summary of solomon asch experiment

Solomon Asch Conformity Line Experiment Study

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

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

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

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

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

Experimental Procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical Evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

Perrin and Spencer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factors Affecting Conformity

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

His results and conclusions are given below:

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

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

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

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

Lack of Group Unanimity / Presence of an Ally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Difficulty of Task

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

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

Answer in Private

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

What are some real-world examples of conformity?

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

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

What are some of the negative effects of conformity?

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

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

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

How does conformity differ from obedience?

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

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

What is the Asch effect?

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

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

What is Solomon Asch’s contribution to psychology?

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

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

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

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

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

Asch, S. E. (1952). Group forces in the modification and distortion of judgments.

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 70(9) , 1-70.

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

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

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

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

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

The Asch Conformity Experiments

What Solomon Asch Demonstrated About Social Pressure

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

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

The Experiment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connection to Sociology

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

Updated  by Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D.

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

Asch Conformity Experiments: Line Study

Categories Social Psychology

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

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

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

Table of Contents

The Asch Experiments

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

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

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

Results of the Asch Conformity Experiments

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

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

Explanations for the Results

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

Normative Social Influence

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

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

Informational Social Influence

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

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

Other Factors That Can Influence Conformity

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

These include:

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

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

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

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

Critiques of the Asch Conformity Experiments

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

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

Impact and Contributions of the Asch Conformity Experiments

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

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

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

Related reading:

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

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

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

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

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

The Mechanics of Conformity: Inside Asch’s Line and Length Experiments

Table of Contents

Have you ever found yourself agreeing with a group even though you had doubts? It’s a common experience that can make us wonder about the nature of our own decisions. This curiosity about human behavior is precisely what led social psychologist Solomon Asch to explore the phenomenon of conformity in the 1950s. His line judgment experiments, known as the Asch Paradigm , uncovered the subtle yet powerful influence of group pressure on individual judgments. Let’s dive into the mechanics of conformity through the lens of Asch’s groundbreaking research.

The Asch Conformity Experiments

Imagine sitting in a room with a group of people you believe are participants like yourself. You’re shown a card with a line on it, followed by another card with three lines of varying lengths. Your task seems simple: identify which of the three lines is the same length as the one on the first card. But there’s a catch—everyone else in the group, who are actually confederates in the experiment, gives the wrong answer on purpose. Would you stick to what you see, or would you go along with the group?

Setting the Stage

Asch’s experiment placed one real participant in a room with several confederates. The real participant was unaware that the others were in on the experiment. This setup allowed Asch to observe the influence of the majority on the individual.

The Power of the Majority

Asch found that a significant number of participants conformed to the majority’s incorrect answer. Even with clear evidence that the majority was wrong, individuals often chose to deny their own perceptions to fit in with the group.

Understanding Why We Conform

Conformity isn’t just about choosing the same line length—it’s a reflection of how social influence shapes our everyday lives. From fashion trends to political opinions, conformity is a powerful social force.

Social and Normative Influences

Asch’s experiments highlighted two main types of conformity: normative and informational. Normative influence occurs when individuals conform to be liked or accepted by the group. Informational influence happens when people assume the group is better informed than they are.

Cultural Context and Conformity

Cultural context plays a significant role in how and why we conform. In cultures that value social harmony and collective well-being over individuality, conformity rates may be higher.

The Lasting Impact of Asch’s Findings

The implications of Asch’s findings extend beyond a psychology lab. They help us understand phenomena like peer pressure , corporate culture , and even the spread of fake news .

Conformity in the Digital Age

In today’s digital world, social media platforms can create an echo chamber effect , reinforcing conformity. Understanding the Asch Paradigm can help us navigate these virtual spaces more critically.

Challenging Conformity

Asch’s work reminds us that it’s okay to stand against the majority when we believe we’re right. Encouraging critical thinking and fostering environments where dissent ing opinions are valued can help reduce undue conformity.

Key Takeaways from Asch’s Experiments

Asch’s line and length experiments were more than a study of visual perception; they were a window into the human psyche. They revealed our tendencies, the reasons behind them, and the implications for our society.

The Role of Dissent

One crucial finding was that the presence of just one dissenter can significantly reduce conformity. This highlights the importance of allies and the courage to be the first to stand up against the majority.

Conformity Across Time

While Asch’s experiments took place over half a century ago, the core insights remain relevant. The human inclination to conform persists, but each generation faces its own unique set of pressures.

Asch’s line and length experiments shed light on the intricate dance between individuality and social influence. They challenge us to reflect on our own decisions and the factors that shape them. As we navigate a world that’s more connected than ever, understanding the mechanics of conformity is key to maintaining our sense of self amidst the crowd.

What do you think? Would you have conformed in Asch’s experiment? How do you see conformity influencing your daily life?

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

• Abnormal Psychology
• Assessment (IB)
• Biological Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminology
• Developmental Psychology
• Extended Essay
• General Interest
• Health Psychology
• Human Relationships
• IB Psychology
• IB Psychology HL Extensions
• Internal Assessment (IB)
• Love and Marriage
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Prejudice and Discrimination
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Research Methodology
• Revision and Exam Preparation
• Social and Cultural Psychology
• Studies and Theories
• Teaching Ideas

Key Study: Conformity – Asch (1955)

Travis Dixon October 4, 2016 Uncategorized

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Background Information

Humans are social animals, formign groups and strong bonds naturally. As such, it’s not hard to see the many ways that belonging to a group is important. Conformity is one effect that can happen as a result of this need to belong. Conformity is when behaviour is modified in order to fit in with a larger group.

Methodology and Results

For the following experiments Asch used the same experimental paradigm using the line length cards (which has come to be known as the Asch Paradigm). It involves matching one line with one from a group of three.

Typical Experimental Condition

7 to 9 male college students get together in a room, but only one of them is a naïve subject – the rest are confederates. i.e. the subject thinks everyone is just there like him, but in actual fact they all know what is going on. They sit in a row at a large desk and face the experimenter who holds up cards like those in figure 1. The subject is near the end of the line, so by the time they have given their response they have heard the responses of most of the group. The first two “trials” the confederates give the right answer and it all appears a bit boring. On the third trial, however, they deliberately give the wrong answer. In total there are 18 trials, but only in 12 of these do the group deliberately give the wrong answer (when this happens it’s called a “critical trial”).

In Asch’s first experiment reported in his 1955 paper, there were 123 subjects from three different colleges. The results were as follows:

• When alone: almost 100% accurate (<1% error rate)
• When in the group, the subjects conformed 36.8% of the time

In the results above, there was a range of individual variability:

• About 25% of subjects never agreed with the group
• Some subjects always agreed with the group

The subjects were interviewed after each experiment so the researchers could find out more about why they went along with the group. However, these were not investigated extensively. In his report he makes some generalizations, saying confidence in one’s own opinion was one factor that would have influenced the rate of conformity. There were some who adopted the idea, “I am wrong, they are right” and so changed their answers accordingly. Other subjects changed their answers because they did want to spoil the researchers’ results.

Interestingly, all subjects who conformed underestimated the frequency with which they conformed to the group.

Asch wanted to explore two dynamics that he thought might influence conformity: group size and unanimity.

Experiment 2: Group Size

In this experiment this size of the “opposition” (i.e, number of confederates) ranged from 1 to 15. In this modification, when there was only one confederate the subjects did not change their answers but instead gave conflicting (and correct) responses. However, as the group grew the results changed:

• One confederate: almost 0% conformity
• Two confederates: 13.6% conformity
• Three confederates: 31.8% conformity

Interestingly, this positive correlation between group size and conformity rate only goes up until a group of four (i.e. three confederates, one subject). After more confederates are introduced the rate does not change and is around 30%. However, after 8 or more confederates the rate of conformity begins to drop.

Experiment 3: Unanimity

Unanimity is when all people are in agreement, so in this context it refers to the extent to which all confederates give the wrong answer. In this design, Asch introduced either another naïve subject or a confederate who was told to not give the wrong answer on the critical trials. The results showed that conformity rates dropped when this happened (the conformity rate was ¼ of that in the regular design). During post-experiment interviews it was revealed that subjects felt a sense of closeness and warmth with their “partner.”

Experiment 4: Dissent

Based on the results with a partner, Asch posed another interesting question: “Was the partner’s effect a consequence of his dissent, or was it related to his accuracy?” Dissent is going against what is commonly believed, so in this context it means breaking away from the group and giving different answers. To test the above question, Asch made more modifications. This time a confederate was told to be either a “compromising” or “extremist” dissenter.

• Compromising: going against the group but the difference in answers is close
• Extremist: going against the group and given a very different answer

Both conditions reduced conformity. Moreover, the extremist dissenter “produced a remarkable freeing of the subjects.” When there was an extreme dissenter conformity dropped to 9%.

Experiment 5: Gaining and Losing a Partner

At this point I think it’s important just to mention that all these modifications within the experiment were done on different subjects.

In this next design, Asch tested what would happen if a subject gains a fellow dissenter but then this partner decides to join the incorrect group. A confederate was told to answer correctly on the first 6 critical trials. During these trials, the subjects also had no problems going against the rest of the group and giving the correct answer. However, after 6 trials the dissenting confederate changed and began giving incorrect answers along with the rest of the group – and as a result so did the subject. Having lost the partner to the majority the subject’s conformity rate rose to a similar level as those in Experiment #1 (i.e. about 1/3).

Experiment 5b: Gaining and Losing a Partner from the Group

As a result of the questioning from the previous experiments (27 subjects in total), Asch decided to see what would happen if the partner left the room completely. It was announced at a certain point after giving the correct answer on a few trials the partner said he had an appointment with the dean and had to leave. While there were still errors made (i.e. the participant conformed), the rates were lower than when the partner joined the majority.

Experiment 6: Gradual Dissolution

Asch had all confederates begin by giving correct answers and gradually changing to incorrect ones. By the sixth trial all the confederates were now giving wrong answers. The results showed that as long as there was just one other person against the group the subject could stay independent. However, as soon as he lost all partners the conformity rates increased.

7: Degree of Inaccuracy

Asch hypothesized that if the group’s answers were wrong enough the conformity would disappear. However, even when the different in line lengths were 7 inches (18 cm) there were still participants who conformed.

The above studies provide some interesting insight into factors that influence conformity. Asch suggested the following factors might influence conformity and since this paper was published in 1955 these have been studied:

• Social and cultural factors (Bond and Smith)
• Personality and characte

Travis Dixon is an IB Psychology teacher, author, workshop leader, examiner and IA moderator.

Reference Library

Collections

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

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Conformity - Asch (1951)

Last updated 6 Sept 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation of Asch

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

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

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

• Normative Social Influence
• Task Difficulty

You might also like

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

12th January 2017

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

18th January 2017

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

Topic Videos

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

Our subjects.

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

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

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

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

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

• Psychology >

Asch Experiment

A series of studies conducted in the 1950's, a series of studies conducted in the 1950's.

The Asch Experiment, by Solomon Asch, was a famous experiment designed to test how peer pressure to conform would influence the judgment and individuality of a test subject.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Social Psychology Experiments
• Milgram Experiment
• Bobo Doll Experiment
• Stanford Prison Experiment
• Milgram Experiment Ethics

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Social Psychology Experiments
• 2.1 Asch Figure
• 3 Bobo Doll Experiment
• 4 Good Samaritan Experiment
• 5 Stanford Prison Experiment
• 6.1 Milgram Experiment Ethics
• 7 Bystander Apathy
• 8 Sherif’s Robbers Cave
• 9 Social Judgment Experiment
• 10 Halo Effect
• 11 Thought-Rebound
• 12 Ross’ False Consensus Effect
• 13 Interpersonal Bargaining
• 14 Understanding and Belief
• 15 Hawthorne Effect
• 16 Self-Deception
• 17 Confirmation Bias
• 18 Overjustification Effect
• 19 Choice Blindness
• 20.1 Cognitive Dissonance
• 21.1 Social Group Prejudice
• 21.2 Intergroup Discrimination
• 21.3 Selective Group Perception

The experiment is related closely to the Stanford Prison and Milgram Experiments , in that it tries to show how perfectly normal human beings can be pressured into unusual behavior by authority figures, or by the consensus of opinion around them.

For the experiment, eight subjects were seated around a table, with the seating plan carefully constructed to prevent any suspicion.

Only one participant was actually a genuine subject for the experiment, the rest being confederates, carefully tutored to give certain pre-selected responses. Careful experimental construction placed a varying amount of peer pressure on the individual test subject.

The participants gave a variety of answers, at first correct, to avoid arousing suspicion in the subject, but then with some incorrect responses added.

This would allow Asch to determine how the answers of the subject would change with the added influence of peer pressure.

The Asch Experiment results were interesting and showed that peer pressure could have a measurable influence on the answers given.

The control group , those not exposed to peer pressure where everybody gave correct answers, threw up only one incorrect response out of 35; this could probably be explained by experimental error .

The results for the other groups were interesting; when surrounded by people giving an incorrect answer, over one third of the subjects also voiced an incorrect opinion.

At least 75% of the subjects gave the wrong answer to at least one question, although experimental error may have had some influence on this figure. There was no doubt, however, that peer pressure can cause conformity.

It was debated whether this is because people disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes or if it was just compliance, that people hide their opinions.

Follow ups to the Asch Experiment showed that the number of dissenting voices made a difference to the results, as did the forcefulness of the confederates.

One incorrect confederate made little difference to the answers, but the influence steadily increased if two or three people disagreed.

The figures did not change much after this point; more confederates made little difference. The number of people in the group also made a difference; the influence of dissenting voices leveled off for groups of more than six or seven people.

The experiments also showed that, even if only one other participant disagreed with the confederates, the subject was more likely to resist peer pressure; it appears to be more difficult to resist the majority if isolated.

The Asch Experiment showed that one voice can make a difference amongst many.

There have been a number of criticisms of Asch's experiments; the subjects were all young males, and they tend to be much more impressionable than older men. More mature people have had enough experience of life, and more mental strength; they are more likely to hold true to their convictions.

Another criticism, that the experiment lacks ecological credibility and does not relate to real-life situations, is one that can be leveled at many psychological experiments, including the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Other follow up experiments, where the subjects were allowed to write down responses anonymously, showed far fewer incorrect answers. The comfort of anonymity made sure that looking foolish became much less of a pressure.

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth (Feb 23, 2008). Asch Experiment. Retrieved Sep 07, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/asch-experiment

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Save this course for later.

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

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

Biography of Psychologist Solomon Asch

Asch conducted influential experiments on conformity

Birth and Death

• Asch's Conformity Experiments

Contributions to Psychology

Selected publications.

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

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

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

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

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

Asch's Conformity Experiments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solomon Asch conformity experiments

Solomon asch experiment (1958) a study of conformity, conformity, group size, and cohesiveness.

• Chinese Terracotta Warriors
• Otzi the Iceman
• The Antikythera Mechanism
• More Archaeology pages ...
• Stanley Milgram : Obedience to Authority Experiments
• Conformity under Social Pressure : Solomon Asch
• The Nature vs Nurture Debate
• More Social Psychology pages ...
• Point Rosee - Viking settlement site?
• Sarah Parcak ~ Space Archaeologist
• Dr Sarah Parcak discoveries
• Street plan of Tanis
• More Space Archaeology pages ...
• Stephen Fry quotations and quotes on God and Religion
• Stephen Fry's controversial interview on Irish TV
• Stephen Hawking : God & Religion quotes
• 'God is dead' - Nietzsche
• More Quotations & Quotes pages ...
• Maximilien Robespierre : Reign of Terror
• Otto von Bismarck
• More Historical Biography pages ...
• The European Revolutions of 1848
• Cavour & Italian Unification
• Bismarck & German Unification
• More History pages ...
• The Faith vs. Reason Debate
• World Religions Populations Statistics
• Central spiritual insights
• Other spiritual wisdoms
• More Spirituality pages ...
• Buddha's teachings
• Buddhist Philosophy
• Buddhism vs. Christianity
• More Buddhism pages ...
• Our Downloads page ...

The Psychology of Conformity

The psychology of conformity is something we've previously explored, but its study dates back to the 1950s, with Gestalt scholar and social psychology pioneer Solomon Asch , known today as the Asch conformity experiments . Among them is this famous elevator experiment, originally conducted as a part of a 1962 Candid Camera episode entitled "Face the Rear."

But, while amusing in its tragicomic divulgence of our capacity for groupthink, this experiment tells only half the story of Asch's work. As James Surowiecki reminds us in the excellent The Wisdom of Crowds , Asch went on to reveal something equally important -- that while people slip into conformity with striking ease, it also doesn't take much to get them to snap out of it. Asch demonstrated this in a series of experiments, planting a confederate to defy the crowd by engaging in the sensible, rather than nonsensical, behavior. That, it turned out, was just enough. Having just one peer contravene the group made subjects eager to express their true thoughts. Surowiecki concludes:

Ultimately, diversity contributes not just by adding different perspectives to the group but also by making it easier for individuals to say what they really think. ...Independence of opinion is both a crucial ingredient in collectively wise decisions and one of the hardest things to keep intact. Because diversity helps preserve that independence, it's hard to have a collectively wise group without it.

Perhaps the role of the global Occupy movement and other expressions of contemporary civic activism is that of a cultural confederate, spurring others -- citizens, politicians, CEOs -- to face the front of the elevator at last.

HT Not Exactly Rocket Science .

This post also appears on Brain Pickings , an  Atlantic  partner site.

About the Author

More Stories

'Study the King James Bible': H. P. Lovecraft's Advice to Aspiring Writers

Why Men Have Nipples, in One Colorful Animated Video

12.4 Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience

Learning objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to Learning

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

Stanley Milgram’s Experiment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Groupthink in the U.S. Government

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

Do you see evidence of groupthink?

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

There are several symptoms of groupthink including the following:

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

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

Group Polarization

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

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

Social Loafing

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

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

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

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

Deindividuation

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Jun 26, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

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.

Are Smokers Really Less Likely to Develop Parkinson’s?

Brain Activity in Craving Shown to Vary Rapidly

Tau Levels Predict Memory Loss in Alzheimer’s

Role of Serotonin Release in Depression Uncovered

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).

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.

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 ).

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

Solomon Asch (Psychologist Biography)

A 2002 empirical survey published by Review of General Psychology  rated Asch as the 41st most eminent psychologist of the 20th century.

Who Is Solomon Asch?

Solomon Asch was a Polish American psychologist who specialized in gestalt psychology and pioneered social psychology. He conducted groundbreaking research on a number of topics, including how people form impressions of others and how prestige may influence judgements. Asch is best known for his work on group pressure and conformity. 

Solomon Asch's Childhood

Solomon Elliott Asch was born on September 14, 1907 in Warsaw, Poland. He was raised in the small neighbouring town of Lowicz in a large Jewish family. Asch described his childhood as “a time of great anxieties, big fears, [and] grave dangers.” This state of affairs was due in large part to the outbreak of the first World War and to instances of anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe.

An experience Asch had as a child would remain with him into his adult life and later influence his studies on group pressure and conformity. At about age seven, during the celebration of the Jewish Passover, a cup of wine was placed at an empty spot at the table. A curious Asch was told that the wine was for the prophet Elijah. According to his uncle, the prophet visited each Jewish home on the Passover and would take a sip of wine from the cup left out for him. Fascinated, Asch kept watching the cup and although the level of the wine never declined, there came a point when it seemed to him that “perhaps it did go down a little!” The group pressure from other members of the family caused him to think that the level of wine had indeed changed.

As a boy, Asch was naturally shy and introverted. He once said that it would have been easier for him to not breathe than to not be shy. In 1920, when he was 13 years of age, his family migrated to the United States. They found a home on New York’s Lower East Side, where they were surrounded by many other Jewish, Irish, and Italian immigrants.

Early Schooling

Asch was placed in the 6th grade at the neighbourhood public school but initially had difficulty learning English. He eventually mastered the language through extensive reading of Charles Dickens novels. About two years after arriving in the United States, he was admitted to Townsend Harris Hall, a small elite high school for academically advanced males.

Educational Background 

After completing high school, Asch attended the City College of New York, where he studied literature and science. He received his bachelor of science degree in 1928 at the age of 21. He first learned about psychology toward the end of his undergraduate career and his interest was piqued. However, his knowledge of psychology was quite limited, derived mainly from reading works by William James and a few philosophers. Some of his initial assumptions about the field were also incorrect and in his own words, one could “almost say that [he] came into psychology by mistake.”

Despite his limited knowledge of the field, Asch went on to pursue graduate studies in psychology at Columbia University. He also had an interest in anthropology and spent a summer observing children in the Hopi culture to determine how they became assimilated into that culture. He was awarded his masters degree in 1930, followed by a doctoral degree in 1932.

Study of Gesalt Theory

During his time at Columbia, Asch received his first exposure to Gestalt psychology and the ideas associated with this school of thought appealed to him greatly. He was particularly drawn to the work of Gestalt theorist Max Wertheimer, who emigrated to the United States from Europe in 1933. Upon learning of his arrival in the United States, Asch actively sought out Wertheimer and despite not studying with him, got to know him very well. Wertheimer became Asch’s most significant mentor and Asch would later extend the principles of Gestalt psychology to social psychology and to the study of thought, perception, and behavior.

Asch believed that it is necessary to study human beings both as individuals and as members of social groups if human nature is to be properly understood. He recognized that individuals could influence group behavior, and groups could influence the behavior of individuals. According to Asch, social acts must be investigated in their natural setting. This is crucial because studying social behaviors in isolation would rob the behaviors of all their meaning.

Asch accepted a teaching position at Brooklyn College in 1932. In 1943, he was appointed chair of psychology at the New School for Social Research, replacing his mentor, Max Wertheimer, who died that year. Asch remained at the New School until 1947 when he moved to Swarthmore College in Philadelphia. At Swarthmore, Asch developed a close relationship with renowned Gestalt psychologist, Wolfgang Kohler, who was also on the faculty there.

Working With Stanley Milgram

During his time at Swarthmore, he also served for two years (1958-1960) as a member of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study. There, Stanley Milgram , who later became a prominent psychologist, worked as his research assistant. It was also during his time at Swarthmore that Asch conducted his famous experimental studies on conformity.

In 1966, Asch left Swarthmore to help establish the Institute for Cognitive Studies at Rutgers University in New Jersey. He served as the head of the Institute from the time of its inception until 1972 when he accepted a position at the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) as Professor of Psychology. Apart from a year spent at the Center for the Advanced Study of the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, Asch remained at UPenn until his retirement in 1979. He was Professor Emeritus of Psychology until 1996.

Asch’s Experiments on Perception

In the 1940s, Solomon Asch and Herman Witkin investigated how a person’s visual frame of reference may impact his or her perception of an upright object. At the time, the popular belief was that gravity receptors in the body were the primary factors that helped people to decide whether a particular direction was vertical or horizontal. With behaviorism being a dominant force at the time, much emphasis was placed on factors that could be seen and measured, such as a person’s posture and physical orientation. Asch and Witkin’s experiments challenged these behavioral explanations of how people perceive space and direction.

In one of their perception studies, Asch and Witkin allowed participants to view the research lab through a cardboard tube. Unknown to the participants, the cardboard tube was actually aimed at a reflection of the lab, and this reflected image was tilted up to 30 degrees from true vertical alignment. The participants were given a rod and asked to position it so that it maintained alignment with the true vertical. The results of the experiment showed that the participants were more likely to tilt the rod according to the tilt of the reflected image, rather than keep it aligned to the true vertical.

Results of Asch's Line Perception Studies

These perception experiments showed that visual information plays a major role in determining how people orient themselves and other objects in space. If postural or physical factors were the primary tools for orientation as behaviorists claimed, more participants would have kept the rod aligned with the true vertical regardless of the tilted image they were shown.

Impression Formation

A common behaviorist belief in the 1940s and 1950s was that a person could be completely understood by studying the different parts or elements that make up that person. Asch rejected this line of thinking in favor of the gestalt principle that people were more than the sum of their parts. To help determine which approach was more accurate, Asch designed a series of clever experiments to reveal how individuals form impressions of other people.

In one experiment, Asch gave two groups of people a list of personality traits. The lists for both groups were very similar, they only differed by one trait.

For example:

Group 1 - tough , determined, sociable, industrious, intelligent, skillful

Group 2 - tender , determined, sociable, industrious, intelligent, skillful

Group 1 - skillful, intelligent, practical, cold , industrious, cautious

Group 2 - skillful, intelligent, practical, warm , industrious, cautious

Asch then asked the participants to write a brief description of the impression they formed about the imaginary person who had these traits. He also gave the participants a checklist of word pairs that contained opposites (such as → kind/mean, generous/ungenerous, etc) and asked them to indicate which trait on the checklist matched the person they had in their mind.

Results of Impression Formation Work

Asch discovered that participants who were given a list with the words “tender” or “warm” were more likely to have a positive impression of the imaginary person than participants who were given a list with “tough” or “cold.” The written descriptions also showed that other personality traits (such as “determined” and “cautious”) were viewed in a more positive light if the person was also described as “tender” or “warm.” As traits such as tender, tough, warm,  and cold  seemed to affect how other qualities are perceived, Asch referred to them as “central” characteristics. Other traits that did not have a major impact on impression formation were called “peripheral” characteristics.

While behaviorists view people as a complete collection of parts, these results showed that personality traits are not isolated units that can simply be added together. Rather, Asch’s findings showed that it is possible for traits to interact with each other, and this interaction may affect the way people are perceived by onlookers.

In another experiment, Asch investigated whether or not impression formation may be affected by the order in which items are presented.

Participants were given one of the following lists:

• Intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, envious
• Envious, stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious, intelligent

List 1 begins with a positive trait and ends with a negative trait, while list 2 begins with a negative trait and ends with a positive trait. The words in each list are exactly the same, the order has simply been reversed. Asch found that participants viewed the imaginary person in list 1 as a positive, capable person who has a few shortcomings. On the other hand, participants viewed the imaginary person in list two as a negative person with serious problems.

The results showed that the order in which personality traits are presented can impact the impression individuals form of other people. The results also undermined the behaviorist view that people are simply the sum of their parts. If that view was correct, participants who were given list 1 and participants who were given list 2 would have formed similar impressions about the imaginary person because all the “parts” are exactly the same.

Prestige Suggestion

As World War II unfolded in the 1940s, many psychologists became interested in propaganda and indoctrination. How could you make people believe that it was in their best interest to sacrifice for the war effort? Psychologists had noticed long before that people were more likely to agree with a statement if it was given by a speaker who had a measure of prestige. The popular belief at the time was that the greater the prestige a speaker or writer had, the more he or she could influence the population.

Asch disagreed with this simplistic explanation. He believed people were doing more than just blindly accepting a message based on the identity of the speaker. He suggested that people may change the way they interpret a message if they know who the message is from.

Jefferson vs. Lenin Study

In one of his experiments, Asch shared the following quotation with some American students: “I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical." Some of the students were told that the statement was made by former American president Thomas Jefferson, others were told that the statement was made by Vladimir Lenin—former head of the Sovient and a well-known communist. The students were also asked to write what the quote meant to them.

Asch found that American students were more likely to agree with the quote when it was attributed to Jefferson than Lenin. The meaning of the quote also changed, depending on who the students thought the author was. When the quote was attributed to Jefferson, the “little rebellion” was believed to be related purely to politics. When the quote was attributed to Lenin, it was interpreted to mean a little blood had to be spilt.

The Asch Conformity Experiments

In 1951, Asch conducted his classic conformity experiments . He wanted to investigate how social pressure impacts people’s decision-making and whether (1) the size of the group, or (2) the unanimity of the group was more important for influencing opinion.

Asch invited 50 male Swarthmore students to take part in a “vision experiment.” Each participant was placed in a room with 5-7 confederates (people who were secretly working with Asch). The group was first shown a card with a line on it, then they were shown a second card with three lines labeled A, B, and C. Each person was then asked to choose which line on the second card matched the line on the first card. The real participant always gave his answer last or second to last.

There were eighteen rounds or trials in total and the correct answer for each trial was very obvious. Unknown to the participant, the confederates were instructed to answer incorrectly in twelve specific trials. These twelve trials were called the “critical trials.” Asch also set up a control group where only the participant was present.

During the first two rounds, all the confederates answered correctly and this helped to put the participant at ease. However, after the fourth round, the confederates all gave the same wrong answer whenever they got to a critical trial. They gave these wrong answers loudly and confidently. Asch then waited to see if the participant would conform to group pressure by giving the same incorrect answer as the confederates.

Results of Asch's Conformity Experiments 

The results of the experiment showed that 25% of participants were able to withstand all forms of group pressure and give the correct answer in each trial. However, 75% of participants conformed to group pressure at least once. In the control group, less than 1% of participants answered incorrectly.

Why did so many participants conform at least once to the majority view when they could see the correct answer for themselves? After the experiment, some of the participants explained that they did not want to stand out or be ridiculed for their answers. Other participants said they actually thought the majority view was correct. Although they could see the correct answer, they convinced themselves that perhaps the line was just a little too short and so they went with the group’s answer. Asch concluded that there are two major reasons people conform:

They want to appear normal and fit in with everyone else in the group (this is called normative influence)

They think the group is better informed than they are (this is called informational influence)

Asch found that conformity was more likely to occur if there were three or more confederates who all gave the same wrong answer. However, if one confederate gave the correct answer while the other confederates answered incorrectly, the participant was much less likely to conform. In later experiments, he showed that conformity increases when (1) the task at hand is more difficult, (2) the other members of the group have a higher social status, and (3) the participant is asked to respond publicly.

Applications of Asch’s Theories

Social conformity is found in many aspects of everyday life. Civilized society is built upon people’s willingness to conform to certain rules or standards that help to maintain order and promote progress. For example, people conform to social standards of wearing clothing in public and driving in a particular lane on the road. However, social pressure may also be applied to other fields such as:

Residents who display political yard signs may influence other residents in their community to vote for a specific political party

Companies may increase sales by using stats to show that most people in the neighborhood are using a specific product or service

People who want to improve their health may be encouraged to surround themselves with individuals who have healthy habits such as exercising regularly and eating a healthy diet

Parents may influence the behaviors their children develop by monitoring the friends they keep

New recruits are influenced to shave their head, develop combat skills, and follow orders if they want to fit in with the group

Schools maintain order by ensuring that new students conform to certain existing standards. New students may be influenced to wear a uniform or respond to specific bells when they observe the behavior of other students.

Criticisms of Asch’s Theories

One major criticism of Asch’s conformity experiments is that his sample was not representative of the general public. His participants were all young male students who attended Swarthmore College. Consequently, his results may not be applicable to females or older people.

A second issue is that the study has low ecological validity as the results may not be applicable to real-life scenarios that involve conformity. Asch ensured that the participants were able to identify the correct answer in each trial. However, people in real-life situations of conformity may be unsure what the correct decision is.

Some critics have claimed that Asch’s experiments say more about American culture than conformity. Studies conducted in other countries show that the level of conformity may change depending on whether a country prioritizes individualism or collectivism. Other critics argue that participants did not have a desire to conform to the rest of the group, but simply wanted to avoid unnecessary conflict. Some participants reported that they agreed with the group because they did not want to “spoil” the results.

Solomon Asch's Contributions to Psychology: Books, Awards, and Accomplishments

Asch authored a number of landmark articles that helped to shape the field of social psychology. However, he despised the “publish or perish” approach that was practiced in American academia. In 1952, he published his research findings in the book Social Psychology .

A few of Asch’s other awards and accomplishments include:

Fellow of the Guggenheim Foundation, 1941-1942 and 1943-1944

Member of the Institute for Advanced Study, 1958-1960 and 1970

Senior Fellow of the U.S. Public Health Service, 1959-1960

Awarded the Nicholas Murray Butler Medal from Columbia University, 1962

Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1965

Received the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the American Psychological Association, 1967

Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1976-77

Personal Life

Asch married Florence Miller in 1930 and the two enjoyed a long and pleasant marriage. Asch and Florence met at a library and although they lived just a few blocks apart, they wrote to each other constantly during their courtship. They had a son, Peter, in 1937, who later became a Professor of Economics at Rutgers University.

Asch, who was affectionately called Shlaym by his friends, died on February 20, 1996, at his home in Haverford, Pennsylvania. He was 88 years of age. He was survived by his wife, two grandsons, a granddaughter, and a great-grandson. His son, Peter, predeceased him in 1990.

Asch, S. E., & Witkin, H. A. (1948). Studies in space orientation: I. Perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38 (3), 325–337.

Ceraso, J., Gruber, H., & Rock, I. (2014). On Solomon Asch. In I. Rock (Ed.), The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology . New York: Psychology Press.

Death of Solomon Asch. (1996). Retrieved from https://almanac.upenn.edu/archive/v42/n23/asch.html

King, D. B., Viney, W., & Woody, W. D. (2013). History of psychology: Ideas and context (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Korn, J. H. (1997). Illusions of reality: A history of deception in social psychology . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Sheehy, N. (2004).  Fifty key thinkers in psychology . New York: Routledge.

Stout, D. (1996). Solomon Asch is dead at 88; a leading social psychologist.  Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/29/us/solomon-asch-is-dead-at-88-a-leading-social-psychologist.html

The Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict. (n.d.). Solomon E. Asch 1907-1996 . Retrieved from http://www.brynmawr.edu/aschcenter/about/solomon.htm

Related posts:

• The Asch Line Study (+3 Conformity Experiments)
• Stanley Milgram (Psychologist Biography)
• Lawrence Kohlberg (Psychologist Biography)
• Edward Thorndike (Psychologist Biography)
• Lev Vygotsky (Psychologist Biography)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Famous Psychologists:

Abraham Maslow

Albert Bandura

Albert Ellis

Alfred Adler

Beth Thomas

Carl Rogers

Carol Dweck

Daniel Kahneman

David Dunning

David Mcclelland

Edward Thorndike

Elizabeth Loftus

Erik Erikson

G. Stanley Hall

George Kelly

Gordon Allport

Howard Gardner

Hugo Munsterberg

Ivan Pavlov

Jerome Bruner

John B Watson

John Bowlby

Konrad Lorenz

Lawrence Kohlberg

Leon Festinger

Lev Vygotsky

Martin Seligman

Mary Ainsworth

Philip Zimbardo

Rensis Likert

Robert Cialdini

Robert Hare

Sigmund Freud

Solomon Asch

Stanley Milgram

Ulric Neisser

Urie Bronfenbrenner

Wilhelm Wundt

William Glasser

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

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use