of females (tested in same-sex groups). Conformity is also higher among members of an in-group.

conformity : the ideology of adhering to one standard or social uniformity

Conducted by social psychologist Solomon Asch of Swarthmore College, the Asch conformity experiments were a series of studies published in the 1950s that demonstrated the power of conformity in groups. They are also known as the Asch paradigm. In the experiment, students were asked to participate in a group “vision test. ” In reality, all but one of the participants were working for Asch (i.e. confederates), and the study was really about how the remaining student would react to their behavior.

The original experiment was conducted with 123 male participants. Each participant was put into a group with five to seven confederates. The participants were shown a card with a line on it (the reference line), followed by another card with three lines on it labeled a, b, and c. The participants were then asked to say out loud which of the three lines matched in length the reference line, as well as other responses such as the length of the reference line to an everyday object, which lines were the same length, and so on.

Each line question was called a “trial. ” The “real” participant answered last or next to last. For the first two trials, the subject would feel at ease in the experiment, as he and the other “participants” gave the obvious, correct answer. On the third trial, all the confederates would start giving the same wrong answer. There were 18 trials in total and the confederates answered incorrectly for 12 of them. These 12 were known as the “critical trials. ”

The aim was to see whether the real participants would conform to the wrong answers of the confederates and change their answer to respond in the same way, despite it being the wrong answer.

Dr. Asch thought that the majority of people would not conform to something obviously wrong, but the results showed that only 24% of the participants did not conform on any trial. Seventy five percent conformed at least once, 5% conformed every time, and when surrounded by individuals all voicing an incorrect answer, participants provided incorrect responses on a high proportion of the questions (32%). Overall, there was a 37% conformity rate by subjects averaged across all critical trials. In a control group, with no pressure to conform to an erroneous answer, only one subject out of 35 ever gave an incorrect answer.

Study Variations

Variations of the basic paradigm tested how many cohorts were necessary to induce conformity, examining the influence of just one cohort and as many as fifteen. Results indicated that one cohort has virtually no influence and two cohorts have only a small influence. When three or more cohorts are present, the tendency to conform increases only modestly. The maximum effect occurs with four cohorts. Adding additional cohorts does not produce a stronger effect.

The unanimity of the confederates has also been varied. When the confederates are not unanimous in their judgment, even if only one confederate voices a different opinion, participants are much more likely to resist the urge to conform (only 5% to 10% conform) than when the confederates all agree. This result holds whether or not the dissenting confederate gives the correct answer. As long as the dissenting confederate gives an answer that is different from the majority, participants are more likely to give the correct answer.

This finding illuminates the power that even a small dissenting minority can have upon a larger group. This demonstrates the importance of privacy in answering important and life-changing questions, so that people do not feel pressured to conform. For example, anonymous surveys can allow people to fully express how they feel about a particular subject without fear of retribution or retaliation from others in the group or the larger society. Having a witness or ally (someone who agrees with the point of view) also makes it less likely that conformity will occur.

Interpretations

Asch suggested that this reflected poorly on factors such as education, which he thought must over-train conformity. Other researchers have argued that it is rational to use other people’s judgments as evidence. Others have suggested that the high conformity rate was due to social norms regarding politeness, which is consistent with subjects’ own claims that they did not actually believe the others’ judgments and were indeed merely conforming.

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.

15 Major Sociological Studies and Publications
The Milgram Experiment: How Far Will You Go to Obey an Order?
What Is the Schachter-Singer Theory of Emotion?
High School Science Experiment Ideas
What are Controlled Experiments?
What Is Stereotype Threat?
Diffusion of Responsibility: Definition and Examples in Psychology
Flashbulb Memory: Definition and Examples
What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
Adult Ice Breaker Games for Classrooms, Meetings, and Conferences
Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Definition and Examples
What Is the Mere Exposure Effect in Psychology?
What Is Theory of Mind in Psychology?
What Is the Zeigarnik Effect? Definition and Examples
What Is Cognitive Bias? Definition and Examples
10 Common Test Mistakes

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

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

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

Exploring Variations in Conformity: Asch’s Experimental Insights

Table of Contents

Have you ever wondered why people often conform to the group, even when they know the group might be wrong? The answer to this intriguing question lies within the realm of social psychology , particularly in the landmark studies conducted by conformity .">Solomon Asch in the 1950s. Asch’s experiments on conformity are classic examples of how our social environment can influence individual behavior. But what happens when variables within these social environments change? That’s exactly what Asch sought to discover in the variants of his original experiment.

Asch’s Conformity Experiments: The Core Concept

To truly appreciate the complexity of Asch’s findings, it’s essential to understand the bedrock of his original experiment. Participants were asked to match the length of a line on one card to one of three lines on another card. The catch? The participants were seated alongside confederates who, unbeknownst to the real participants, were instructed to give incorrect answers. Astonishingly, many participants conformed to the majority’s incorrect choice, revealing the powerful force of group influence.

The Impact of Majority Size on Conformity

But how does the size of the majority affect an individual’s likelihood to conform? Asch’s variations found some fascinating patterns:

The Snowball Effect : With one confederate, conformity was negligible. Add another, and the rates increased slightly. It was with three confederates that conformity rates began to snowball, reaching about 30%.
Plateau of Conformity : Interestingly, beyond three confederates, additional numbers did not significantly increase conformity. This plateau suggests a limit to how much the mere number of people can sway an individual’s judgment.

When A Dissenter is Present

Equally intriguing is what happened when a dissenter was added to the mix. Picture this: you’re the test subject, and now, amongst the chorus of wrong answers, there’s another voice that disagrees with the majority – but also with you. This presence of a dissenting opinion had a remarkable effect:

Reduction in Conformity: Even when the dissenter’s answer was different from both the majority and the correct answer, conformity rates dropped dramatically. This suggests that the mere presence of dissent can empower individuals to express their own views.

Understanding the Nuances of Group Dynamics

The variations in Asch’s experiments open a window into the nuanced ways that group dynamics can influence our behavior. It highlights the complexity of conformity, showing that it’s not simply a matter of following the crowd but rather a nuanced interplay of factors. Let’s dig deeper into what these findings mean for our understanding of social behavior:

Social Support : The presence of a single ally can provide the social support necessary to resist the pull of the majority. It’s as if having just one person who shares our view, no matter how different, can give us the courage to stand firm in our convictions.
Breaking the Unanimity : The unanimous agreement of a group has a compelling effect on an individual’s willingness to conform. However, when unanimity is broken, it appears to liberate individuals from the pressure to conform, allowing for greater expression of personal judgment.

Further Implications of Asch’s Findings

Asch’s experiments go far beyond the psychology classroom – they have real-world implications. In settings such as boardrooms, juries, or even social gatherings, the dynamics of conformity play a crucial role. Understanding these dynamics can help foster environments that encourage diverse opinions and critical thinking.

Conformity in the Modern World: A Contemporary Perspective

While Asch’s experiments took place over half a century ago, their implications resonate today more than ever. In a world where social media echo chambers and groupthink are pervasive, these experiments prompt us to ask critical questions about our own behavior:

Online Echo Chambers: Just like in Asch’s experiments, online platforms can create environments where the majority opinion drowns out dissenting voices, potentially leading to conformity without critical evaluation.
Cultural Shifts: Cultural values around individualism and collectivism may also impact conformity rates. How do these play out across different societies and contexts in today’s globalized world?

Applying Asch’s Insights to Everyday Life

Understanding the insights from Asch’s experiments can empower us to navigate social situations more mindfully. It urges us to be aware of the potential for conformity and to actively seek out and consider dissenting opinions. By doing so, we can make more informed decisions and encourage a more open and thoughtful society.

Asch’s conformity experiments, particularly the variants, reveal much about the human psyche and the power of social influence. These studies not only illuminate the conditions under which we’re likely to conform but also the tremendous impact that even a single dissenter can have. By exploring these variations, we gain a deeper understanding of the forces that shape our decisions and behaviors in a group context.

What do you think? How do you see Asch’s findings playing out in today’s digital age? Do you think the presence of dissenting opinions is valued in the online communities you’re part of?

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

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.

Type of Social Influence	Description
Conformity	Changing your behavior to go along with the group even if you do not agree with the group
Compliance	Going along with a request or demand
Normative social influence	Conformity to a group norm to fit in, feel good, and be accepted by the group
Informational social influence	Conformity to a group norm prompted by the belief that the group is competent and has the correct information
Obedience	Changing your behavior to please an authority figure or to avoid aversive consequences
Groupthink	Tendency to prioritize group cohesion over critical thinking that might lead to poor decision making; more likely to occur when there is perceived unanimity among the group
Group polarization	Strengthening of the original group attitude after discussing views within a group
Social loafing	Exertion of less effort by a person working in a group because individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group, thus causing performance decline on easy tasks
Deindividuation	Group situation in which a person may feel a sense of anonymity and a resulting reduction in accountability and sense of self

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

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

© Jan 6, 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.

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.

Similarity Doesn’t Guarantee Empathy: Rethinking Double-Empathy Theory

ADHD Medications Improve Long-Term Cognitive Function

Pet Ownership Boosts Men’s Empathy Towards Animals

This shows blue pills in an old man's hand.

Viagra Shows Promise in Boosting Brain Blood Flow for Dementia Prevention

73 Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience

[latexpage]

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

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 ( [link] ). 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.

A drawing has two boxes: in the first is a line labeled “x” and in the second are three lines of different lengths from each other, labeled “a,” “b,” and “c.”

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

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 ( [link] ). 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.

A photograph shows a row of curtained voting booths; two are occupied by people.

Photograph A shows people seated in an auditorium. Photograph B shows a person crowd surfing.

Watch this video to see a replication of the Asch experiment.

STANLEY MILGRAM’S 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 gave (or 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 ( [link] ). What makes someone obey authority to the point of potentially causing serious harm to another person?

A graph shows the voltage of shock given on the x-axis, and the percentage of participants who delivered voltage on the y-axis. All or nearly all participants delivered slight to moderate shock (15–135 volts); with strong to very strong shock (135–255 volts), the participation percentage dropped to about 80%; with intense to extremely intense shock (255–375 volts), the participation percentage dropped to about 65%; the participation percentage remained at about 65% for severe shock (375–435 volts) and XXX (435–450 volts).

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 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.

When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors 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.

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? Here is a video of Colin Powell discussing the information he had, 10 years after his famous United Nations speech,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU6KMYlDyWc (“Colin Powell regrets,” 2011).

Do you see evidence of groupthink?

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)

GROUP POLARIZATION

Social Facilitation

Not all intergroup interactions lead to the negative outcomes we have described. Sometimes being in a group situation can improve performance. Social facilitation occurs when an individual performs better when an audience is watching than when the individual performs the behavior alone. This typically occurs when people are performing a task for which they are skilled. Can you think of an example in which having an audience could improve performance? One common example is sports. Skilled basketball players will be more likely to make a free throw basket when surrounded by a cheering audience than when playing alone in the gym ( [link] ). However, there are instances when even skilled athletes can have difficulty under pressure. For example, if an athlete is less skilled or nervous about making a free throw, having an audience may actually hinder rather than help. In sum, social facilitation is likely to occur for easy tasks, or tasks at which we are skilled, but worse performance may occur when performing in front of others, depending on the task.

Social Loafing

Another way in which a group presence can affect our performance is social loafing. Social loafing is the exertion of less effort by a person working together with a group. Social loafing occurs when our individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group. Thus, group performance declines on easy tasks (Karau & Williams, 1993). Essentially individual group members loaf and let other group members pick up the slack. Because each individual’s efforts cannot be evaluated, individuals become less motivated to perform well. For example, consider a group of people cooperating to clean litter from the roadside. Some people will exert a great amount of effort, while others will exert little effort. Yet the entire job gets done, and it may not be obvious who worked hard and who didn’t.

As a college student you may have experienced social loafing while working on a group project. Have you ever had to contribute more than your fair share because your fellow group members weren’t putting in the work? This may happen when a professor assigns a group grade instead of individual grades. If the professor doesn’t know how much effort each student contributed to a project, some students may be inclined to let more conscientious students do more of the work. The chance of social loafing in student work groups increases as the size of the group increases (Shepperd & Taylor, 1999).

Interestingly, the opposite of social loafing occurs when the task is complex and difficult (Bond & Titus, 1983; Geen, 1989). Remember the previous discussion of choking under pressure? This happens when you perform a difficult task and your individual performance can be evaluated. 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). Given what you learned about social loafing, what advice would you give a new professor about how to design group projects? If you suggested that individuals’ efforts should not be evaluated, to prevent the anxiety of choking under pressure, but that the task must be challenging, you have a good understanding of the concepts discussed in this section. Alternatively, you can suggest that individuals’ efforts should be evaluated, but the task should be easy so as to facilitate performance. Good luck trying to convince your professor to only assign easy projects.

[link] summarizes the types of social influence you have learned about in this chapter.

Types of Social Influence
Type of Social Influence	Description
Conformity	Changing your behavior to go along with the group even if you do not agree with the group
Compliance	Going along with a request or demand
Normative social influence	Conformity to a group norm to fit in, feel good, and be accepted by the group
Informational social influence	Conformity to a group norm prompted by the belief that the group is competent and has the correct information
Obedience	Changing your behavior to please an authority figure or to avoid aversive consequences
Groupthink	Group members modify their opinions to match what they believe is the group consensus
Group polarization	Strengthening of the original group attitude after discussing views within a group
Social facilitation	Improved performance when an audience is watching versus when the individual performs the behavior alone
Social loafing	Exertion of less effort by a person working in a group because individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group, thus causing performance decline on easy tasks

The power of the situation can lead people to conform, or go along with the group, even in the face of inaccurate information. Conformity to group norms is driven by two motivations, the desire to fit in and be liked and the desire to be accurate and gain information from the group. Authority figures also have influence over our behaviors, and many people become obedient and follow orders even if the orders are contrary to their personal values. Conformity to group pressures can also result in groupthink, or the faulty decision-making process that results from cohesive group members trying to maintain group harmony. Group situations can improve human behavior through facilitating performance on easy tasks, but inhibiting performance on difficult tasks. The presence of others can also lead to social loafing when individual efforts cannot be evaluated.

Review Questions

In the Asch experiment, participants conformed due to ________ social influence.

informational
inspirational

Under what conditions will informational social influence be more likely?

when individuals want to fit in
when the answer is unclear
when the group has expertise
both b and c

Social loafing occurs when ________.

individual performance cannot be evaluated
the task is easy
both a and b
none of the above

If group members modify their opinions to align with a perceived group consensus, then ________ has occurred.

group cohesion
social facilitation
social loafing

Critical Thinking Questions

Describe how seeking outside opinions can prevent groupthink.

Outsiders can serve as a quality control by offering diverse views and views that may differ from the leader’s opinion. The outsider can also remove the illusion of invincibility by having the group’s action held up to outside scrutiny. An outsider may offer additional information and uncover information that group members withheld.

Compare and contrast social loafing and social facilitation.

In social loafing individual performance cannot be evaluated; however, in social facilitation individual performance can be evaluated. Social loafing and social facilitation both occur for easy or well-known tasks and when individuals are relaxed.

Personal Application Questions

Conduct a conformity study the next time you are in an elevator. After you enter the elevator, stand with your back toward the door. See if others conform to your behavior. Watch this video for a candid camera demonstration of this phenomenon. Did your results turn out as expected?

Most students adamantly state that they would never have turned up the voltage in the Milligram experiment. Do you think you would have refused to shock the learner? Looking at your own past behavior, what evidence suggests that you would go along with the order to increase the voltage?

Share This Book

Increase Font Size

What Is Conformity? Definition, Types, Psychology Research

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:

Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in belief or behavior in order to fit in with a group.

This change is in response to real (involving the physical presence of others) or imagined (involving the pressure of social norms/expectations) group pressure.

Conformity can also be simply defined as “ yielding to group pressures ” (Crutchfield, 1955). Group pressure may take different forms, for example bullying, persuasion, teasing, criticism, etc. Conformity is also known as majority influence (or group pressure).

The term conformity is often used to indicate an agreement to the majority position, brought about either by a desire to ‘ fit in ’ or be liked (normative) or because of a desire to be correct (informational), or simply to conform to a social role (identification).

Jenness (1932) was the first psychologist to study conformity. His experiment was an ambiguous situation involving a glass bottle filled with beans.

He asked participants individually to estimate how many beans the bottle contained. Jenness then put the group in a room with the bottle and asked them to provide a group estimate through discussion.

Participants were then asked to estimate the number on their own again to find whether their initial estimates had altered based on the influence of the majority.

Jenness then interviewed the participants individually again and asked if they would like to change their original estimates or stay with the group’s estimate. Almost all changed their individual guesses to be closer to the group estimate.

However, perhaps the most famous conformity experiment was by Solomon Asch (1951) and his line judgment experiment.

Types of Conformity

Kelman (1958) distinguished between three different types of conformity:

Compliance (or group acceptance)

This occurs “when an individual accepts influence because he hopes to achieve a favorable reaction from another person or group. He adopts the induced behavior because….he expects to gain specific rewards or approval and avoid specific punishment or disapproval by conformity” (Kelman, 1958, p. 53).

In other words, conforming to the majority (publicly) in spite of not really agreeing with them (privately). This is seen in Asch’s line experiment .

Compliance stops when there are no group pressures to conform and is, therefore, a temporary behavior change.

Internalization (genuine acceptance of group norms)

This occurs “when an individual accepts influence because the content of the induced behavior – the ideas and actions of which it is composed – is intrinsically rewarding . He adopts the induced behavior because it is congruent [consistent] with his value system” (Kelman, 1958, p. 53).

Internalization always involves public and private conformity. A person publicly changes their behavior to fit in with the group while also agreeing with them privately.

This is the deepest level of conformity, where the beliefs of the group become part of the individual’s own belief system. This means the change in behavior is permanent. This is seen in Sherif’s autokinetic experiment.

This is most likely to occur when the majority has greater knowledge and members of the minority have little knowledge to challenge the majority’s position.

Identification (or group membership)

This occurs “when an individual accepts influence because he wants to establish or maintain a satisfying self-defining relationship to another person or group” (Kelman, 1958, p. 53).

Individuals conform to the expectations of a social role, e.g., nurses and police officers.

It is similar to compliance as there does not have to be a change in private opinion. A good example is Zimbardo’s Prison Study .

Ingratiational

This is when a person conforms to impress or gain favor/acceptance from other people.

It is similar to normative influence but is motivated by the need for social rewards rather than the threat of rejection, i.e., group pressure does not enter the decision to conform.

Why Do People Conform?

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

Normative Conformity

Yielding to group pressure because a person wants to fit in with the group. E.g., Asch Line Study.
Conforming because the person is scared of being rejected by the group.
This type of conformity usually involves compliance – where a person publicly accepts the views of a group but privately rejects them.

Informational Conformity

This usually occurs when a person lacks knowledge and looks to the group for guidance.
Or when a person is in an ambiguous (i.e., unclear) situation and socially compares their behavior with the group. E.g., Sherif’s Study.
This type of conformity usually involves internalization – where a person accepts the views of the groups and adopts them as an individual.

Conformity Examples

Sherif (1935) autokinetic effect experiment.

Aim : Sherif (1935) conducted an experiment with the aim of demonstrating that people conform to group norms when they are put in an ambiguous (i.e., unclear) situation.

Method : Sherif used a lab experiment to study conformity. He used the autokinetic effect – this is where a small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move even though it is still (i.e., it is a visual illusion).

It was discovered that when participants were individually tested, their estimates of how far the light moved varied considerably (e.g., from 20cm to 80cm).

The participants were then tested in groups of three. Sherif manipulated the composition of the group by putting together two people whose estimate of the light movement when alone was very similar and one person whose estimate was very different. Each person in the group had to say aloud how far they thought the light had moved.

Results : Sherif found that over numerous estimates (trials) of the movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate. The person whose estimate of movement was greatly different from the other two in the group conformed to the view of the other two.

Sherif said that this showed that people would always tend to conform. Rather than make individual judgments, they tend to come to a group agreement.

Conclusion : The results show that when in an ambiguous situation (such as the autokinetic effect), a person will look to others (who know more / better) for guidance (i.e., adopt the group norm). They want to do the right thing but may lack the appropriate information. Observing others can provide this information. This is known as informational conformity.

Non Conformity

Not everyone conforms to social pressure. Indeed, there are many factors that contribute to an individual’s desire to remain independent of the group.

For example, Smith and Bond (1998) discovered cultural differences in conformity between western and eastern countries. People from Western cultures (such as America and the UK) are more likely to be individualistic and don’t want to be seen as being the same as everyone else.

This means that they value being independent and self-sufficient (the individual is more important than the group) and, as such, are more likely to participate in non-conformity.

In contrast, eastern cultures (such as Asian countries) are more likely to value the needs of the family and other social groups before their own. They are known as collectivist cultures and are more likely to conform.

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

Crutchfield, R. (1955). Conformity and Character. American Psychologist , 10, 191-198.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment . The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 51(3) , 629.

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

Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change . Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.

Mann, L (1969). Social Psychology . New York: Wiley.

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

Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Social Psychology Across Cultures: Analysis and Perspectives . Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Social Science

Hard Determinism: Philosophy & Examples (Does Free Will Exist?)

Functions of Attitude Theory

Understanding Conformity: Normative vs. Informational Social Influence

Social Control Theory of Crime

Emotions , Mood , Social Science

Emotional Labor: Definition, Examples, Types, and Consequences

Famous Experiments , Social Science

Solomon Asch Conformity Line Experiment Study

The Leading Source of Insights On Business Model Strategy & Tech Business Models

Asch Conformity Experiment

The Asch Conformity Experiment, conducted by Solomon Asch, investigates how individuals are influenced by group pressure to conform. The experiment’s characteristics, use cases, benefits, challenges, and examples provide valuable insights into social influence, decision-making, and experimental design in psychology and education.

Table of Contents

Characteristics of the Asch Conformity Experiment:

Group Pressure: The Asch conformity experiment is characterized by the influence of group pressure on individual participants. It demonstrates how people may change their answers or behavior to conform to the majority opinion within a group.
Line Length Judgment: In the experiment, participants were asked to judge the lengths of lines in the presence of confederates (individuals working with the experimenter). The task was intentionally simple and straightforward to emphasize the impact of conformity.
Unanimous Majority: In some trials of the experiment, confederates provided incorrect answers unanimously. This unanimous dissenting opinion from the participant’s judgment emphasized the social pressure to conform.

Use Cases of the Asch Conformity Experiment:

Social Psychology: The Asch conformity experiment serves as a fundamental study in social psychology, providing insights into the dynamics of social influence and conformity within groups.
Behavioral Studies: Researchers use the principles and findings of the Asch experiment to study conformity behavior in various contexts and decision-making processes influenced by group dynamics.
Education: The experiment’s implications for teaching methods and understanding group learning dynamics can be applied in educational settings to promote effective learning and encourage critical thinking .

Benefits and Implications of the Asch Conformity Experiment:

Insights into Conformity: The experiment offers valuable insights into the factors that influence conformity in groups, shedding light on why individuals may change their responses to align with the majority.
Social Influence: The Asch experiment demonstrates the power of social influence, highlighting how individuals can be swayed by the opinions or behaviors of those around them.
Experimental Design: The experiment’s controlled design and methodology have served as a model for designing experiments in social psychology and related fields.

Challenges and Considerations:

Ethical Concerns: The Asch conformity experiment, like many psychology experiments of its era, raised ethical questions due to the use of deception and potential psychological distress experienced by participants.
Generalizability: While the experiment provides valuable insights, its applicability to real-world scenarios may be limited, as participants were placed in highly controlled and artificial conditions.
Individual Differences: The degree to which individuals conform can vary widely. Not everyone responds to group pressure in the same way, and individual differences must be considered when interpreting the results.

Examples Illustrating the Impact of the Asch Conformity Experiment:

Social Influence Studies: The Asch experiment has influenced subsequent studies in social psychology and related fields, contributing to our understanding of conformity, obedience, and group behavior.
Educational Practices: Educators and researchers have considered the implications of the experiment for classroom dynamics and strategies for encouraging critical thinking and independent judgment among students.
Public Policy: The principles of the Asch conformity experiment have implications for policy-making and group decision-making processes, as understanding how group dynamics can influence decisions is relevant in various domains, including politics and business .

Case Studies

Challenge: A marketing firm aimed to understand how social influence affects consumer behavior and decision-making processes.
Experiment: The firm conducted a modified version of the Asch Conformity Experiment, where participants were shown advertisements featuring peer endorsements or testimonials. They observed how participants’ purchasing decisions were influenced by the presence of social proof.
Outcome: The experiment revealed that consumers were more likely to purchase products endorsed by peers, highlighting the powerful influence of social conformity in marketing and advertising strategies.
Challenge: A human resources department sought to enhance team dynamics and collaboration within a workplace setting.
Experiment: The department conducted a simulation of the Asch Conformity Experiment in a team-building workshop. Participants were presented with hypothetical scenarios where they had to make decisions collectively.
Outcome: The experiment demonstrated how group pressure and conformity tendencies could influence decision-making within teams. It prompted discussions about the importance of fostering open communication and critical thinking to mitigate the effects of conformity bias.
Challenge: A consumer research firm aimed to investigate the impact of social influence on product preferences and brand perceptions.
Experiment: Using the Asch Conformity Experiment as a framework, the firm conducted focus groups where participants were exposed to varying degrees of peer consensus regarding product preferences. They observed how participants’ opinions shifted in response to perceived group consensus.
Outcome: The experiment revealed the susceptibility of individuals to conform to group opinions, even when they contradicted their own preferences. It highlighted the importance of understanding social dynamics in consumer decision-making processes.
Challenge: An educational institution sought to explore the dynamics of peer influence in classroom settings and its impact on academic performance .
Experiment: Researchers conducted a series of classroom experiments inspired by the Asch Conformity Experiment, where students were presented with quiz questions and observed how their responses were influenced by peer pressure.
Outcome: The experiments demonstrated how students’ conformity tendencies could affect their willingness to express dissenting opinions or seek clarification. It underscored the importance of fostering an inclusive learning environment that encourages independent thinking and active participation.
Challenge: A product development team aimed to understand consumer preferences and acceptance of new product features.
Experiment: Using a variant of the Asch Conformity Experiment, the team conducted surveys where participants were presented with mock product prototypes and observed how their opinions were influenced by the perceived preferences of others.
Outcome: The experiment provided valuable insights into the role of social influence in shaping consumer perceptions and preferences. It informed the product development process by highlighting the importance of aligning new features with prevailing social norms and expectations.

The Asch Conformity Experiment: Key Takeaways

Experiment and Researcher: The Asch Conformity Experiment, conducted by Solomon Asch, explores how individuals conform to group pressure.
Group Pressure: Participants are influenced by the majority opinion of a group, even if it contradicts their own judgment.
Line Length Judgment: Participants were asked to judge the length of lines in the presence of confederates (actors). Confederates purposely gave incorrect answers.
Unanimous Majority: In some trials, all confederates provided the same wrong answer unanimously.
Use Cases: The experiment provides insights into social influence, decision-making, and experimental design .
Social Psychology: Helps understand how group dynamics affect individual behavior.
Behavioral Studies: Offers insights into conformity behavior and factors influencing it.
Education: Implications for teaching methods, group learning, and classroom dynamics.
Factors influencing conformity within groups.
The power of social influence.
Designing controlled experiments in social psychology.
Ethical concerns due to deception of participants.
Limited generalizability of results to real-world scenarios.
Variability in participants’ responses to conformity.
Social Influence Studies: The experiment influenced subsequent studies in social psychology.
Educational Practices: Implications for understanding classroom dynamics and behavior.
Public Policy: Considerations for group decision-making and policy formulation.

Connected Thinking Frameworks

Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking

Critical Thinking

Second-Order Thinking

Lateral Thinking

Bounded Rationality

Dunning-Kruger Effect

Occam’s Razor

Lindy Effect

Antifragility

Systems Thinking

Vertical Thinking

Maslow’s Hammer

Peter Principle

Straw Man Fallacy

Streisand Effect

Recognition Heuristic

Representativeness Heuristic

Take-The-Best Heuristic

Bundling Bias

Barnum Effect

First-Principles Thinking

Ladder Of Inference

Goodhart’s Law

Six Thinking Hats Model

Mandela Effect

Crowding-Out Effect

Bandwagon Effect

Moore’s Law

Disruptive Innovation

Value Migration

Bye-Now Effect

Stereotyping

Murphy’s Law

Law of Unintended Consequences

Fundamental Attribution Error

Outcome Bias

Hindsight Bias

Read Next: Biases , Bounded Rationality , Mandela Effect , Dunning-Kruger Effect , Lindy Effect , Crowding Out Effect , Bandwagon Effect .

Main Guides:

Business Models
Business Strategy
Marketing Strategy
Business Model Innovation
Platform Business Models
Network Effects In A Nutshell
Digital Business Models

More Resources

About The Author

Gennaro Cuofano

Discover more from fourweekmba.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

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

Biography of Psychologist Solomon Asch

Asch conducted influential experiments on conformity

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

Cara Lustik is a fact-checker and copywriter.

Birth and Death

Asch's Conformity Experiments

Contributions to Psychology

Selected publications.

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

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

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

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

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

Asch's Conformity Experiments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solomon Asch's Line Experiment | Overview & Criticisms

Dr. Jachowicz has her MA and PhD in Communication Studies from the University of Kansas. She recently earned a Professional Certification in Leadership Studies. Her research areas include interpersonal communication, leadership, and social psychology. Dr. Jachowicz has worked in higher education for more than 2 decades as a research assistant, professor, department chair, and dean.

Ron has a B.A. in Management, Master’s in Psychology, and PsyD in Clinical Psychology. He has over 20 years of experience in counseling, therapy, and drug and alcohol recovery. He has worked in correctional facilities throughout his career.

Understanding asch's conformity experiment, the setup and execution of solomon asch's line experiment, significance of social conformity experiments, criticisms of the asch conformity experiments, lesson summary, what was the asch experiment designed to study.

The Asch experiment was designed to study peer pressure and how it can change people's thoughts and behaviors. When people feel pressured to conform, they will adjust their attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors accordingly.

What did the Asch line length study show?

The Asch line length study showed that people can be influenced by an interest to assimilate. They may change their beliefs and behaviors in order to fit in with a group.

Solomon Asch studied social conformity and the power of influence that groups have on individuals. Asch was a social psychologist and is credited for Asch's Conformity Experiments , also known as the Asch Paradigm.

Born in Warsaw, Asch moved with his family to the United States when he was a young teenager. As a college student, he attended the College of the City of New York for his bachelor's degree. He then attended the prestigious Columbia University where he earned his graduate degrees, a master's degree, and a doctoral degree.

Asch joined the faculty at Brooklyn College's psychology department where he taught and conducted research. His biggest contribution to the field of social psychology comes from what is called the Asch Line Study or the Asch effect. Specifically, he looked at the conditions under which people might agree with other's assessment of line lengths, even when they believe those assessments are wrong. He found that individuals are likely to conform with a group of other people when that group consists of at least three people.

To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. Create your account

An error occurred trying to load this video.

Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support.

You must c C reate an account to continue watching

As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you succeed.

Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons.

Already registered? Log in here for access

Resources created by teachers for teachers.

I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. It’s like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. I feel like it’s a lifeline.

You're on a roll. Keep up the good work!

Just checking in. are you still watching.

0:07 Social Psychology Experiment
1:10 Social Conformity
2:10 Solomon Asch
3:07 Asch's Line Experiment
4:35 Lesson Summary

Asch's line experiment involved subjects and confederates. A confederate is somebody who is secretly working with the researcher. A small group including a subject and several confederates were shown two cards. The first card had a single line on it, called the reference line. The second card had three lines of varying lengths, and these were called the comparison lines. The subject was told they were participating in a vision test and asked to compare, out loud, the lengths of the reference line to the comparison lines.

Subjects compared the length of the reference line to the lengths of the comparison lines and were asked to identify which were the same, longer, and shorter.

In some cases, confederates were prompted to provide incorrect evaluations, stating that the reference line was longer or shorter than one of the comparison lines, even when it was not. They were instructed to provide this incorrect evaluation before the subject was asked to share their evaluation.

Asch's study found that when multiple confederates provided incorrect evaluations, the subject also provided at least one incorrect evaluation 75 percent of the time. In comparison, regarding the control groups (with confederates providing correct evaluations), only one subject out of 35 provided an incorrect evaluation. Asch initially hypothesized that the majority of subjects would not be influenced by others' evaluations when those evaluations were so incorrect. However, he found that the power of social conformity is quite strong and influential at a significant level. Specifically, Asch found that most people believe the majority is right, even when their own eyes tell them otherwise.

Social conformity is the power of persuasion that comes from a person aligning their attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors with their perceptions of other people's attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors. It is the influence of others on an individual, with the individual wanting to be (at least in some ways) similar to how they perceive others. (According to Asch, people's perceptions of the world-and not the reality of the world-are most influential.) In short, social conformity is when people change their beliefs and behaviors to fit in with a group. This power to conform can come from overt social pressure or unconscious influences.

Asch did not expect the subjects in his experiment to provide incorrect evaluations. He did not anticipate how subjects would be influenced by confederates. His experiment brought light to the power of social conformity. Asch realized that people are influenced by their perceptions of others with an interest in conforming to those perceptions. Social conformity explains why Asch's subjects provided incorrect evaluations when comparing the lines on the cards.

An example of social conformity comes from looking at Sam, a pedestrian walking in a big city. When Sam comes to a crosswalk with a red light, he typically stops and waits for the light to turn green; Sam believes that it is important to follow traffic laws. However, one day when Sam came to an intersection where five other pedestrians were waiting at a red light, he demonstrated the power of social conformity. On this day, the other pedestrians crossed the street after waiting at the red light for only a moment, even though the light remained red. Following their lead, Sam also crossed the street while the light remained red. Sam's behavior illustrates the power of unconscious influence with strangers' behaviors influencing his behavior.

Social conformity can cause people to copy the behaviors of others, even when they know those behaviors are wrong. This can include ignoring red lights when others also ignore red lights.

There are several criticisms of the Asch Conformity Experiments with much concern around the design of the experiment, including the use of confederates.

One criticism includes the potential inconsistency of the confederates' behaviors. Some argue that the confederates' behaviors may have varied, depending on the specific confederate, with some being more convincing than others. Inconsistency in the application of the experimental variable is always a concern in an experimental design. Maybe this is the major flaw in Asch's Conformity Experiments.
Additional concerns about the confederates' behaviors include their behaviors being perceived as unnatural, making it difficult to generalize the results beyond the study.

Solomon Asch studied social conformity and the power of influence that groups have on individuals. Asch was a social psychologist and is credited for the Asch Conformity Experiments , also referred to as the Asch Line Study . Specifically, he looked at the conditions under which people might agree with others' assessments of line lengths, even when they believe those assessments are wrong. Asch's line experiment involved subjects and confederates. A confederate is somebody who is secretly working with the researcher. In the experiment, the subjects were influenced by the confederates, demonstrating social conformity.

Video Transcript

Social psychology experiment.

The next time you're at the beach (or better yet, on a cruise ship), try this experiment in social psychology (and even have a little fun at the same time). Stand facing the ocean and staring at the horizon for a few minutes. When someone walks within earshot, casually ask the individual if he or she has noticed 'the whale.' Don't give up if the first person doesn't stop, because it won't take long before you find someone curious enough to look where you are pointing.

If you were to point out a nonexistent whale, soon other people would claim to see the whale too.

Every 30 seconds or so, point to a distant place on the water and exclaim, 'There it is again.' Before you know it, the other person will also see the nonexistent whale. Keep pointing to the horizon and, every so often, announce you've seen the whale again, and you will soon have a small crowd assembled, all reporting that they, too, have seen the nonexistent whale. Wait long enough and someone will declare there are actually a group of whales. Try not to laugh as you walk away. You've just conducted a social psychology experiment in conformity.

Social Conformity

Social conformity involves changing a belief or behavior in order to fit in with a group. The need for belonging is one of the leading principles of social psychology. People will go to great lengths to belong to a group they consider desirable. In the opening example, the people in the crowd pretended to see a nonexistent whale so they could avoid embarrassment from not seeing a whale they thought that everyone else saw.

You can find countless examples of social conformity in everyday life; people are influenced by those around them. Don't believe it? Have you ever driven over the speed limit simply because everyone around you was driving over the speed limit? Most people would answer yes, and if asked why, they would respond, 'Because everyone else was doing it.' These individuals are willing to break the law even though they know it's wrong merely because everyone else is doing it. The need to conform is a strong motivator, isn't it? Solomon Asch thought so too.

Solomon Asch

Solomon Asch was an American psychologist and a pioneer in social psychology who believed that people behave according to how they perceive the world, not to how it actually is. Asch sought to explain why an individual would give in to group consensus even though it violated his or her personal beliefs.

Solomon Asch was a social psychologist who conducted an experiment on social conformity.

To test his theory, in 1951, Asch devised what is now considered a classic experiment in social psychology. He assembled a group of eight students on the premise that they were being given a vision test. There was only one actual participant and the other seven were actors, or confederates, who, unbeknownst to the one participant, were working with Asch. Confederate : someone who works with, and in secret; an accomplice.

The confederates were instructed in advance what their responses should be when asked to compare lines on a series of cards. The real participant was unaware of this and was led to believe that the seven confederates were also real participants.

Asch's Line Experiment

The students were shown cards in pairs. One card had an illustration of one line; the other card had three lines of varying lengths. The task was simple enough: Pick the line from the multiple lines card (A, B, or C) that was the same height as the single line on the other card. The right answer was always obvious, leaving no room for doubt.

Eighteen pairs of cards were shown to the group. On 12 of the pairs, the seven confederate students purposely picked the wrong line (as previously arranged). Imagine the confusion of the lone participant when he saw the others pick an answer that was obviously wrong.

Asch stated that the purpose of the experiment was to test the extent to which an individual's opinions are influenced by those of a group majority. He discovered that only 25% of the participants chose the line they knew to be correct every time. A surprising 75% of the participants went along with the majority and supplied an incorrect answer at least once.

Once the experiment concluded, the participants were interviewed, and the ones who gave incorrect answers were asked why they answered as they did. Many of these participants stated they believed the majority must have greater insight because they all agreed; therefore, the majority had to be right. Essentially, these participants said they believed the majority was right even though their own eyes told them otherwise.

Social conformity involves changing a belief or behavior in order to fit in with a group. Many people will go to great lengths to belong to a group they consider desirable. Sometimes they will even break the law. Solomon Asch believed that people behave according to how they perceive the world, not to how it actually is.

In 1951, Solomon Asch conducted his now-famous conformity experiment, which is commonly referred to as Asch's line experiment . He discovered that three out of four people, when presented with incorrect information from a majority group will, at least on occasion, accept that information as true.

Conformity, Social Norms & Asch's Line Experiment

Terms	Explanations
Social conformity	changing a belief in order to fit in with a group
Confederate	someone (an accomplice) who secretly works with
Asch's Line Experiment	test designed by Solomon Asch to prove social conformity

Learning Outcomes

After you have viewed this video and expanded your knowledge, you could be ready to:

Provide the definition of social conformity
Explain the work of Solomon Asch
Describe Solomon's Asch's line experiment
Interpret Asch discoveries from his experiment

Unlock Your Education

See for yourself why 30 million people use study.com, become a study.com member and start learning now..

Already a member? Log In

Recommended Lessons and Courses for You

Related lessons, related courses, recommended lessons for you.

The Asch Study | Conformity Experiment, Findings & Impact

Solomon Asch's Line Experiment | Overview & Criticisms Related Study Materials

Related Topics

Browse by Courses

Psychology 101: Intro to Psychology
Psychology 102: Educational Psychology
Psychology 106: Abnormal Psychology
CLEP Human Growth and Development Prep
Human Growth and Development: Certificate Program
Human Growth and Development: Help and Review
Introduction to Psychology: Certificate Program
UExcel Social Psychology: Study Guide & Test Prep
Human Growth and Development: Tutoring Solution
Introduction to Social Psychology: Certificate Program
Human Growth and Development: Homework Help Resource
Life Span Developmental Psychology: Homework Help Resource
Psychology 103: Human Growth and Development
Psychology 104: Social Psychology
Psychology 105: Research Methods in Psychology

Browse by Lessons

Solomon Asch's Experiment | Asch Effect Importance & Criticisms
Technology Games in the Classroom
Teaching the Theme of a Story
Environmental Influences on Developing Print Awareness
Prosody in Poetry | Definition, Elements & Examples
Using Reading Materials to Build Vocabulary
How Grammar & Word Form Impact Meaning
How a Student's Background Affects Reading Comprehension
Using the ADDIE Model in Instructional Design
Assessment Techniques for Print Awareness
Strategies for Understanding Various Forms of Writing
Language Structure & Text Features in Reading Comprehension
Authoritarian Parents: Characteristics & Effects on Children
Autistic Speech Patterns: Definition, Types & Examples
Outline of the WISC-IV General Ability Index

Create an account to start this course today Used by over 30 million students worldwide Create an account

Explore our library of over 88,000 lessons

Foreign Language
Social Science
See All College Courses
Common Core
High School
See All High School Courses
College & Career Guidance Courses
College Placement Exams
Entrance Exams
General Test Prep
K-8 Courses
Skills Courses
Teacher Certification Exams
See All Other Courses
Create a Goal
Create custom courses
Get your questions answered

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
PMC10686423

The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch experiment

Axel franzen.

Institute of Sociology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Sebastian Mader

Associated data.

The data used in this study is publicly available in the repository of the University of Bern at https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/169645 .

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.

1. Introduction

A core assumption in sociology is that what humans think and do does not only depend on their own attitudes and disposition, but also to a large extent on what others think and do. The power of social influence on individuals’ behavior was demonstrated already in the 1950s in a series of experiments by Solomon Asch [ 1 – 3 ]. Asch invited individuals into the lab and assigned them the task of judging the length of a line. He also placed 6 confederates into the lab who were assigned to give wrong answers publicly, so that the naïve subject could hear them before he provided his own answer. The results were very surprising: on average 35% of the real subjects followed the opinions of the confederates even if their answer was obviously wrong. The work of Asch has attracted a great amount of attention in the social sciences. Hence, a multitude of replications, extensions, and variations of the original studies have been conducted. However, many of these replications were done with student samples in the US, and fewer studies consist of samples from other countries. Furthermore, many replications were undertaken in the 40 years following the original experiment of Asch, but there are fewer replications thereafter. This raises two important questions: First, are the findings of Asch universal or do they predominantly apply to American students? And second, are the findings still valid today or has the influence of others diminished over time, for instance through increased education and democratization?

Moreover, many experiments in psychology are not incentivized by monetary rewards. This is also true for Asch’s original experiments and for most replications of it. However, in real life outside the lab, decisions are usually associated with consequences, either pleasant in the form of rewards, or unpleasant in the form of some kind of punishment. To make the study of decision-making more realistic, experiments in economics usually use monetary incentives [ 4 ]. To provide a conforming but wrong judgment in the original Asch experiment has no consequences, giving rise to the interesting question of whether the finding of Asch still holds when correct answers are rewarded. So far, the effect of incentives in the Asch decision situation has only been investigated rarely [ 5 – 7 ], with inconclusive evidence. Baron et al. [ 5 ] report that use of monetary incentives actually increased conformity when the task was difficult. A decreased conformity rate was only found in situations with easy tasks. Bhanot & Williamson [ 6 ] conducted two online experiments and found that incentivizing correct answers increases the number of conforming answers. Fujita and Mori [ 7 ] compared group reward and individual rewards in the Asch experiment and found that conformity vanished in the individual reward condition. Thus, the existing evidence on the role of incentives is inconclusive, calling for further investigations of the effect of incentives.

Of course, misjudging the length of lines when others do is not important in itself; the Asch experiment created so much attention because it elicits the suspicion that social influence is also present in other and more important social realms, for instance when it comes to political opinions. Early research by Crutchfield [ 8 ] suggests that the original findings on line judgment also transfer over to political opinions. We are only aware of one further study by Mallinson and Hatemi [ 9 ] that investigates the effect of social influence on opinion formation. However, the authors used a group discussion in the treatment condition, and hence diverged somewhat from the original Asch design. Furthermore, investigations of the effect of social conformity on political opinions are always idiosyncratic making further replications on the transferability from lines to a variety of political opinions important and interesting.

Moreover, behaving in a conforming way and misjudging tasks raises a number of interesting questions. About one third of Asch’s subjects was susceptible to social pressure on average. The rest solved the task correctly irrespective of the confederates’ opinion most of the time. How do those who are not influenced by the group differ from the ones that behave in a conformative manner? Crutchfield [ 8 ] investigated a number of personality traits such as competence, self-assertiveness, or leadership ability on the susceptibility to the pressure to conform to the groups’ judgment. However, many of the measurement instruments used by him or by others [ 10 , 11 ] investigating similar questions are suboptimal, and furthermore produced inconclusive results. Hence, it is worthwhile to further investigate the characteristics of those who conform to social pressure and of those who resist it. We are particularly interested in the Big Five, intelligence, self-esteem, and the need for social approval.

The remainder of the article proceeds in four sections. First, in section two, we present an elaborate literature review of the original Asch experiment, and its various replications. Section three describes how we conducted the replication of the Asch experiment and its variant by using political opinions. Furthermore, we describe how we implemented the incentives, and how we measure the various traits that are presumably related to behavior in the Asch experiment. Section four presents the results and section five concludes and discusses ideas for further research.

2. Literature review

In Asch’s [ 2 ] original experiment 6 to 8 confederates gathered in an experimental room and were instructed to give false answers in matching a line with the length of three reference lines. An additional uninstructed subject was invited into the experimental room and asked to provide his judgment after the next to last of the confederates. Asch [ 2 ] reports a mean error rate of 36.8% of the 123 real subjects in the critical trials in which the group provided the wrong answer. This result was replicated remarkably consistently. Bond and Smith [ 12 ] conducted a meta study including 44 strict replications, and report an average error rate of 25%. As with the study by Asch [ 2 ], the vast majority of these replications were conducted with male university students in the US. However, more recent studies from Japan [ 13 , 14 ], and Bosnia and Herzegovina [ 15 ] also confirm Asch’s findings. Takano and Sogon [ 14 ] found an error rate of 25% in male Japanese university students (n = 40) in groups with 6 to 9 confederates. Mori and Arai [ 13 ] used the fMORI technique in which participants wear polarized sunglasses allowing the perception of different lines from the same presentation. The method allows to abandon the use of confederates in the Asch judgment task. They replicated the conformity rate for Japanese female subjects (N = 16) but found no conformity for male subjects (N = 10). Usto et al. [ 15 ] found an error rate of 35% in 95 university students of both sexes from Bosnia and Herzegovina with five confederates per group. Other studies also show that subjects are influenced by groups, when the confederates provided their judgments anonymously or with respect to different judgment tasks such as judging the size of circles, completing rows of numbers, or judging the length of acoustic signals [ 8 , 12 , 16 – 21 ]. More recent studies conducted the Asch experiment also with children [ 22 – 25 ] suggesting that the conformity effect can also be found in preschool children. However, some studies also found age effects, such that younger children conformed to the groups majority judgment, but the effect decreases for adolescents [ 26 , 27 ]. To summarize, given the results of the literature, we expect to find a substantial conformity rate in the replication of the original Asch line experiment (H 1 ).

2.1 Monetary incentives

An important extension of the original Asch experiment is the introduction of incentives. In everyday life, decisions are usually associated with consequences. However, in the Asch experiment, as in many other experiments in psychology, decisions or behavior in the lab usually have no consequences, besides of standing out in the laboratory group. This raises questions of the external validity of non-incentivized experiments. Theoretically, it can be expected that correct judgments are less important if they are not incentivized. This could imply that the findings of the Asch experiment are partly methodological artifacts. So far there is only limited and inconclusive empirical evidence with respect to monetary incentives in the Asch experiment. Early studies analysed the role of the perceived societal or scientific importance of the task [ 20 ]. Later research incentivized correct answers in various conformity experiments. Andersson et al. [ 28 ] report that individual incentives decreased the effect of conformity on the prediction of stock prices. However, Bazazi et al. [ 29 ] report the opposite. They found that individualized incentives increase conformity in comparison to collective payoffs in an estimation task. In the study of Baron et al. [ 5 ] 90 participants solved two eyewitness identifications tasks (a line-up task and a task of describing male figures) in the presence of two unanimously incorrectly-answering confederates. Additionally, task importance (low versus high) and task difficulty (low versus high) were experimentally manipulated resulting in a 2 x 2 between subject design. Subjects in the high task importance condition received $20 if ranked in the top 12% of participants with regard to correct answers. Subjects in the low task importance condition received no monetary incentive for correct answers. The results of Baron et al. [ 5 ] show a conformity rate that closely replicates Asch’s [ 1 – 3 ] finding in the condition without monetary incentives. In the condition including a monetary incentive for correct answers, conformity rates drop by about half to an error rate of 15%. However, this result only emerges in the condition with low task difficulty. For the high task difficulty condition, the opposite effect of monetary incentives was observed. Thus, monetary incentives increased conformity when the task was difficult and decreased conformity in situations with easy tasks. However, one drawback of the study of Baron et al. [ 5 ] is a rather low sample size, which might explain the differential effects by experimental condition.

Fujita and Mori [ 7 ] analysed the effect of individual vs collective payoff in the Asch experiment. They found that the conformity effect disappears in the individually incentivized condition. However, also this study suffered from low sample sizes since there were only 10 subjects in the individualized minority incentive condition. Furthermore, Fujita and Mori [ 7 ] used the fMORI method and report that some subjects might have noticed the trick.

Bhanot and Williamson [ 6 ] conducted online experiments (using Amazon Mechanical Turk) in which 391 participants answered 60 multiple-choice trivia-knowledge questions while the most popular answer was displayed at each question. Correct answers were incentivized randomly with $0, $1, $2 or $3 each in a within-subject design, i.e. randomized over trials, not over subjects. Bhanot and Williamson [ 6 ] found that monetary incentives increase the proportion of answers that align with the majority. Hence, the studies using incentives yield inconclusive and contradicting results: Particularly, Baron et al. [ 5 ] found both an accuracy-increasing and accuracy-decreasing effect of monetary incentives depending on task difficulty. Bhanot and Williamson [ 6 ] found an increased conformity rate, and Fujita and Mori [ 7 ] found that the conformity bias disappears in the individually incentivized condition. Overall, we follow the economic notion that monetary incentives matter and expect that rewards for nonconformity decrease group pressure (H 2 ).

2.2 Political opinions

Another critical question is, whether matters of fact can be generalized to matters of attitude and opinion. Crutchfield [ 8 ] investigated experimentally the influence of social pressure on political opinions in an Asch-like situation. He found that agreement with the statement “Free speech being a privilege rather than a right, it is proper for a society to suspend free speech whenever it feels itself threatened” was almost 40 percentage points higher in the social pressure condition (58%, n = 50) than in the individual judgment condition (19%, n = 40). Furthermore, he observed a difference of 36%-points if the confederates answer “subversive activities” to the question "Which one of the following do you feel is the most important problem facing our country today? Economic recession, educational facilities, subversive activities, mental health or crime and corruption” as compared to an individual judgment condition (48% vs 12%). However, the results are based on a rather small number of cases and decisions were anonymous, unlike the original design of Asch.

To the best of our knowledge, there is only one further study that experimentally investigates the influence of social pressure on opinions regarding political issues in an Asch-like situation. In the study of Mallinson and Hatemi [ 9 ] participants (n = 58) were asked to give their opinion on a specific local political issue before and after a 30–45 minutes face-to-face group discussion (treatment condition). In the control condition subjects received written information that contradicts their initial opinion. They found that in the control condition only 8% changed their initial opinion when provided with further information, while in the treatment condition 38% of subjects changed their opinion. Yet, in this recent study the sample size is also rather small. To sum up, given the results of these two studies, we expect that groups exert influence also on political opinions (H 3 ).

2.3 Individual differences

Crutchfield [ 8 ] was also the first who investigated the relationship between personality traits and the susceptibility to the pressure of conformity. He found that low conformity rates were related to high levels of intellectual competence, ego strength, leadership ability, self-control, superiority feelings, adventurousness, self-assertiveness, self-respect, tolerance of ambiguity, and freedom from compulsion regarding rules. High levels of conformity were observed for subjects with authoritarian, anxious, distrustful, and conventional mindsets. However, no substantial correlation was found for neuroticism. Obviously, Crutchfield’s [ 8 ] study is limited by a rather low number of subjects (N = 50). Moreover, the measurement instruments used may be debatable from a contemporary point of view. We are aware of one more recent study with a sufficiently high number of study subjects and more rigid measurement instruments to test the influence of personality traits on conformity in Asch-like situations: Kosloff et al. [ 19 ] analysed the association of the Big Five personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness) with conformity in public ratings of the humorousness of unfunny cartoons in 102 female college students. Kosloff et al. [ 19 ] found that subjects with low neuroticism, high agreeableness, and high conscientiousness scores show high levels of conformity. Extraversion, and openness were not associated with conformity ratings. Beyond that, we are not aware of any more studies that investigate the influence of the Big Five personality traits in the original Asch situation. However, there is evidence that openness is linked to nonconformity. Eck and Gebauer [ 30 ] argue that “open people engage in independent thought and, thus, rely little on the conformity heuristic”.

Crutchfield [ 8 ] studied the effect of intellectual competence on conformity. He found that higher competence was associated with lower levels of conformity. However, intelligence was measured by the subjective ratings of the experimental staff. Iscoe, Williams, and Harvey [ 10 ] exposed high school students (7 to 15 years) to group pressure in an acoustic task (counting metronome ticks), and approximated intelligence by subjects’ school records. They found no correlation of school records with conformity. Uchida et al. [ 31 ] studied 12 to 14 year-old high school students and assessed scholastic achievements by their school performance. They report that high achievers conformed less to the majority than low achievers. Hence, results of the effect of intelligence on conformity are inconclusive so far and the existing studies use indirect measures (school grades) but do not measure intelligence directly.

The effect of self-esteem (or self-assertiveness, self-consciousness) on conformity was only investigated in a few studies so far. Kurosawa [ 11 ] found no effect on conformity when the decision of the minority subject was preceded by two confederates. In groups of four, confederates’ self-esteem had a negative effect on conformity. Similarly, Tainaka et al. [ 32 ] found in a sample of Japanese female students that those with low self-esteem conformed more often in a co-witness task.

In addition, the need for social approval may explain individual differences in conformity behavior. The urge to please others by adhering to social norms is expected to be positively related to conformity, simply because conformity is socially approved in many situations and because of a general tendency among humans toward acquiescence. Once more, Crutchfield [ 8 ] provided the first hints of a positive relationship between the need for social approval and conforming behavior in an anonymous Asch situation. However, the measurement instrument he used is debatable. Strickland and Crowne [ 33 ] confirmed Crutchfield’s [ 8 ] finding in a sample of 64 female students exposed to an Asch-like acoustic judgment task using the Crowne-Marlowe (CM) social desirability scale [ 34 , 35 ] to gauge the need for social approval. Again, we are not aware of any other more recent study on this aspect. Hence, we investigate the association of the need for social approval using the CM social desirability scale as well as a more recent and supposedly more appropriate instrument to capture the need for social approval [ 36 ]. Summarizing, we expect to find a positive association between social approval and conformity (H 4 ), and negative associations for intelligence (H 5 ) and self-esteem (H 6 ). With respect to the Big Five we follow Eck and Gebauer [ 30 ] and expect a negative relation between openness and conformity (H 7 ).

Finally, Crutchfield [ 8 ] also analysed the influence of gender on conformity in a sample of 40 female and 19 male college students (study two). He found that young women show higher conformity rates than young men. Yet, in a third study he found that female college alumnae (N = 50) show lower conformity rates than in study one. Hence, Crutchfield’s [ 8 ] findings for the gender effect are inconclusive. However, Bond and Smith [ 12 ] report in their meta-analysis higher conformity rates for females. The study by Griskevicius et al. [ 18 ] shows that gender-differences in conformity depend on the activation of behavioral motives. Men who were primed to attract a mate revealed more independent judgments than women primed to attract a mate, supposedly because of differing mating preferences in men and women. Therefore, we wonder, whether we can replicate the finding that females are more conformative than males in the Asch experiment.

3. Design and method

3.1 procedure and materials.

The experiment consisted of three parts. Part 1 was designed to replicate the original Asch experiment. For this purpose, we recruited 210 subjects on the campus of the University of Bern. Informed consent was obtained verbally before participants entered the experimental room. We randomized subjects into two groups. In group one subjects had to judge the length of lines, as in the original Asch experiment. For this purpose, we placed 5 confederates in addition to a naïve subject in a room. The confederates were asked to behave as naïve subjects and entered the room one after the other. The front row of the seats in the experimental room were numbered such that subjects sat next to each other. The naïve subject was always assigned to seat number 5, leaving the last seat to another confederate. First, we presented some instructions to the subjects: “Welcome to our study on decision-making behavior and opinions. This study consists of two parts: In the first part in this room, we ask you to solve a total of 10 short tasks. In the second part in the room next door, we ask you to complete a short questionnaire on the laptop. In total, this study takes about 40 minutes. As compensation for your participation, you will receive 20 Swiss francs in cash after completing the study.” We then presented a reference line to subjects next to three other lines that were numbered 1 through 3 on projected slides. Subjects were asked to judge the length of the reference line by naming the number of the line that corresponds to the reference line in length. We presented 10 such line tasks (see Fig A1 in the S1 Appendix ). In the first two trials as well as in trials number 4 and 8, confederates pointed out the correct lines. Four trials were easy tasks, since the difference between the reference line and two of the other lines was large. The other six trials were more difficult, since the differences were small. Subjects were asked to call out the number of the correct line always starting with subject 1 through 6.

After the line task in part 2 of the experiment subjects were confronted with 5 general questions on different political issues. The statements were selected because we believe they describe fundamental attitudes towards different political or social groups in a democracy. The five statements read (1) “Do you think that the Swiss Federal Government should be given more power?”, (2) “Do you think trade unions should be given more power in Switzerland?”, (3) “Do you think that the employers’ association in Switzerland should be given more power?”, (4) “Do you think that citizens should be given more liberties in Switzerland?”, and (5) “Do you think that companies in Switzerland should be given more freedom?”. Subjects were asked to answer all 5 questions with either yes or no. The confederates in this group were instructed to answer “yes” to the first question and “no” to the rest. We chose this sequence of “yes” and “no” to prevent that subjects discover the existence of confederates. Finally, part 3 of the experiment consisted of an online questionnaire which subjects were asked to complete. To conceal that some participants were confederates all 6 participants were accompanied to separate rooms where the online-questionnaire was installed on a laptop. The questionnaire was designed to measure a number of different personality traits. Particularly, we measured the Big Five using a 10-item scale (two items for each of the 5 traits) as suggested by Rammstedt et al. [ 37 ] (see Table A1 in the S1 Appendix for item wording); a 10-item scale measuring self-esteem as suggested by Rosenberg [ 38 ] (see Table A2 in the S1 Appendix ); a short version of the Hagen Matrices Test [ 39 ] to measure intelligence and the 10-item version of the Martin Larson Approval Motivation Scale (MLAM) [ 36 ].

In group 2 the experimental design and procedure was the same as in group 1 besides the fact that correct answers in the length of lines judgment task were incentivized. In addition to the 20 Swiss francs show-up fee, subjects received one Swiss franc for every correct answer in the line judgment task, and hence, could earn up to 30 Swiss francs in total. Since there are no correct answers to political opinions these were not incentivized. However, we randomized the confederates’ answers to political opinion questions independently of whether a subject was in the incentivized or non-incentivized group. In one version confederates answered “yes” to the first question and “no” to the four other questions. In the other version the sequence of the confederates’ response was “no” to the first question and “yes” in response to the other four. The experiment was conducted by three different research teams consisting of 7 student assistants each. In every group 5 students acted as confederates and 2 as research assistants, recruiting subjects, welcoming and instructing them in the laboratory room, and reading out loud the projected instructions.

A power analysis suggested that we need about 100 subjects per experimental condition to find statistically significant (α = 0.05) differences of 5 percentage points for a power of 0.8. Hence, we stopped recruiting subjects after reaching 210 participants. The experiment was conducted between March 16, 2021 and April 30, 2021. The authors had no access to any information that links individual identifiers to the data. Subjects were debriefed after the end of the study by email.

Overall, 210 subjects participated in the experiment (female = 61%, mean age = 22.6). 102 subjects were randomly assigned to the non-incentivized group and 108 into the group with incentives. Moreover, 113 subjects were assigned to the sequences of “yes” and four “no” of the political opinion task and 97 to the reversed sequence, suggesting that the randomization procedure worked well. The questionnaire also contained an attention check. The question reads “In the following we show you five answer categories. Please do not tick any of the answers”. Four subjects failed to comply and ticked an answer, suggesting that they did not pay proper attention to the question wording. These subjects were excluded from the analysis. Furthermore, we asked subjects at the end of the questionnaire what they think the experiment was about. Three subjects recognized that the experiment was the line task experiment of Asch or expressed the suspicion that some of the other group members were confederates. We also excluded these three subjects from the analysis. Moreover, one subject answered the question about their gender with “other” and was also excluded from the analysis. Hence, these exclusions result in 202 valid cases. However, the results presented do not depend on these eight excluded observations.

Fig 1 presents the results of the ten line length tasks for the non-incentivized (grey bars) and for the incentivized conditions (blue bars). As can be clearly seen, almost none of the naïve subjects gave an incorrect answer when the group provided the correct answer which was the case in decision situations 1, 2, 4 and 8. However, when the group provides the false answer a substantial number of naïve subjects provided this incorrect answer as well (decision situations 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10). The proportion of incorrect answers in the non-incentivized condition is relatively small in decision 3 (10%), but relatively high in decisions number 6 and 7 (44% and 47%). The average of incorrect answers is 33% in the non-incentivized group, which is a perfect replication of Asch’s (1955) original 36.8% result (two sample two-sided T-test, t(16) = 0.59, p = 0.57).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0294325.g001.jpg

Note: Percent of correct answers by experimental group and trial including 95% confidence intervals. The numbers on top of the bars denote the trial numbers. “correct” stands for uncritical trials, “false” for critical trials. “easy” denotes easy trials with big differences between the lines, and “hard” denotes more difficult trials with smaller differences between the lines. The numbers between the bars denote the difference in proportions between the groups in percentage points. One-sided T-tests: * = p < 0.05. N without incentive (no) = 99, n with incentive (yes) = 103.

When correct answers are incentivized, the proportion of incorrect answers decreases by on average 8%-points. The difference between the groups is statistically significant in 2 out of 6 critical trials (p < 0.05 for one-sided T-tests). The difference also becomes evident when we consider the number of incorrect answers in the 6 critical trials. When decisions were not incentivized subjects gave on average 1.97 incorrect answers. In the incentivized condition the average number dropped to 1.47, leading to a statistically significant difference of 0.5 incorrect answers (t(208) = 2.24, p = 0.03 for two-sided T-test).

Next, Fig 2 presents the results concerning the five political questions. When the group said “yes” to the question of whether the Swiss Federal Council (the government in Switzerland) should have more power, 27% of the naïve subjects did so as well. When the group said “no” only 3% of the subjects said “yes” resulting in a difference of 23.4%-points. When the group said that trade unions should have more power 72% of the subjects answered “yes” as compared to only 29% when the group said “no” resulting in a difference of 43%-points. Similarly, the question of whether the employers’ association should have more power is agreed to by 44% and 6% respectively, depending on the group agreeing or disagreeing. Moreover, 81% of the subjects agreed that citizens in Switzerland should be given more liberties when the group does so, and 33% agreed to this question when the group says “no”. Finally, 46% said that companies should be given more freedom when the group agreed but only 8% did so when the group denied this question. The average difference in the proportion of yes-answers is 38%-points and all 5 differences are statistically highly significant. This result corresponds astonishingly close to the result in the length of line experiment and suggests that the influence of group pressure can be generalized to the utterance of political opinions.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0294325.g002.jpg

Note: Percent of ‘yes’ answers to five general questions on political opinions in which all confederates answered uniformly ‘yes’ or ‘no’, by experimental group including 95% confidence intervals. The numbers on top of the bars stand for the difference in proportions between the respective groups in percentage points. Two-sided T-tests: *** = p < 0.001. n (sequence yes, no, no, no, no) = 109, n (sequence no, yes, yes, yes, yes) = 93.

One interesting question is whether the susceptibility to group pressure is linked to certain personality traits. To investigate this question, we count the number of wrong answers in the six critical trials of the length of line task. This variable is our dependent variable and runs from 0 when a subject always gave correct answers to 6 for subjects who gave only wrong answers. First, we wondered whether conformity is linked to the Big Five personality traits. We measured the Big Five using a short 10-item version as suggested by Rammstedt et al. [ 37 ] which measures each trait (openness, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism) with two questions (see Table A1 in the S1 Appendix ).

Second, we incorporate a 10-item measure of self-esteem, as suggested by Rosenberg [ 38 ], into the analysis (see Table A2 in the S1 Appendix ). Each item of the scale has four answer categories ranging from 1 = “disagree strongly”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “agree” to 4 = “agree strongly”. Subjects that score high on self-esteem are expected to have stronger confidence in their own perception and should be less influenced by the group’s opinion. Third, we measured individuals’ intelligence using a short version of the Hagen Matrices Test (HMT) [ 39 ]. The HMT consists of six 9-field matrices that show graphical symbols that follow a logical order. The last field is missing and the task of the subjects is to pick the correct symbol, out of eight, that fits and completes the pattern of the matrix. Hence, the HMT ranges from 0 if no answer is correct to 6 for subjects who provided six correct answers. The hypothesis is that subjects who score high on the HMT are less susceptible to the pressure of the group and also provide more correct answers in the line task.

Finally, conformity might be linked to the need for social approval. We measured the need for social approval with a 10-item version of the Martin Larson Approval Motivation Scale (MLAM) [ 36 ] (see Table A3 in the S1 Appendix ). Individuals that score highly on the MLAM display high need for social approval by others. Hence, we expect that subjects with higher values on the MLAM should also conform more often to the opinions of others in order to receive social approval. A summary of the descriptive information of the considered variables is depicted in Table A4 in the S1 Appendix . To investigate whether any of the measured personality traits are linked to the answering behavior in the line task we conducted multiple OLS regression analysis. The results of this analysis are depicted in the coefficient plots in Fig 3 (see also Table A5 in the S1 Appendix ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0294325.g003.jpg

Note: N = 202. Unstandardized coefficients of multiple linear OLS regressions including robust 95% confidence intervals. Poisson and negative binomial models do not alter the results in any substantial way. Variables marked with an ‘*’ indicate statistically significant differences in the coefficients between models (2) and (3).

First, model 1 presents the effects on the number of conforming answers for the whole sample. In the incentivized condition subjects gave on average 0.43 fewer conforming answers as compared to the unincentivized condition. This effect mirrors the bivariate result already presented in Fig 1 and is statistically significant for the 5% level. In tendency, females show more conforming answers, but this effect is statistically only significant for the 10% level. Besides “openness” none of the personality traits contained in the Big Five show any statistically significant effects. This is also true for the other effects of intelligence, self-esteem, and the measure for social approval seeking. Models 2 and 3 show the results for men and women separately. The separate results suggest that women react somewhat more strongly to incentives than do men. However, a test for differences in coefficients suggests that the effects do not differ (χ 2 (1) = 1.11, p = 0.29). Intelligence seems to have greater importance for men, leading to 0.27 fewer conforming answers for every correct answer of the HMT. However, this effect does not differ statistically from the effect for females (χ 2 (1) = 1.35, p = 0.25). No difference in effects can be observed for self-esteem. However, in the female sample the need for social approval is positively linked to the number of conforming answers, which is not the case in the male sample (χ 2 (1) = 4.23, p = 0.04); but the effect of social approval in the female sample is relatively small.

We conducted a number of robustness checks with the presented analyses. Since our dependent variable is a count variable (number of conforming answers) the models can also be estimated using Poisson regressions or negative-binomial models. However, none of our presented results change in any substantial way using these alternatives. Furthermore, we excluded 24 more subjects who when asked at the end of the experiment about the goal of the study said that the experiment was about group pressure or conformity, although they did not explicitly mention Asch or the suspicion that other participants were confederates. But these additional exclusions also did not change the results substantially (see Table A6 in the S1 Appendix ). Finally, we also incorporated the 10-item version of the Marlowe-Crowne Scale [ 34 , 35 ] suggested by Clancy [ 40 , 41 ]. However, inclusion of the scale did not show any statistically significant effects or did change any of the other estimates.

5. Conclusion and discussion

In this study we first replicated the original experiment of Asch [ 1 – 3 ] with 5 confederates and ten line tasks. We find an average error rate of 33% which replicates the original findings of Asch very closely and which is in line with other replications that were conducted predominately with American students [ 12 ]. Together with recent studies from Japan [ 14 ], and Bosnia and Herzegowina [ 15 ], our study provides further evidence that the influence of groups on individuals’ judgments is a universal phenomenon, and is still valid today. Furthermore, we incentivized the decisions and find a drop of the error rate by 8%-points to 25%. Hence, monetary incentives do not eliminate the effect of group pressure. This finding sheds doubt on former results which predominately show the opposite effect, namely that incentives increase compliance [ 5 , 6 ].

Moreover, our study suggests that group pressure is not only influential in the simple line task but also when it comes to political opinions. We randomized the groups’ response to five different political statements and find an average conformity rate of 38%. Hence, these results suggest that the original finding of Asch can also be generalized to matters of opinion. This result is in line with former evidence by Crutchfield [ 8 ], and Mallinson and Hatemi [ 9 ]. However, both of these studies had only small sample sizes of 50 and 58 subjects respectively, which called for further replication studies. Finally, we measured the Big Five, intelligence, self-esteem and social approval. With the exception of openness, our study finds no support that these personality traits are statistically significantly related to the susceptibility of group pressure.

Of course, our study has some limitations, which suggest a number of further research questions. First, we used a relatively large sample of 202 subjects providing more statistical power than former replications and extensions of the Asch experiment; however, our subjects were also students, and hence, it would be important to have further replications with non-student samples. This would allow further investigations of the susceptibility to group pressure with respect to age, different occupational groups, different social backgrounds, and different levels of social experience.

Second, the subjects we investigate are strangers. That means the single naïve subjects did not know the confederates. An interesting question for further research would be, whether group pressure is stronger among non-strangers or whether dissent becomes more acceptable among a group of friends.

Third, we demonstrate that monetary incentives reduce the error rate. However, our incentives were one Swiss franc for every correct answer, and hence small. Thus, the interesting question remains whether larger incentives reduce the error rate further, or can even lead to the elimination of it.

Fourth, the political statements we choose are relatively moderate and general. This leaves the question open as to whether subjects would also conform to more extreme or socially less acceptable statements. Furthermore, our subjects might have rarely thought about the statements we provided, leaving the question of what would happen with respect to statements about which subjects had stronger opinions or which are more related to their identity.

With the exception of openness all personality traits considered (e.g. intelligence, self-esteem, need for social approval) are not related to conformity. This raises a number of very interesting research questions. One possibility is that the traits were not measured good enough, and that measurement errors impede the identification of these individual differences. This concern applies particularly to the measurement of the Big Five where we relied on the short 10-item version suggested by Rammstedt et al. [ 37 ]. Hence, the puzzling result that openness leads to less conformity must be replicated before it can count as a reliable finding. However, the finding is in line with the assumption of Eck and Gebauer [ 30 ]. Another possibility is that other personality traits are more important when it comes to conformity behavior. Hence, there is much room for further interesting research concerning conformity behavior in situations of group pressure.

Supporting information

S1 appendix, acknowledgments.

We like to thank our student assistants for helping us with the data collection. Their names are: Yvonne Aregger, Elias Balmer, Ambar Conca, Davide Della Porta, Shania Flück, Julian Gerber, Anna Graf, Ina Gutjahr, Kim Gvozdic, Anna Häberli, Chiara Heiss, Paula Kühne, Jenny Mosimann, Remo Parisi, Elena Raich, Virginia Reinhard, Fiona Schläppi, Maria Tournas, Angela Ventrici, Marco Zbinden, Sarah Zwyssig.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

IMAGES

Asch Conformity Experiment
The Asch Line Study (+3 Conformity Experiments)
Asch Conformity Study
Asch Conformity Experiment Explained: Modern Therapy
Solomon Asch's Experiment about Conformity
Asch's Conformity Experiment: Social Influence

VIDEO

Asch conformity experiment
Will people lie to conform? Asch conformity experiments #history #psychology #experiment #education
Asch (1951) conformity study
Conformity & The Asch Experiment
Unveiling Conformity: Insights from the Asch Experiment! #conformity #experiment #psychology #facts
The Asch Conformity Experiment

COMMENTS

Solomon Asch Conformity Line Experiment Study
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%.
The Asch Conformity Experiments
The Asch conformity experiments were a series of psychological experiments conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s. The experiments revealed the degree to which a person's own opinions are influenced by those of a group . Asch found that people were willing to ignore reality and give an incorrect answer in order to conform to the rest of the group.
Asch conformity experiments
In psychology, the Asch conformity experiments or the Asch paradigm were a series of studies directed by Solomon Asch studying if and how individuals yielded to or defied a majority group and the effect of such influences on beliefs and opinions. Developed in the 1950s, the methodology remains in use by many researchers. ... An example of Asch ...
The Asch Line Study (+3 Conformity Experiments)
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 ...
How to Conduct Your Own Conformity Experiments
Known as the Asch conformity experiments, these studies demonstrated the impact of social pressure on individual behavior. ... A Conformity Experiment Example . Imagine that a student is in a math class and the instructor asks a basic math question. What is 8 x 4? The student knows that the correct answer is 32.
6.5C: The Asch Experiment- The Power of Peer Pressure
Key Terms. Conducted by social psychologist Solomon Asch of Swarthmore College, the Asch conformity experiments were a series of studies published in the 1950s that demonstrated the power of conformity in groups. They are also known as the Asch paradigm. In the experiment, students were asked to participate in a group "vision test.
The Asch Conformity Experiments and Social Pressure
The Asch Conformity Experiments. What Solomon Asch Demonstrated About Social Pressure. 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.
Conformity
Share : 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 conformity studies (Asch line studies)
Asch conformity studies (Asch line studies) The Asch line experiments, conducted in the 1950s, explored how group behavior influences individual actions. The study found that 75% of participants conformed to the group's incorrect answer at least once due to perceived pressure. This phenomenon is known as Normative Social Influence and ...
Exploring Variations in Conformity: Asch's Experimental Insights
The answer to this intriguing question lies within the realm of social psychology, particularly in the landmark studies conducted by conformity.">Solomon Asch in the 1950s. Asch's experiments on conformity are classic examples of how our social environment can influence individual behavior.
12.4 Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
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).
Asch Study Reimagined: Navigating the Labyrinth of Conformity in the
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.
Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
CONFORMITY. 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 ().Participants were then shown a fourth line segment: x.
What Is Conformity? Definition, Types, Psychology Research
Asch's Conformity Experiments . In this series of famous experiments, conducted in the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch asked participants to complete what they believed was a simple perceptual task. They were asked to choose a line that matched the length of one of three different lines. ... This experiment is a good example of normative ...
What Is Conformity? Definition, Types, Psychology Research
Group pressure may take different forms, for example bullying, persuasion, teasing, criticism, etc. Conformity is also known as majority influence (or group pressure). ... However, perhaps the most famous conformity experiment was by Solomon Asch (1951) and his line judgment experiment. Types of Conformity. Kelman (1958) distinguished between ...
The Asch Study
In 1951, Solomon Asch conducted an experiment to study the level at which social pressure from a group affects an individual's decision-making. This study fixated on conformity, which is defined ...
Asch Conformity Experiment
Classic footage from the Asch conformity study. This version includes definitions of normative and informational conformity and the powerful effect of having...
Asch Conformity Experiment
The Asch Conformity Experiment, conducted by Solomon Asch, investigates how individuals are influenced by group pressure to conform. The experiment's characteristics, use cases, benefits, challenges, and examples provide valuable insights into social influence, decision-making, and experimental design in psychology and education. Characteristics of the Asch Conformity Experiment: Use Cases ...
Solomon Asch Biography: The Man Behind the Conformity Experiments
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 ...
Solomon Asch's Line Experiment
Asch was a social psychologist and is credited for Asch's Conformity Experiments, also known as the Asch Paradigm. ... You can find countless examples of social conformity in everyday life; people ...
The Asch Line Study
Learn more about the Asch Line Study on my blog! https://practicalpie.com/asch-line-study/Enroll in my 30 Day Brain Bootcamp: https://practicalpie.com/30-day...
The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch
1. Introduction. A core assumption in sociology is that what humans think and do does not only depend on their own attitudes and disposition, but also to a large extent on what others think and do. The power of social influence on individuals' behavior was demonstrated already in the 1950s in a series of experiments by Solomon Asch [ 1 - 3 ].

The Asch Line Study (+3 Conformity Experiments)

How Did the Asch Line Study Work?

Who was Solomon Asch?

Findings of Asch's Conformity Study

Interviewing the Participants

Conclusions from the Asch Line Study

Asch Line Study vs. Milgram Experiment

Further Experiments and Variations

Why Is The Asch Line Study Ethnocentric? And Other Criticisms

Experimenter Bias in the Asch Line Study

Further Criticisms of the Asch Line Study

Related posts:

About The Author

Psychology Resources

Psychology Tests

Margin Size

6.5C: The Asch Experiment- The Power of Peer Pressure

Study Variations

Interpretations

The Asch Conformity Experiments

The Experiment

Connection to Sociology

Conformity - Asch (1951)

Evaluation of Asch

You might also like

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

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

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

Exploring Variations in Conformity: Asch’s Experimental Insights

Asch’s Conformity Experiments: The Core Concept

The Impact of Majority Size on Conformity

When A Dissenter is Present

Understanding the Nuances of Group Dynamics

Further Implications of Asch’s Findings

Conformity in the Modern World: A Contemporary Perspective

Applying Asch’s Insights to Everyday Life

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Social Psychology

Share on Mastodon

12.4 Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience

Link to Learning

Stanley Milgram’s Experiment

Groupthink in the U.S. Government

Group Polarization

Social Loafing

Deindividuation

Asch Study Reimagined: Navigating the Labyrinth of Conformity in the Contemporary Mind

About this conformity and social neuroscience research news

Similarity Doesn’t Guarantee Empathy: Rethinking Double-Empathy Theory

ADHD Medications Improve Long-Term Cognitive Function

Pet Ownership Boosts Men’s Empathy Towards Animals

Viagra Shows Promise in Boosting Brain Blood Flow for Dementia Prevention

73 Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience

Learning Objectives

STANLEY MILGRAM’S EXPERIMENT

GROUP POLARIZATION

Social Facilitation

Social Loafing

Review Questions

Critical Thinking Questions

Personal Application Questions

Share This Book

What Is Conformity? Definition, Types, Psychology Research

Types of Conformity

Compliance (or group acceptance)

Internalization (genuine acceptance of group norms)

Identification (or group membership)

Ingratiational

Why Do People Conform?

Normative Conformity

Informational Conformity

Conformity Examples

Non Conformity

Asch Conformity Experiment

Characteristics of the Asch Conformity Experiment:

Use Cases of the Asch Conformity Experiment:

Benefits and Implications of the Asch Conformity Experiment:

Challenges and Considerations:

Examples Illustrating the Impact of the Asch Conformity Experiment:

Case Studies