Asch Conformity Study

The Asch Conformity Study: Understanding Social Influence

The Asch Conformity Experiments, conducted by psychologist Solomon Asch in the 1950s, are renowned for their insight into human behavior and social influence. These experiments focused on the extent to which social pressure could influence a person to conform to a majority opinion, even when it was clearly incorrect.

Conformity is a primary motivator of social influence. Christos Kyrlitsias and Despina Michael‐Grigoriou define conformity as “the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms.” They further explain that norms “are implicit, unsaid rules that are shared by a group of individuals and that guide their interactions with others” (Kyrlitsias & Michael-Grigoriou, 2018). Asch was interested in these dimensions of human behavior. He was curious why some people conform and why some people do not.

Background

Solomon Asch designed a simple but impactful experiment to study the effects of peer pressure on individual judgment. Participants were shown a line on a card and then asked to select the matching line from a group of three other lines. Unbeknownst to the participant, the others in the group were confederates instructed to provide incorrect answers in some trials. The aim was to observe whether the real participant would conform to the incorrect majority opinion, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Asch explained that the purpose of the research was to investigate “the condition of independence and submission to group pressure.” He added, “our immediate object was to study the social and personal conditions that induce individuals to resist or to yield to group pressures when the latter are perceived to be contrary to the fact” (Asch, 1951).

Key Findings

The results of the Asch conformity experiments are truly remarkable and thought-provoking. They provide valuable insight into the dynamics of social influence and the human tendency to conform to group pressure. The experiments revealed that a substantial number of participants, when faced with the pressure of a group, chose to disregard the evidence of their own senses and conform to the majority opinion. This phenomenon sheds light on the complexities of human behavior, illustrating how individuals may prioritize social acceptance and belonging over their own perceptions and judgment.

Study Results

The control group correctly identified the correct line near 95% of the time. When the confederate group, chose an obviously wrong answer, the percentage of subjects also choosing the wrong answer had a significant movement towards the majority. Asch referred to this s the ‘majority effect’. However, most subjects remained independent of the group (68%) despite the pressure of majority.

It should be noted, the experiment was not examining a single decision comparing lines, but examination of subject choices over many decisions. After the initial conformity test, subjects were given the purpose of the study and asked a series of questions.

Asch noted that behind these numbers, they found extreme individual differences. Some subjects remained independent of the group without exception, and a few others went with almost exclusively with the group majority.

Individual Differences

Asch distinguished independent subjects by three different categories:

1. Indepence based on confidence in one’s perception and experience. These individual vigorously opposed group pressure. They felt the pressure, and dealt with internal conflict, but remained firm with their individual perception.
2. Independent and withdrawn. These individuals quietly stayed with their perception without experiencing external pressure or internal conflict.
3. Considerable tension and doubt. This group of individuals notably felt the pressure. The pressure even created doubt. However, they would not adhere to the pressure when they continued to perceive a different answer to the task.

Asch also distinguished the yielding subjects by three different groups. These are:

1. Distortion of perception under group pressure. A minority of the subjects that completely yielded, distorted their perception to agree with the group. In this group, the subjects were not aware they were distorting their perception.
2. Distortion of judgement. Most yielding subjects perceived that a different line than the one chosen by the group matched, but believed that the error is not the group, but their individual ability to perceive correctly. “I believe the correct answer is ‘C,’ but everybody else says it is ‘A.’ I must be wrong.”
3. Distortion of action. This group perceives correctly, is confident in their perception, however, goes with the group to avoid conflict. They yield because of an overwhelming need to not create waves by being different.

Implications

The findings from these experiments truly shed light on the incredible power of social influence and the deeply ingrained human tendencies to seek acceptance while simultaneously avoiding conflict. This innate aspect of human nature has profound implications for understanding group dynamics, decision-making processes, and the impact of authority on individual behavior. Furthermore, it accentuates the significance of individual autonomy and critical thinking in the face of social pressure. Understanding and recognizing these dynamics is pivotal to fostering environments that encourage independent thinking and constructive decision-making.

Dynamics of Decision Making

These findings offer a compelling reflection on the power of social norms and the fear of social disapproval. The willingness of many individuals to prioritize conformity over their own beliefs underscores the intricate interplay between social dynamics and personal decision-making. The implications of the Asch conformity studies resonate across various contexts, prompting deeper contemplation on the motivations and influences that shape human behavior in group settings.

The Asch Conformity studies stand as a poignant reminder of the strength of social pressure and the enduring relevance of understanding the dynamics of conformity in our society. The insights gleaned from these experiments continue to spark important discussions and inquiries into the complexities of human behavior within social constructs.

Conformity and Autonomy

Some conformity is necessary in social settings. The American culture has championed traits of autonomy, at least in theory. A closer look at our lives and we see the overpowering influence of conformity. Especially in today’s political climate. Edward L. Deci and Richard Flaste explain that “to be autonomous means to act in accord with one’s self— it means feeling free and volitional in one’s actions.” They continue, “their actions emanate from their true sense of self, so they are being authentic. In contrast, to be controlled means to act because one is being pressured” (Deci & Flaste, 1996).

In the Asch experiments many of the subjects do not feel free to choose the line they felt obviously was the correct answer. They experienced silent pressure to conform. Many social groups, especially tight small groups experience a fusion. The collectiveness of the group provides protection. Group protection often is offered at some sacrifice of autonomy. We need additional resources and protection so we conform at some level. In these groups we lose a sense of self “members find it difficult to negotiate their individual needs because of the demand for conformity and loyalty” by the group (Scheff, 1997. Kindle location: 4,344).

Independence and Conformity

While Asch’s studies are commonly referred to as conformity experiments, they are as much about independence as conformity. While his research is often cited as proof of conformity, vast majority of the subjects in his studies did not conform. Most remained independent to the confederate groups pressure.

Ronald Friend, Yvonne Rafferty, and Dana Bramel explain “Asch has generally not been adequately interpreted, that despite the clarity of his account, frequently it was systematically misinterpreted, and that this trend has grown substantially over time.” They continue, “when it first appeared, the Asch study was understood—correctly, we believe—as evidence of the impressive powers of independence in social life” (Friend, Rafferty, & Bramel, 1990).

Integration

Conformity and autonomy is the primary dilemma of human existence. The answer, of course, is complex. There will always be differences between individuals, as well as, between the needs of an individual versus the needs of the group. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi explains “differentiation refers to the degree to which a system…is composed of parts that differ in structure or function from one another.” The answer is integration. Csikszentmihalyi defines integration as “the extent to which the different parts communicate and enhance one another’s goals” (Csikszentmihalyi, 2009).

Deci and Flaste explain, “as people become more authentic, as they develop greater capacity for autonomous self-regulation, they also become capable of a deeper relatedness to others” (Deci & Flaste, 1996, p. 6).

See Primary Dilemma for more on this topic

Complexity

The experiment with lines is simple. Overwhelming majority of the subjects were able to quickly identify the correct answer. However, social life is much more complex. Political issues are full of positive and negative aspects. Usually, there is no perfectly correct answer. Asch’s experiments exposed the power of group influence when the answer was obvious. We are left to wonder how much influence is exerted by groups on our opinions when the answers are vague.

Our political opinions are strongly subject to the state and community we live in, by the families we were raised by, and by the groups and churches we attend. Depending on our personality types, our motivations, and many other factors, we conform or rebel.

See Life is Complex for more on this topic

Social Desirability Bias

Perhaps, a partial explanation for conformity is our innate need to belong. According to the theory of Social desirability bias, we are motivated by a need for acceptance. We present ourselves in ways we perceive acceptable to the observer. Going against the group may create hostility, therefore, we pushback our autonomy in order to maintain a level of acceptance by others.

See Social Desirability Bias for more on this topic

Legacy

Solomon Asch’s work has had a lasting impact on the field of psychology, influencing research into conformity, obedience, and group behavior. The Asch Conformity Experiments remain a pivotal study in the exploration of human behavior within social contexts.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

Exploring the world of conformity is a bit unsettling. We think of juries, political parties, and boards of directors. How many decisions are made by a few, while the others simply conform. We must ponder that if nearly thirty percent of the individuals in Asch’s study, where the facts was clearly identifiable, chose to conform, how many more conform to group norms when most of the facts are uncertain.

In conclusion, the Asch Conformity Experiments significantly contributed to our understanding of social influence and the dynamics of group behavior. They serve as a reminder of the potent effect of social pressure on individual decision-making, sparking ongoing exploration into the complexities of human interaction and conformity.

Last Update: February 18, 2024

References:

Asch, Soloman (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In Guetzkow, Harold (editor), Groups, Leadership and Men: Research in Human Relations. Carnegie Press. pp. 177–190. ISBN 978-0-608-11271-8.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (2009). The Evolving Self: Psychology for the Third Millennium. HarperCollins e-books; Reprint edition.

Deci, Edward L.; Flaste, Richard (1996). Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation. Penguin Books; Reprint edition.

Friend, Ronald; Rafferty, Yvonne; Bramel, Dana (1990). A puzzling misinterpretation of the Asch ‘conformity’ study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(1), 29-44. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2420200104

Kyrlitsias, Christos; Michael‐Grigoriou, Despina (2018). Asch conformity experiment using immersive virtual reality. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, 29(5). DOI: 10.1002/cav.1804

Scheff, Thomas J. (1997). Shame in Social Theory. In Melvin R. Lansky & Andrew P. Morrison  (Eds.), The Widening Scope of Shame. Routledge; 1st edition.

Topic Specific Databases:

PSYCHOLOGY – EMOTIONS – RELATIONSHIPS – WELLNESS – PSYCHOLOGY TOPICS