psychology experiment conformity

The Asch Line Study (+3 Conformity Experiments)

Sheep. Complicit. Doormat. There are a lot of negative connotations associated with conformity, especially in the United States. Individualist societies push back on "going along with what everyone is doing." And yet, we conform more than we think. According to studies like the Asch Line Study, humans have a natural tendency to conform.

The Asch Line Study is one of the most well-known experiments in modern psychology, but it's not without its faults. Keep reading to learn about how the Asch Line Study worked, its criticisms, and similar experiments!

How Did the Asch Line Study Work?

In his famous “Line Experiment”, Asch showed his subjects a picture of a vertical line followed by three lines of different lengths, one of which was obviously the same length as the first one. He then asked subjects to identify which line was the same length as the first line.

Solomon Asch used 123 male college students as his subjects, and told them that his experiment was simply a ‘vision test’. For his control group, Asch just had his subjects go through his 18 questions on their own.

However, for his experimental group, he had his subjects answer each of the same 18 questions in a group of around a dozen people, where the first 11 people intentionally said obviously incorrect answers one after another, with the final respondee being the actual subject of the experiment.

Who was Solomon Asch?

Solomon E. Asch was a pioneer in social psychology. He was born in Poland in 1907 and moved to the United States in 1920. Asch received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1932 and went on to perform some famous psychological experiments about conformity in the 1950s.

One of these studies is known as the “Asch Line Experiment”, where he found evidence supporting the idea that humans will conform to and accept the ideas of others around them, even if those ideas are obviously false. This study is one of the most influential studies in social psychology .

Findings of Asch's Conformity Study

​ Asch found that his subjects indeed were more likely to give a false response after the other members of their group (the actors) gave false responses. As shown in this ‘Table 1’ from his experiment, during 18 trials, the ‘Majority Error’ column shows no error when the group response was the correct response, such as in Trial #1.

However, when the entire group intentionally gave a false answer (these situations are designated with an * under the “Group Response” column), the ‘Majority Error’ did exist and was slanted toward the opinion of the group.

For example, if the group answered with a line that was too long, such as in Trial #3, the ‘Majority Error’ column shows that the subjects generally estimated the line to be longer than it really was (denoted with a ‘+’), and vice-versa for when the group answered with a line that was too short, such as in Trial #4.

As for his control group, Asch found that people generally said the correct answer when they did not have a group of actors saying answers before them.

Interviewing the Participants

​ After the experiment, Asch revealed the true experiment to his subjects and interviewed them. Some subjects had become very agitated during the experiment, wondering why they kept disagreeing with the group. When the group pressed one particular subject on why he thought that he was correct and the entire group was wrong, he replied defiantly, exclaiming: “You're probably right, but you may be wrong!”

Other subjects admitted during the interview that they changed their answers after hearing others in their group reply differently. One was recorded saying, “If I’d been the first I probably would have responded differently.” Another subject admitted, “...at times I had the feeling: 'to heck with it, I'll go along with the rest.' "

Conclusions from the Asch Line Study

​ Asch found that his subjects often changed their answers when they heard the rest of the group unanimously giving a different response.

After the interviews, Asch concluded in his study that his subjects conformed to the opinions of the group for three different reasons:

Distortion of perception due to the stress of group pressure: This group of subjects always agreed with the group and said during the interview that they wholeheartedly believed that their obviously incorrect answers were correct. Asch concluded that the stress of group pressure had distorted their perception.

Distortion of judgment: This was the most common outcome, where subjects assumed that their individual answers were incorrect after seeing the rest of the group answer differently, so they changed their answer to align with the group.

Distortion of action: These subjects never doubted that they were correct and the group was wrong, but out of fear of being perceived as different, they suppressed their opinions and intentionally lied when it was their turn to give an answer.

Asch Line Study vs. Milgram Experiment

Both the Asch Line Study and the Milgram Experiment look at conformity, obedience, and the negative effects of going along with the majority opinion. Those negative effects are slightly awkward, like in the Asch Line Study, or dangerous, like in the Milgram Experiment. Both experiments were conducted in the Post-WWII world as a response to the conformity that was required for Nazi Germany to gain power. The premise of Asch's study was not nearly as dramatic. Milgram's was. 

To test conformity, Milgram and his researchers instructed participants to press a button. Participants believed that the buttons would shock another "participant" in a chair, who was really an actor. (No one was shocked.) The study continued as long as participants continued to shock the participant at increasingly dangerous levels. The participants knew that they could cause serious harm to the person in the chair. Yet, many obeyed.

Further Experiments and Variations

Solomon Asch didn't just conduct one experiment and move on. He replicated his experiment with new factors, including:

• Changing the size of the actor group
• Switching to a non-unanimous actor group
• Having a unanimous actor group, except for one actor who sticks to the correct response no matter what the group or subject says
• Instructing the one actor who gives the correct response come in late
• Having one actor decide to change their answer from the group’s answer to the subject’s answer

There are also many reproductions and replications of this study online. Not all of them come to the same conclusions! Read through the following texts to get a sense of how other psychologists approached this subject:

• Mori K, Arai M. No need to fake it: reproduction of the Asch experiment without confederates. Int J Psychol. 2010 Oct 1;45(5):390-7. doi: 10.1080/00207591003774485. PMID: 22044061.

Why Is The Asch Line Study Ethnocentric? And Other Criticisms

​ One big issue with the Asch line study is that the subjects were all white male college students between the ages of 17 and 25, with a mean age of 20. Since the experiment only shows results for this small and specific group of people, it alone cannot be applied to other groups such as women or older men.

Experimenter Bias in the Asch Line Study

Only choosing subjects from one demographic is a form of Experimenter Bias . Of course, researchers can use one demographic if they are specifically studying that demographic. But Asch was not just looking at young, white men. If he had expanded his research to include more participants, he may have produced different answers.

We assume Asch did not go about his study with the intention of being biased. That's the tricky thing about biases. They sneak up on us! Even the way that we share information about psychology research is the result of bias. Reporter bias is the tendency to highlight certain studies due to their results. The Asch Line Study produced fascinating results. Therefore, psychology professors, reporters, and students find it fascinating and continue to share this concept. They don't always share the full story, though.

Did you know that 95% of the participants actually defied the majority at least once during the experiment? Most textbooks don't report that. Nor did they report that the interviewees knew that they were right all along! Leaving out this key information is not Asch's fault. But it should give you, a psychology student, some pause. One thing that we should take away from this study is that we have a natural tendency to conform. This tendency also takes place when we draw conclusions from famous studies! Be critical as you learn about these famous studies and look to the source if possible.

Further Criticisms of the Asch Line Study

Does the Asch Line Study stand the test of time? Not exactly. If we look at what was happening in 1950s society, we can see why Asch got his results. Young white men in the early 1950s may have responded differently to this experiment than young white men would today. In the United States, which is where this experiment was performed, the mid-1950s was a historic turning point in terms of rejecting conformity. Youth were pushing toward a more free-thinking society. This experiment was performed right around the time that the movement was just starting to blossom, so the subjects had not grown up in the middle of this new anti-conformist movement. Had Asch performed this experiment a decade later with youth who more highly valued free-thinking, he may have come across very different results.

Another thing to note is that, at least in the United States, education has evolved with this movement of encouraging free-thinking. Teachers today tell students to question everything, and many schools reject ideas of conformity. This could once again mean that, if done again today, Asch would have found very different results with this experiment.

Another problem with this experiment is that, since subjects were not told it was a psychological experiment until after it was over, subjects may have gone through emotional and psychological pain during what they thought was just a simple ‘vision test’.

Finally, it’s good to remember that the ‘Asch Line Experiment’ is just that: an experiment where people looked at lines. This can be hard to apply to other situations because humans in group settings are rarely faced with questions that have one such obvious and clear answer, as was the case in this experiment.

Related posts:

• Solomon Asch (Psychologist Biography)
• 40+ Famous Psychologists (Images + Biographies)
• Stanley Milgram (Psychologist Biography)
• Experimenter Bias (Definition + Examples)
• The Monster Study (Summary, Results, and Ethical Issues)

Reference this article:

About The Author

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

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

What Is Conformity? Definition, Types, Psychology Research

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Conformity

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

Compliance (or group acceptance)

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

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

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

Internalization (genuine acceptance of group norms)

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

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

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

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

Identification (or group membership)

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

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

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

Ingratiational

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

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

Why Do People Conform?

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

Normative Conformity

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

Informational Conformity

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

Conformity Examples

Sherif (1935) autokinetic effect experiment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non Conformity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Understanding Grief: Navigating the Complex Emotions, Cognitions, and Behaviors
• From Juggling to Flourishing – Coaching Insights for Working Mothers
• Love Addiction: The Fine Line Between Passion and Obsession
• 10 Subtle Signs You Are Excellent in Decision-making, According to Psychology
• Former England Cricketer Graham Thorpe Dies by Suicide After Battling Depression

Your cart is empty

The Asch Conformity Experiment and Its Implications

• by Psychologs Magazine
• June 13, 2024
• 4 minutes read

Social Psychology is a field of psychology that aims to study the behaviour of human beings in a social context. It examines how our behaviour, ideas, feelings, and emotions are affected by the presence of others in an environment. Group behaviour, peer pressure, interpersonal relations, prejudice, and conformity are some of the major concepts studied in this field. The information on these is derived from social experiments conducted by psychologists in the past. The Stanford Prison Experiment , the Bystander Experiment , and the Asch Conformity Test remain some of the important ones. These tests have been replicated several times over the many years, and hence remain valuable in the study of psychology.

The Asch Conformity Experiment

The Asch Conformity Experiment is a popular experiment that is used to study group behaviour and conformity. It was designed by the pioneering social psychologist Solomon Asch. In this test, he studied how individual cognition can be affected by external influence when in a group.

Experiment Design

For this experiment, Asch seated several students in a classroom, some of which were confederates or actors who already knew the experiment, while others were unaware of it. He then showed them a picture and asked them to match the target line to the line which they believed was equal to it.

Experiment Procedure

In the first few rounds, the actors were asked to respond first and were told to give the correct answer. This affected the opinion of the others, and the subjects began to give similar answers, despite whatever their personal opinion was. In the later rounds, the Confederates started to change their answer to the wrong option. Hence, even though the participants knew what the correct answer was, due to the first trials, they began to doubt their choice and shifted their opinion according to the majority.

Results and Analysis

Eighteen such trials were conducted with 123 subjects. When the experimenters analyzed the results, they concluded that:

• 23% of the students always gave the right answer,
• 72% conformed with the majority at least once,
• 5% of them were always with the majority group, giving the wrong answer.

This change in opinion was due to peer pressure. According to his analysis, Asch concluded that the opinion of a minimum of 3 students was needed to get the majority group to reconsider their opinions.

Implications of the Experiment

Groupthink and peer pressure.

The success of this experiment and its replicability over time have led to further exploration in the domain, leading to the ideas of groupthink and peer pressure. Several examples of this can be seen in our daily life as well.

Social Media Influence

With changing times and expanding technology, social media is now more accessible than ever before. This increased access and continuous exposure leads to youngsters succumbing to the changing trends owing to the need to identify with the majority and remain relevant in changing times. This sometimes also leads to unhealthy comparisons with others. It also kills the individuality and uniqueness of a person which was supposed to make them stand out from one another.

Education and Peer Pressure

Similarly, the expression of peer pressure can be largely seen in the domain of education, where students today feel the need to excel and prove themselves due to the growing competitiveness and comparison among them. When cohesive group behaviour is within a certain limit, it is beneficial for the students as it becomes a source of motivation for each other. Here, group conformity leads to increased self-esteem . But when this cohesiveness and comparison reach unhealthy levels, it begins to take a toll on mental health due to the dissonance between personal and external needs, eventually forcing students to take extreme steps in certain severe cases, by indulging in self-harm or even suicide.

Household Conformity and Obedience

This constant comparison of different domains of life on social media takes place almost subconsciously. It eventually makes a person look down upon themselves, based on an unreal projection of the life of another person on these public platforms. Similar forms of compulsive conformity can be seen within the household as well. It increases when there are elders involved in the situation because one is expected to accept and uphold their opinions and decisions out of respect and reverence. This is done despite the cognitive dissonance between the two parties or opposing opinions they may possess. This is referred to as obedience and is an example of conformity out of respect.

Over the years, several studies have been conducted to assess the effects of this need for social conformity and cohesion and the peer pressure it leads to. These studies have dealt with understanding its effect on different ages, genders, and social groups. In most cases, this need for cohesiveness has proved detrimental, more specifically in cases related to gender because of the prejudices and the expectation to conform to society’s pre-established gender norms.

• Asch’s Conformity Experiment on Groupthink
• Lally, M., & Valentine-French, S. (2018). Introduction to Psychology.

Share This Post:

Psychology behind attitude, madras hc orders state to provide lifelong care for 20-year-old with bipolar disorder, leave feedback about this cancel reply.

• Rating 5 4 3 2 1

Related Post

Precognitive Dreams: Glimpses of What’s to Come

Cognitive Training for Mental Health: Insights from Psychologists

A Guide to Using Cognition for Effective Learning

Examination Anxiety: Doubts Kill the Will

10 Skills You Need to Excel in the

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.

73 Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience

[latexpage]

Learning Objectives

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

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

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 ( [link] ). Participants were then shown a fourth line segment: x. They were asked to identify which line segment from the first group (a, b, or c) most closely resembled the fourth line segment in length.

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

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 ( [link] ).

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).

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

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 gave (or believed they gave) the learners shocks, which increased in 15-volt increments, all the way up to 450 volts. The participants did not know that the learners were confederates and that the confederates did not actually receive shocks.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Do you see evidence of groupthink?

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. 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 Facilitation

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

Social Loafing

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

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

Interestingly, the opposite of social loafing occurs when the task is complex and difficult (Bond & Titus, 1983; Geen, 1989). Remember the previous discussion of choking under pressure? This happens when you perform a difficult task and your individual performance can be evaluated. In a group setting, such as the student work group, if your individual performance cannot be evaluated, there is less pressure for you to do well, and thus less anxiety or physiological arousal (Latané, Williams, & Harkens, 1979). This puts you in a relaxed state in which you can perform your best, if you choose (Zajonc, 1965). If the task is a difficult one, many people feel motivated and believe that their group needs their input to do well on a challenging project (Jackson & Williams, 1985). Given what you learned about social loafing, what advice would you give a new professor about how to design group projects? If you suggested that individuals’ efforts should not be evaluated, to prevent the anxiety of choking under pressure, but that the task must be challenging, you have a good understanding of the concepts discussed in this section. Alternatively, you can suggest that individuals’ efforts should be evaluated, but the task should be easy so as to facilitate performance. Good luck trying to convince your professor to only assign easy projects.

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

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

Review Questions

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

• informational
• inspirational

Under what conditions will informational social influence be more likely?

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

Social loafing occurs when ________.

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

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

• group cohesion
• social facilitation
• social loafing

Critical Thinking Questions

Describe how seeking outside opinions can prevent groupthink.

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

Compare and contrast social loafing and social facilitation.

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

Personal Application Questions

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

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

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

• 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

What Is Conformity?

Social pressure can sway your behavior—for good and for bad

What Causes Conformity?

Famous experiments on conformity, types of conformity, factors that can influence conformity.

• Potential Pitfalls

Frequently Asked Questions

Social pressure can sometimes lead us to change our behavior, a process known as conformity. This can sometimes be overt, like being pressured to behave in a certain way, or a more subtle influence that causes you go along with the rest of the group.

Conformity is the act of changing your behaviors to fit in or go along with the people around you.

In some cases, this social influence might involve agreeing with or acting like the majority of people in a specific group, or it might involve behaving in a particular way in order to be perceived as "normal" by the group. Essentially, conformity involves giving in to group pressure.

Keep reading to learn more about how conformity works, how different types of conformity can influence your behavior, and what you can do to resist giving in to social pressure.

Each situation is different, but researchers suggest that there are many reasons why people conform. It isn't always a bad thing. Consider this: in many cases, looking to the rest of the group for clues about how we should behave can be helpful.

Other people might have greater knowledge or experience than we do, so following their lead can actually be instructive.

In some instances, we conform to the group's expectations to avoid looking foolish. This tendency can become particularly strong in situations where we are not quite sure how to act or where the expectations are ambiguous.

In 1955, Deutsch and Gerard identified two key reasons why people conform: informational influence and normative influence.

Informational Influence

Informational influence happens when people change their behavior to be correct. In situations where we are unsure of the correct response, we often look to others who are better informed and more knowledgeable and use their lead as a guide for our own behaviors.

In a classroom setting, for example, this might involve agreeing with the judgments of another classmate you perceive as highly intelligent.

Normative Influence

Normative influence stems from a desire to avoid punishments (such as going along with the rules in class even though you don't agree with them) and gain rewards (such as behaving in a certain way in order to get people to like you).

Conformity is something that happens regularly in our social worlds. Sometimes we are aware of our behavior, but in many cases, it happens without much thought or awareness on our parts.

While conformity isn't always a negative influence, sometimes it causes us to go along with things that we disagree with or behave in ways that we know we shouldn't.

Some of the best-known experiments on the psychology of conformity deal with people going along with the group, even when they know the group is wrong.

Jenness's 1932 Experiment

In one of the earliest experiments on conformity, Jenness asked participants to estimate the number of beans in a bottle. They first estimated the number individually and then later as a group.

After being asked as a group, they were asked again individually. The experimenter found that their estimates shifted from their original guess to closer to what other group members had guessed.

Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Experiments

In a series of experiments, Muzafer Sherif asked participants to estimate how far a dot of light in a dark room moved. In reality, the dot was static, but it appeared to move due to something known as the autokinetic effect. Essentially, tiny movements of the eyes make it appear that a small spot of light is moving in a dark room.

When asked individually, the participants' answers varied considerably. When asked as part of a group, however, Sherif found that the responses converged toward a central mean.

Sherif's results, published in 1935, demonstrated that in an ambiguous situation, people will conform to the group, an example of informational influence.

Asch's Conformity Experiments

In this series of famous experiments , conducted in the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch asked participants to complete what they believed was a simple perceptual task. They were asked to choose a line that matched the length of one of three different lines.

When asked individually, participants would choose the correct line. When asked in the presence of confederates who were in on the experiment and who intentionally selected the wrong line, around 75% of participants conformed to the group at least once.

This experiment is a good example of normative influence. Participants changed their answer and conformed to the group in order to fit in and avoid standing out.

Stanford Prison Experiment

In this controversial experiment , conducted in 1971, Philip Zimbardo simulated a prison setting to see how people's behavior would change according to the role they were given (prisoner or prison guard). It showed that behavior was affected by the expectations of the role.

While this is one of the most famous psychology experiments on conformity, it is important to note that it has been criticized extensively, and its results have been questioned. In addition to the ethical issues with the study, recent examination of the research methods and procedures has cast serious doubts on the study's findings, validity, and authenticity.

Normative and informational influences are two important types of conformity, but there are also a number of other reasons why we conform.

Normative Conformity

This type of conformity involves changing one's behavior in order to fit in with a group. For example, a teenager might dress in a certain style because they want to look like their peers who are members of a particular group.

Informational Conformity

In this case, conformity is looking to the group for information and direction (this happens when a person lacks knowledge). Think of attending your first class at a new yoga studio. You would probably watch what others were doing to see where you should hang your coat, stow your shoes, unroll your mat, and so on.

Identification

Identification is conforming based on social roles. In other words, a person might change their behavior to fit with what might be expected of a person in that specific role. The Stanford Prison Experiment is an example of this type of conformity.

Compliance is changing one's behavior while still internally disagreeing with the group. For example, you might read a book for your book club and really enjoy it. But at your meeting, you learn that the other members all disliked the book. Rather than go against the group opinion, you might simply agree that the book was terrible.

Internalization

This type of conformity involves changing one's behavior to be like another person. You might notice this in a friend who's taste in music or movies shifts to match that of their romantic partner.

Conformity doesn't happen in every situation. Some people might resist conformity while being more susceptible to these influences in others. It's important to remember that human behavior and psychology are complex. People may conform in some situations and not in others, depending on factors including:

• The difficulty of the task : Difficult tasks can lead to increased and decreased conformity. Not knowing how to perform a difficult task makes people more likely to conform, but increased difficulty can also make people more accepting of different responses, leading to less conformity.
• Individual differences : Personal characteristics, such as motivation to achieve and strong leadership abilities , are linked with a decreased tendency to conform.
• Group size : People are more likely to conform in situations that involve between three and five other people.
• Situation : People are more likely to conform in ambiguous situations where they are unclear about how they should respond.
• Cultural differences : People from collectivist cultures are more likely to conform.

Potential Pitfalls of Conformity

While fitting in with a group is often beneficial, conformity can sometimes have undesirable consequences. For example:

• Feeling like you have to change your appearance or personality to be a member of a group might lower your self-esteem .
• Succumbing to peer pressure could lead to risky or illegal behavior, such as underage drinking.
• Conformity might also lead to a bystander effect , in which going along with the group means failing to act when someone is in need.
• The desire to conform might also limit your openness to new ideas or arguments.
• And conforming with a group could even result in feelings or acts of prejudice .

Understanding conformity can help you make sense of the reasons why some people go along with the crowd, even when their choices seem out of character for them. It can also help you see how other people's behavior may influence the choices you make.

Compliance is changing one's behavior in response to a request to do so, such as a friend asking you to give them a ride. It's not the same as obedience (for example, a student following a school rule) because the request came from someone who doesn't have authority over you. Conformity is more subtle. It is when you change your behavior (consciously or unconsciously) not based on a request, but based on a perceived need to fit in with those around you.

Research shows that conformity to peers peaks in mid-adolescence, around age 14. At this age, children spend more time with peers and their influence is strongest.

In more individualistic cultures, people are less likely to conform. In collectivist cultures, conformity is more valued.

Conformity bias is the tendency to make decisions or judgments based on other people's behavior. Once one person in a class cheats on a test, for example, others may be more willing to cheat because they see that it is acceptable to the group.

Wei Z, Zhao Z, Zheng Y. Following the majority: Social influence in trusting behavior .  Front Neurosci . 2019;13:89. doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00089

Deutsch M, Gerard HB. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment .  J Abnormal Social Psychol. 1955;51(3):629-636.doi:10.1037/h0046408

Sowden S, Koletsi S, Lymberopoulos E, Militaru E, Catmur C, Bird G. Quantifying compliance and acceptance through public and private social conformity .  Conscious Cogn . 2018;65:359–367. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2018.08.009

Kyrlitsias C, Michael-Grigoriou D, Banakou D, Christofi M. Social conformity in immersive virtual environments: The impact of agents' gaze behavior .  Front Psychol . 2020;11:2254. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02254

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

Le Texier T. Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment . Am Psychol. 2019;74(7):823-839. doi:10.1037/amp0000401

Knoll LJ, Leung JT, Foulkes L, Blakemore SJ. Age-related differences in social influence on risk perception depend on the direction of influence . J Adolesc. 2017;60:53-63. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.07.002

Asch SE. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments . In: Guetzkow H, ed. Groups, Leadership and Men. Carnegie Press.

Breckler SJ, Olson JM, Wiggins EC. Social Psychology Alive . Cengage Learning.

Eysenck MW. Psychology: An International Perspective . Psychology Press.

Jenness A. The role of discussion in changing opinion regarding a matter of fact . J Abnormal Social Psychol. 1932:27(3):279-296. doi:10.1037/h0074620

Sherif M. A study of some social factors in perception . Arch Psychol. 1935(187):60.

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

Conformity: Definitions, Types, and Evolutionary Grounding

• First Online: 01 January 2015

Cite this chapter

• Julie C. Coultas Ph.D. 6 , 7 &
• Edwin J. C. van Leeuwen Ph.D. 8  

Part of the book series: Evolutionary Psychology ((EVOLPSYCH))

6435 Accesses

10 Citations

6 Altmetric

Conformity research in social psychology spans a century, but researchers have only adopted an evolutionary perspective in the past 25 years. This change has been driven by gene-culture coevolutionary models and research on nonhuman animals. In this chapter, we outline why there is a credible basis for an evolutionary explanation for widespread behavioral conformity in humans. However, we caution that not all conformity in humans is the same because conforming in a perceptual judgment task in the laboratory (as per the Asch paradigm) is not equivalent to being an unwitting participant in a behavioral field study. Moreover, conformity has not been consistently defined across research disciplines, which hampers a valid assessment of its evolutionary origins. Theoretical models within social psychology and the study of gene-culture coevolution are valuable tools in the quest for evolutionary explanations of conformist behavior; they have utilized gained insights while inspiring simulations and empirical tests. We propose the idea of incorporating individuals’ habit adherence into the models to advance the study of conformity. Conformity is a powerful force in human decision making and is best understood from an evolutionary perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Conformity cannot be identified based on population-level signatures

Sigmoidal Acquisition Curves Are Good Indicators of Conformist Transmission

Conformity Bias: A Fact or an Experimental Artifact?

Asch proposed that conformity leveled off at a group size of three in perceptual judgment experiments.

Lumsden and Wilson ( 1981 ) used these findings when constructing their trend-watcher curve.

Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Google Scholar  

Allport, F. H. (1934). The j-curve hypothesis of conforming behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 141–185.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aoki, K., & Feldman, M. W. (2013). Evolution of learning strategies in temporally and spatially variable environments: A review of theory. Theoretical Population Biology, 90, 64–81.

Aronson, E., & O’Leary, M. (1983). The relative effectiveness of models and prompts on energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Systems, 12, 219–224.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 117–190). Pittsburgh: 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, 1–70.

Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462–479.

Bond, R. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 331–354.

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, 111–137.

Bonnie, K. E., Horner, V., Whiten, A., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2007). Spread of arbitrary conventions among chimpanzees: A controlled experiment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 274, 367–372.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Boyd, R. (1988). Is the repeated prisoner’s dilemma game a good model of reciprocal altruism? Ethology and Sociobiology , 9, 211–221.

Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1991). Culture and cooperation. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Cooperation and prosocial behavior (pp. 27–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Campbell, A. (2002). A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology of women . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Campbell, J. D., & Fairey, P. J. (1989). Informational and normative routes to conformity: The effect of faction size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the stimulus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 457–468.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution : A quantitative approach . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception—b ehavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Conformity and compliance. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.

Claidière, N., & Whiten, A. (2012). Integrating the study of conformity and culture in humans and nonhuman animals. Psychological Bulletin , 138 , 126–145.

Claidière, N., Bowler, M., & Whiten, A. (2012). Evidence for weak or linear conformity but not for hyper-conformity in an everyday social learning context. PLoS One, 7, e30970.

Article   PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Coultas, J. C. (2004). When in Rome… An evolutionary perspective on conformity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 317–331.

Coultas, J. C., & Eriksson, K. (May, 2014). Milgram revisited: Imitative behaviour is influenced by both the size and entitativity of the stimulus group. Paper presented at the Annual British Psychological Society , Birmingham.

Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10, 191–198.

Darley, J. M. (1966). Fear and social comparison as determinants of conformity behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 73–78.

David, B., & Turner, J. C. (2001). Majority and minority influence: a single process self-categorisation analysis. In C. K. W. De Dreu & N. K. de Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 91–121). Malden: Blackwell.

Day, R. L., MacDonald, T., Brown, C., Laland, K. N., & Reader, S. M. (2001). Interactions between shoal size and conformity in guppy social foraging. Animal Behaviour, 62, 917–925.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.

Dindo, M., Whiten, A., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2009). In-group conformity sustains different foraging traditions in capuchin monkeys ( Cebus apella ). PloS One, 4, e7858.

Eagly A. H., & Chaiken S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes . Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

Efferson, C., Lalive, R., Richerson, P. J., McElreath, R., & Lubell, M. (2008). Conformists and mavericks: The empirics of frequency-dependent cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 56–64.

Eriksson, K., & Coultas, J. C. (2009). Are people really conformist-biased? An empirical test and a new mathematical model. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 5–21.

Eriksson, K., Enquist, M., & Ghirlanda, S. (2007). Critical points in current theory of conformist social learning. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 67–87.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.

Galef, B. G. (2012). Social learning and traditions in animals: Evidence, definitions, and relationship to human culture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science, 3, 581–592.

Galef, B. G., & Whiskin, E. E. (2008). ‘Conformity’ in Norway rats? Animal Behaviour, 75, 2035–2039.

Gallup, A. C., Hale, J. J., Sumpter, D. J. T., Garnier, S., Kacelnik, A., Krebs, J. R., & Couzin, I. D. (2012). Visual attention and the acquisition of information in human crowds. PNAS, 109, 7245–7250.

Gerard, H. B., Wilhelmy, R. A., & Connolley, E. S. (1968). Conformity and group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 79–82.

Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–482.

Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294.

Haddock, G., & Maio, G. R. (2008). Attitudes: Content, structure and function. In M. Hewstone, W. Stroebe, & K. Jonas (Eds.), Introduction to social psychology: A European perspective (4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Haun, D. B. M., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Conformity to peer pressure in preschool children. Child Development, 82, 1759–1767.

Haun, D. B. M., Rekers, Y., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Majority-biased transmission in chimpanzees and human children, but not orangutans. Current Biology, 22, 727–731.

Haun, D. B. M., van Leeuwen, E. J. C., & Edelson, M. G. (2013). Majority influence in children and other animals. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 61–71.

Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (1998). The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 215–241.

Hinde, R. (1982). Ethology: Its nature and relations with other sciences . Glasgow: Fontana Press.

Hopper, L. M., Schapiro, S. J., Lambeth, S. P., & Brosnan, S. F. (2011). Chimpanzees’ socially maintained food preferences indicate both conservatism and conformity. Animal Behaviour, 81, 1195–1202.

Hoppitt, W., & Laland, K. N. (2013). Social learning: An introduction to mechanisms , methods, and models . Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press.

Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory culture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 12, 649–658.

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

Jolles, J. W., de Visser, L., & van den Bos, R. (2011). Male Wistar rats show individual differences in an animal model of conformity. Animal Cognition, 14, 769–773.

Kameda, T., & Nakanishi, D. (2002). Cost-benefit analysis of social/cultural learning in a nonstationary uncertain environment—An evolutionary simulation and an experiment with human subjects. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 373–393.

Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78.

Kendal, R. L., Coolen, I., & Laland, K. N. (2004). The role of conformity in foraging when personal and social information conflict. Behavioral Ecology, 15, 269–277.

Kendal, R. L., Coolen, I., & Laland, K. N. (2009). Adaptive trade-offs in the use of social and personal information. In R. Dukas & J. Ratcliffe (Eds.), Cognitive ecology II (pp. 249–271). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kiesler, C., & Kiesler, S. B. (1969). Conformity . Reading: Addison Wesley.

King, A. J., & Cowlishaw, G. (2007). When to use social information: the advantage of large group size in individual decision making. Biology Letters, 3, 137–139.

Knowles, E., & Bassett, R. (1976). Groups and crowds as social entities: Effects of activity, size and member similarity on nonmembers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 837–845.

Krützen, M., Willems, E. P., & van Schaik, C. P. (2011). Culture and geographic variation in orangutan behavior. Current Biology, 21, 1808–1812.

Laland, K. N. (2004). Social learning strategies. Learning & Behavior, 32, 4–14.

Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.

Latané, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psychological Review, 88, 438–453.

Lumsden, C. J., & Wilson, E. O. (1981). Genes, mind and culture: The coevolutionary process . London: Harvard University Press.

Luncz, L., & Boesch, C. (2013). Tradition over trend: Neighboring chimpanzee communities maintain differences in cultural behavior despite frequent immigration of adult females. American Journal of Primatology, 76, 649–657.

MacCoun, R. J. (2012). The burden of social proof: Shared thresholds and social influence. Psychological Review, 119, 345–372.

Mann, L. (1969). Social psychology . London: Wiley.

Mann, L. (1977). The effect of stimulus queues on queue-joining behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 437–442.

McElreath, R., Lubell, M., Richerson, P. J., Waring, T. M., Baum, W., Edsten, E., et al. (2005). Applying evolutionary models to the laboratory study of social learning. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 483–508.

Mesoudi, A. (2009). How cultural evolutionary theory can inform social psychology and vice versa. Psychological Review, 116, 929–952.

Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 167, 1461–1468.

Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, L. (1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different sizes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 79–82.

Moore, C., & Coultas, J. C. (March, 2010). Strangers in a strange land: Social norms, situational variables and the conformist bias. Paper presented at the 5th European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association Conference , University of Wroclaw, Poland.

Morgan, T. J. H., & Laland, K. (2012). The biological bases of conformity. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 87.

Morgan, T. J. H., Rendell, L., Ehn, W., Hoppitt, W., & Laland, K. (2011). The evolutionary basis of human social learning. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 279, 653–662.

Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365–379.

Mullen, B., Copper, C., & Driskell, J. E. (1990). Jaywalking as a function of model behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 320–330.

Nemeth, C., Wachtler, C., & Endicott, J. (1977). Increasing the size of the minority: Some losses and some gains. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 15–27.

Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change . New York: Dryden Press.

Newcomb, T. M., Koenig, K. E., Flacks, R., & Warwick, D. P. (1967). Persistence and change: Bennington College and its students after twenty five years . New York: Wiley.

Newman, J. & McCauley, C. (1977). Eye contact with strangers in city, suburb and small town. Environment and Behavior , 9 , 547–558.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D., (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.

Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion. Psychological Review, 97, 362–376.

Perry, S. (2009). Conformism in the food processing techniques of white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus capucinus). Animal Cognition, 12, 705–716.

Pike, T. W., & Laland, K. N. (2010). Conformist learning in nine-spined sticklebacks’ foraging decisions. Biology Letters, 6, 466–468.

Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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

Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms . Oxford: Harper.

Simon, H. (1990). A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism. Science, 250, 1665–1668.

Stang, D. J. (1976). Group size effects on conformity. Journal of Social Psychology, 98, 175–181.

Strimling, P., Enquist, M., & Eriksson, K. (2009). Repeated learning makes cultural evolution unique. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 13870–13874.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 189–225.

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence . Belmont: Wadsworth.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory . Oxford: Blackwell.

van de Waal, E., Borgeaud, C., & Whiten, A. (2013). Potent social learning and conformity shape a wild primate’s foraging decisions. Science, 340, 483–485.

van Leeuwen, E. J. C., & Haun, D. B. M. (2013). Conformity in primates: Fad or fact? Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 1–7.

van Leeuwen, E. J. C., & Haun, D. B. M. (2014). Conformity without majority? The case for demarcating social from majority influences. Animal Behaviour , 96, 187–194.

van Leeuwen, E. J. C., Cronin, K. A., Schütte, S., Call, J. & Haun, D. B. M. (2013). Chimpanzees flexibly adjust their behaviour in order to maximize payoffs, not to conform to majorities. PloS One, 8 (11), e80945. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080945.

White, G. M. (1975). Contextual determinants of opinion judgments: Field experimental probes of judgmental relativity boundary conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1047–1054.

Whiten, A., Horner, V., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). Conformity to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees. Nature, 437 (7059), 737–740.

Wolf, S., & Latané, B. (1983). Majority and minority influences on restaurant preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 282–292.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for the study of Cultural Evolution, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden

Julie C. Coultas Ph.D.

Department of Psychology, University of Sussex, BN1 9QH, Falmer, UK

Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Jena, Am Steiger 3/1, 07743, Jena, Germany

Edwin J. C. van Leeuwen Ph.D.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie C. Coultas Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA

Virgil Zeigler-Hill

Lisa L. M. Welling

Todd K. Shackelford

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Coultas, J., van Leeuwen, E. (2015). Conformity: Definitions, Types, and Evolutionary Grounding. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Welling, L., Shackelford, T. (eds) Evolutionary Perspectives on Social Psychology. Evolutionary Psychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12697-5_15

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12697-5_15

Published : 07 May 2015

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-12696-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-12697-5

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Decoding Conformity: Alternatives and Consequences in Asch’s Experiments

Table of Contents

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

The Asch Conformity Experiments Explained

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

The Conflict of Choice: Conformity vs. Independence

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

Conformity: The Path of Least Resistance

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

Independence: The Road Less Traveled

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

Insights into Human Behavior

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

Social Pressure in Action

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

The Value of Independent Thought

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

Navigating the Social Maze: Strategies for Balancing Conformity and Independence

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

Cultivating Self-Awareness

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

Developing Critical Thinking

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

Choosing Your Battles

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

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

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

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

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

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

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

Social Psychology

1 Definition, Concept and Research Methods in Social Psychology

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

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

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

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

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

4 Cognitive Basis and Dynamics of Social Perception and Person Perception

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

5 Definition, Concept, Description, Characteristic of Attitude

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

6 Components of Attitude

• ABCs of Attitudes
• Properties of Attitudes

7 Predicting Behaviour from Attitude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 Crowd Psychology- Collective Consciousness and Collective Hysteria

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

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

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

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

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

15 Autokinetic Experiment in Norm Formation

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

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

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

Share on Mastodon

Elevator Groupthink: An Ingenious 1962 Psychology Experiment in Conformity

By maria popova.

The psychology of conformity is something we’ve previously explored, but its study dates back to the 1950s, when 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 titled “Face the Rear.”

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.

Complement with How To Be a Nonconformist , a satirical masterpiece from the same era, written and illustrated by a teenage girl.

HT Not Exactly Rocket Science

— Published January 13, 2012 — https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/01/13/asch-elevator-experiment/ —

www.themarginalian.org

PRINT ARTICLE

Email article, filed under, activism history knowledge politics psychology vintage, view full site.

The Marginalian participates in the Bookshop.org and Amazon.com affiliate programs, designed to provide a means for sites to earn commissions by linking to books. In more human terms, this means that whenever you buy a book from a link here, I receive a small percentage of its price, which goes straight back into my own colossal biblioexpenses. Privacy policy . (TLDR: You're safe — there are no nefarious "third parties" lurking on my watch or shedding crumbs of the "cookies" the rest of the internet uses.)

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.

How the Brain Learns to Make Inferences

34 Neuron Subtypes Linked to Addiction

Glial Cells Play Key Role in Alzheimer’s Development

AI Lacks Independent Learning, Poses No Existential Threat

What Is Conformity? Definition and Examples

Categories Social Psychology

Conformity involves changing your behavior to align with other people’s behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes. People often conform to blend in with others in their social group. It is a type of social influence that compels people to behave in ways seen as “normal” for that specific group.

Researchers define conformity as “aligning one’s attitude, opinion or behavior to those of others” (Stallen and Sanfey, 2015).

The presence of others can be a powerful force that can convince people that they need to change their beliefs and behaviors. Pressure from groups often leads people to conform with those around them, sometimes even if it conflicts with their personal goals or beliefs.

In this article, learn more about the different types of conformity, why people conform to the group, and how it can affect how people think and behave.

Table of Contents

Types of Conformity

There are also several different types of social conformity that people may engage in.

Compliance refers to changing behavior to gain a reward or avoid punishment . In the famous conformity experiment known as Asch’s conformity experiments, participants were offered a cash reward if they could correctly identify which comparison lines matched the standard line on a test. Many participants conformed and gave an incorrect answer rather than go against the rest of the group.

Complying involves changing your behavior, even though you might still disagree with the rest of the group.

Identification

This type of compliance involves changing behavior because people want to align their identity with the rest of a certain group.  The conformity that typically takes place with this motivation is much more subtle than compliance.

Internalization

This type of conformity leads people to change their beliefs and attitudes because they desire to be like others. Internalization may lead to conformity out of the best interests of the individual. It may also lead to conformity out of the best interests of the groups they identify with.

Ingratiation

This type of conformity involves changing behavior in order to be accepted or favored by other people. People may ingratiate themselves to other members of the group in order to be liked, to gain power, or to obtain some other form of social reward.

Examples of Conformity

To better understand the meaning of conformity, it can be helpful to look at a few examples of how this phenomenon can affect behaviors. Some common examples of conformity include:

• Buying certain types of clothing because other people in your social group are wearing them
• Saying that you agree with other people in your social group just because you don’t want to stand out
• Standing up when you notice that other people are also standing up
• Giving into peer pressure
• Joining a club because other people you know are signing up
• Voting for the political candidates that your friends or family support
• Following a health or fitness trend because you see it everywhere on social media
• Buying specific products because you keep seeing people on social media promoting them

The conformity bias refers to the tendency to change behaviors or beliefs in order to fit in with a social group. This bias causes people to do what the group is doing rather than trusting their own judgment, knowledge, and experience.

What Causes Conformity?

While people often like to believe that they are independent and unique, the reality is that most of us conform in a wide variety of ways each and every day. People are naturally social creatures, so being able to fit in with our social groups plays an important part in social cohesion and group acceptance.

“People adjust their preferences, attitudes, and behaviors to conform to the norms of a group as a means of benefiting their social and physical welfare within the group, because social hierarchy profoundly affects the welfare of both animals and humans,” researchers suggest (Kim, Kim, and Kim, 2021).

People conform for various reasons, some of which can be positive and some negative. According to researchers, there are two primary reasons why people engage in conformity:

Informational Conformity

On the positive side, conformity can be a way to learn what to do in different situations and settings. If you are looking for people who are more informed and experienced, it can help guide your own actions. People tend to engage in information conformity when they lack knowledge or experience. They may also change their behavior to avoid looking foolish or incorrect.

Normative Conformity

Social norms and expectations can also influence conformity. The desire to fit in with groups and avoid being singled out for going against the status quo can also be a powerful motivation for conformity. 

People may engage in normative conformity to avoid punishment, ridicule, or exclusion for standing out from the crowd. They may also conform in ways designed to get others from the group to like or approve of them.

People conform to the group for many reasons. Two of the most common reasons are to acquire information and avoid rejection.

Factors That Influence Conformity

We understand some of the reasons why people conform, but there are also other internal and situational variables that can impact whether or not people conform in different settings. These factors can affect how likely people are to conform to the rest of the group:

• Personal characteristics : Individual factors such as a person’s overall personality and goals can affect the degree to which they conform. 
• Situational factors : When people encounter situations with unclear or ambiguous expectations, they may be more likely to look to others for information about what they should do and how they should behave.
• Group size : Asch’s classic conformity experiment found group size impacts conformity up to a certain point. People are most likely to conform when three to five other people are present.
• Status : People may be more likely to conform in situations where they feel that others have a higher status level than they do.
• Belongingness : Conformity tends to be higher when people have a strong sense of identification and cohesion with the rest of the group.
• Cultural influences : People from different cultural backgrounds may respond differently to social influences. In collectivist cultures, people are often more likely to conform to social expectations. People from individualist cultures may be less likely to do so.
• Difficulty level : If people are unknowledgeable, uncertain, or inexperienced, they are more likely to conform to what others in the group are doing. 

Certain factors can impact whether or not people conform to the group. The size of the group, the difficulty of the task, the ambiguity of the situation, and the status of the individual are just a few influences that play a role.

The Effects of Conformity

Conformity can have a powerful influence on how people behave in different settings. It can potentially lead people to change their opinions and behaviors in various ways, both for good and for bad.

Socialization

Conformity can play an important role in the learning and socialization process during child development.

Kids often learn by watching and imitating the actions of others, a process that is known as observational learning . This can convey important information about what to do and how to behave in various situations.

Social Persuasion

Social pressure continues to influence life. People often alter their behavior, appearance, attitudes, or opinions to fit in with the rest of their social group. This can contribute to social harmony and group cohesiveness. It can help people to feel that they belong to a group, which an be a positive influence on a person’s mental health.

However, such pressure can also lead people to engage in risky or even harmful behaviors. It can also play a role in social phenomena such as the bystander effect, in which the presence of other people discourages people from helping others. In such situations, people observe others not intervening when help is needed, and the pressure to conform leads people to also fail to lend assistance.

In many cases, members of the group may utilize a range of tactics, including modeling, persuading, and even bullying to try to get other members of the group to conform to a certain set of expectations.

Conformity Research and Experiments

Several well-known psychology experiments have explored conformity. Such experiments have contributed to our understanding of why people conform and how it can affect behavior in both positive and negative ways.

Jenness’s Conformity Experiment

In one of the first experiments on conformity, psychologist Arthur Jenness asked participants to guess how many beans were in a glass bottle. People were asked individually and then later placed in a room to discuss. After the discussion, Jenness found that most participants changed their answers to conform to what the rest of the group had estimated.

Asch’s Conformity Experiments

During the 1950s, social psychologist Solomon Asch conducted experiments where participants were asked to perform a perceptual task. In this simple task, they had to look at a line and choose the line from a set of three different lines that matched the original one in terms of length. 

However, other people in the group were in on the experiment and would intentionally select the wrong line. The results revealed that the majority of people (around 75% of the participants) would go along with the wrong answer at least one time. 

Sherif’s Autokinetic Experiments

In these experiments, psychologist Muzafer Sherif had participants guess how far a light dot moved in a dark room. The movement of the light was actually due only to an autokinetic effect caused by the movements of the eyes. 

Sherif found that when people were asked how far the light moved in part of a group, their answers all tended to be rather similar. However, when asked individually without the influence of the group, their answers were far more variable. His results indicated that because people were unsure, they looked to the rest of the group to inform their responses.

Several notable experiments have demonstrated how conformity affects behaviors. Famous experiments include Jenness’s conformity experiment, Asch’s conformity experiments, and Sherif’s autokinetic experiments.

How Does Conformity Differ From Obedience?

While conformity and obedience share some similarities, they are different concepts. Conformity involves changing your behavior, thoughts, or appearance to fit in with the rest of your social group. Obedience involves following the orders of another person, often a person with authority or status.

Simply put, conformity happens because people want to be socially accepted. Obedience happens as a result of power differentials in social roles.

How to Avoid Conformity

Conformity can have a positive and negative influence. On the plus side, it can encourage positive social behaviors and provide information that allows individuals to function effectively in their environments. On the negative side, it can stifle creativity and lead people to give in to destructive peer pressure.

Not everyone gives in to pressure from the social group. If you want to resist conforming in different social situations, experts suggest that you should:

Enlist Social Support

You’re less likely to conform to social pressure if you have a few people who are willing to resist alongside you. Talk to your friends and loved ones in such situations and ask them to stick with you when it comes to avoiding conforming to the rest of the group.

Form Clear, Committed Values and Beliefs

You are more likely to conform when you aren’t really sure about how to think, behave, or feel in a specific situation. Spend time thinking about your own beliefs, what’s important to you, and how you can commit to those values.

Develop an Internal Locus of Control

Locus of control refers to whether you believe you have control over your own destiny, or if you feel that outside forces are primarily responsible for what happens in your life. Having an internal locus of control means that you feel that you have the power to control what happens and that your own efforts can create change in your life. By strengthening this sense of control, you’ll be better able to resist social pressure to conform.

Resisting conforming requires practice. This doesn’t mean that you should be intentionally argumentative. Instead, work on standing your ground in situations where you might have otherwise conformed to the rest of the group.

Common Questions About Conformity

Why do people care about fitting in.

Belonging is a basic human need. Human beings are inherently social creatures, so being accepted by others is a way to gain a sense of community and closeness. In broader terms, social cohesion plays an important role in the success of a group. Conformity can allow groups to meet their goals, increase social harmony, and minimize interpersonal conflict.

Is conformity good or bad?

Conformity is often viewed negatively, particularly when it involves engaging in behaviors that are risky or destructive. However, conformity can also be a positive influence, particularly when it encourages people to engage in prosocial behaviors that support individual and community well-being.

However, it is important to recognize that conformity has a dark side. When people engage in conformity out of fear or as a way to avoid punishment, it can potentially play a role in terrible actions and large-scale atrocities. 

Why do people conform to what others are doing?

One factor that can play a role in conformity is a phenomenon known as social proof . Social proof is a psychological phenomenon first described by psychologist Robert Cialdini in which people copy the actions of others to know how to act in a certain situation. This idea stems from the assumption that if other people are doing something, it must be the correct thing to do.

Asch, SE. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men. Pittsburg, PA: Carnegie Press.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment .  The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology ,  51 (3), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408

Jenness, A. (1932). The role of discussion in changing opinion regarding a matter of fact .  The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology ,  27 (3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074620

Kim, D., Kim, J., & Kim, H. (2021). Increased conformity to social hierarchy under public eyes .  Frontiers in Psychology ,  12 , 636801. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636801

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception .  Archives of Psychology (Columbia University), 187,  60. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1936-01332-001

Sowden, S., Koletsi, S., Lymberopoulos, E., Militaru, E., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2018). Quantifying compliance and acceptance through public and private social conformity .  Consciousness and Cognition ,  65 , 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.08.009

Stallen, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2015). The neuroscience of social conformity: implications for fundamental and applied research .  Frontiers in Neuroscience ,  9 , 337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00337

Toelch, U., & Dolan, R. J. (2015). Informational and normative influences in conformity from a neurocomputational perspective .  Trends in Cognitive Sciences ,  19 (10), 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.007

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Conformity is the tendency for an individual to align their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those of the people around them. Conformity can take the form of overt social pressure or subtler, unconscious influence. Regardless of its form, it can be a powerful force—able to change how large groups behave, to start or end conflicts, and much more.

• Why We Conform
• How Conformity Influences Behavior
• Types of Conformity

As much as most people like to think of themselves as unique individuals, in reality, humans are social beings—and for the sake of group cohesion, people are evolutionarily driven to fit in. That usually means copying the actions of others, looking to the group when deciding how to think or behave, or doing what is "expected" based on widely accepted (if often unspoken) social norms.

Though it's often derided, conformity isn't necessarily a malevolent force. At its best, conformity offers a sense of belonging and group identity and can encourage people to adhere to moral standards. At its worst, though, it can bring out a person's darkest impulses and even be used to justify—and carry out—large-scale atrocities.

The need to belong is deeply wired into human biology. In evolutionary terms, going against one’s group could be costly, and social cohesion was critical for the group’s overall success. Today, the desire for acceptance—or the drive to “fit in”—remains a basic human instinct for the vast majority of people .

Conformity is not inherently positive or negative. When conformity occurs because of fear, concern for one’s social standing, or has dangerous consequences, it may be seen as negative. However, conformity that protects the overall well-being of the group—mutually deciding to respect private property, for instance—can help societies succeed.

One reason is called social proof ; it’s common to assume that if most other people are doing something, it must be correct. A desire for social harmony is another major driver of conformity. Going along with what others are doing reduces the possibility of disagreements that could lead to one group member being ostracized.

It appears to be. Conformity is a universal feature across societies , leading researchers to suspect that it gave us an evolutionary advantage. But despite its evolutionary roots, conformity is not universally beneficial and can prove dangerous—either to individuals or to the group itself—when its resulting norms and practices are never questioned.

Generally, yes; though individuals prioritize fitting in to varying degrees, virtually everyone who interacts with society conforms to it in some way. This may manifest in their appearance, behavior, or the social norms they choose to follow. While some people strive to be “non-conformist,” conformity is a fact of life for the vast majority of humankind.

Conformity is typically motivated by a person's identification with a specific group. In theory, to be truly accepted as a member, an individual must adopt the norms and rules that govern the group's behavior. These actions may, at first, differ from their own personal values. In time, however, the individual's underlying beliefs and attitudes may begin to shift as the opinions and behaviors of the group become ingrained and automatic.

People learn social skills at an early age by observing and copying the behavior of others. As an individual grows older, the social pressure to conform with group norms becomes stronger. Established group members may use a variety of tactics to persuade outsiders to conform, including praising, criticizing, bullying , or modeling "correct" behavior.

A healthy amount of conformity can lead to increased social harmony , on both interpersonal and societal levels. For instance, a society in which all members collectively agree to conform to certain driving-related behaviors—driving on the right side of the road, perhaps, or yielding to pedestrians—will experience fewer traffic accidents than a society without such agreements. 

The bystander effect —in which the presence of others discourages individuals from intervening in a situation—is likely influenced, in part, by conformity: If we see others choosing to do nothing, we’re more likely to do nothing ourselves. Diffusion of responsibility—in which no individual feels like it’s up to them to intervene—may also partially motivate the effect. 

If you lack information about something and need to make a quick decision, copying the behavior of those around you may be the best move—though there are, of course, exceptions to this rule. If conforming to a norm will help your group solve a collective problem, it’s likely beneficial for you to follow suit.

Unfortunately, yes. A desire to be accepted, to not make waves, or to punish “non-conformists” has motivated bullying , exclusion, and even large-scale atrocities. The Holocaust is often cited as an example of the dangers of unchecked conformity and blind obedience to authority.

Conformity motivated by deference to authority or fear of punishment is likely to be harmful. When group members conceal critical information from each other in order not to rock the boat, or are willing to deny the evidence of their own senses, the group is at risk of groupthink or extreme polarization. 

Even one voice of dissent can dampen a collective urge to conform to harmful behaviors. Freely sharing any and all relevant information, regularly assessing group norms to determine if they’re helpful or harmful, and having the courage to speak up when things aren’t right can stop groups from engaging in destructive behaviors.

Not all kinds of conformity are the same. Though psychological research has examined many aspects of conformity and related concepts, researchers have typically focused on two main types of conformity: informational and normative . Informational conformity is the tendency to turn to a group to glean information, make decisions, or form opinions. Normative conformity is the tendency to behave in certain ways in order to be accepted by a group. Of the two, normative conformity may be the most dangerous, as it can motivate someone to go along with a group even if they know the group is wrong.

Conformity denotes a wide-ranging phenomenon in which people (intentionally or unintentionally) shift their behavior or beliefs to fit in with a larger group. Groupthink refers to a specific kind of dysfunctional decision-making in which a group of well-intentioned people make irrational decisions. Groupthink is often, but not always, spurred by a desire to conform.

No, though they both can influence the behavior of individuals or groups. Obedience requires a social hierarchy in which lower-ranking people comply with demands from authority figures above them. Conformity, on the other hand, can occur among people of equal or unequal social standing, through spoken or unspoken influence from others in the group.

Informational conformity occurs when individuals look to the group to seek information—deciding what products to buy, for instance, or which non-group members can be trusted. Normative conformity refers to the shifting of behaviors and beliefs resulting from this information gathering. Thus, the two types of conformity work together to shift behavior and encourage social cohesion .

According to Harvard social psychologist Herbert Kelman, compliance is the outward appearance of conformity, regardless of whether or not one’s internal beliefs have changed. 

In Kelman’s conceptualization of conformity, the term identification refers to conformity that is motivated by a desire to be accepted by a specific person or group.

Internalization occurs when the ideas and behaviors to which the individual is conforming reflect their sense of self and have become congruent with their values. In other words, they're not just behaving in accordance with the group's beliefs; they actually believe them, too.

Personal Perspective: The 2024 Olympic Games are, in a way, a demonstration of hope.

Learning to fight crime more effectively involves listening to individuals who commit it.

Self-deception is so common that we can take it for granted in ourselves and others. But there are many times when it can be hazardous to our health.

Too often social media transmit and repeat misinformation without context or attribution, depriving recipients of one of the principal grounds for assessing its believability.

Two decades of research into groups reveals how otherwise honest individuals might behave unethically when they become part of a group decision-making body.

A recent study offers new ideas about the causes of loneliness.

Is the pressure to fit in silently eroding the foundation of your relationships?

Personal Perspective: Identity is deeply interwoven with a sense of belonging or not belonging.

A new study examines the relationship between conservatism and creative thinking in 28 countries.

As today's graduates step into a world of unprecedented advancements, recruiters from destructive groups are waiting to lure the best and the brightest of them.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

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

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Classic studies

Types of conformity, the role of motivation.

• Normative influence
• Mixed cases
• Individual differences

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• National Centre for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - The Biological Bases of Conformity
• Table Of Contents

conformity , the process whereby people change their beliefs, attitudes, actions, or perceptions to more closely match those held by groups to which they belong or want to belong or by groups whose approval they desire. Conformity has important social implications and continues to be actively researched.

Two lines of research have had a great impact on views of conformity. In one set of studies (1935), the Turkish-born social psychologist Muzafer Sherif demonstrated the power of social influence to change people’s perceptions of highly ambiguous stimuli. Sherif made use of the autokinetic effect , a perceptual illusion that occurs when people are asked to concentrate on a stationary point of light in a dark room. Under those circumstances, people perceive movement in the light. Some think it moves only a little; others think it moves a lot.

Sherif found that when groups of three people were brought together and asked to say out loud how far a light moved, their judgments gradually converged. In other words, they developed a group norm about the distance the light moved. And that norm had a lasting impact on participants’ perceptions. Conformity to the group norm was still evident a year later. Participants created a norm through mutual social influence, which then influenced their private responses.

In another series of experiments, the American psychologist Solomon Asch assembled groups of seven to nine people for a study on visual perception. The experimental task, which involved matching the length of a standard line against three comparison lines, was easy. Each group contained one naive participant who answered next to last. The remaining “members” were confederates of the experimenter and gave unanimously incorrect answers on 12 of 18 trials.

Asch found that conformity occurred even in a situation where the majority gave clearly erroneous answers. Participants’ responses agreed with the erroneous majority approximately one-third of the time, and 27 percent of participants conformed on at least eight trials. Control participants (who made judgments privately) gave incorrect answers less than 1 percent of the time. Although the level of conformity that Asch obtained may seem surprising, it is worth noting that participants’ responses were correct approximately two-thirds of the time, and 24 percent of participants never conformed.

Two categories of conformity have been distinguished: public agreement ( compliance ) and private agreement (acceptance). If conformity is defined as movement toward a group norm, then compliance refers to overt behavioral change in the direction of that norm, whereas acceptance refers to covert attitudinal or perceptual change. For example, if an individual initially refused to sign a petition advocating abortion rights, learned that a group advocated those rights, and then signed a petition favouring those rights, the person would be showing compliance. In contrast, if an individual privately believed that abortion should be outlawed, learned that a group advocated abortion rights, and then changed his private opinion about those rights, the person would be showing acceptance.

Several forms of nonconformity have been distinguished, but two of the most important are independence and anticonformity. Independence occurs when a person initially disagrees with a group and exhibits neither compliance nor acceptance after being exposed to group pressure. In other words, the person stands fast when faced with disagreement. In contrast, anticonformity occurs when a person initially disagrees with a group and moves even farther away from its position (at the public or private level) after being exposed to pressure. (Ironically, anticonformers are just as responsive to group pressure as conformers, but they manifest their susceptibility by moving away from the group.)

People conform to group pressure because they are dependent on the group for satisfying two important desires: the desire to have an accurate perception of reality and the desire to be accepted by other people.

People want to hold accurate beliefs about the world because such beliefs usually lead to rewarding outcomes. Some beliefs about the world can be verified by using objective tests; others cannot be verified by using objective standards and hence must be verified by using social tests, namely comparing one’s beliefs to those of other people whose judgment one respects. If those others agree with one’s beliefs, one gains confidence in them; if they disagree, one loses confidence. Because disagreement is disturbing, people are motivated to eliminate it, and one way to do so is to conform to group norms.

According to that analysis, people sometimes conform to groups because they are uncertain about the correctness of their beliefs and believe the group is more likely to be correct than they are. That kind of conformity reflects what the American researchers Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard labeled informational influence. Informational influence generally produces private acceptance as well as public compliance. This is illustrated in Sherif’s work, which indicated that people judging an ambiguous stimulus exhibited both compliance (when they made judgments in others’ presence) and acceptance (when they later responded privately).

Because informational influence is based on insecurity about one’s beliefs, one would expect it to be more common when an individual feels dependent on others for information. Consistently with that assumption, people exhibit more conformity when they are working on ambiguous tasks than on unambiguous tasks. In addition, they conform more when they have doubts about their own task competence and when they think other group members are highly competent in the task.

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 - Jenness (1932)

Last updated 22 Mar 2021

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

Jenness (1932) conducted one of the earliest experiments examining conformity.

He used an ambiguous situation that involved a glass bottle filled with 811 white beans. His sample consisted of 101 psychology students, who individually estimated how many beans the glass bottle contained. Participants were then divide into groups of three and asked to provide a group estimate through discussion. Following the discussion, the participants were provided with another opportunity individually estimate the number of beans, to see if they changed their original answer.

Jenness found that nearly all participants changed their original answer, when they were provided with another opportunity to estimate the number of beans in the glass bottle. On average male participants changed their answer by 256 beans and female participants changed their answers by 382 beans. These results demonstrate the power of conformity in an ambiguous situation and are likely to be the result of informational social influence. The participants in this experiment changed their answers because they believed the group estimate was more likely to be right, than their own individual estimate.

• Jenness (1932)

You might also like

Types of conformity, explanations for conformity, conformity - asch (1951), resistance to social change.

Quizzes & Activities

Topic Video: Social Psychology - Conformity

Topic Videos

Free Resource: Creating Evaluation Burgers in The Classroom

12th January 2017

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

18th January 2017

Free Revision Crosswords for Social Psychology

9th March 2017

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.

• Experiential Learning
• Human Subject Pool
• Student Associations
• Student Research
• PhD Program
• Behavioural Neuroscience
• Cognitive Science
• Developmental
• Quantitative Methods
• Social & Personality
• Opportunities
• Research Streams
• Participate
• Postdoctoral Research
• PSYC240: Research Experience
• Newsletters
• Pets of UBC Psych
• EDI Committee
• EDI Strategy, Goals & Initiatives
• EDI Involvement
• EDI Resources & Support
• EDI Funding
• EDI Research
• Diversity Mentorship Program
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Psychology Clinic
• Community Pantry
• Job Opportunities
• Sustainability

People’s moral values change with the seasons

August 7, 2024

Photo by Chris Lawton on Unsplash

New UBC Psychology research reveals seasonality in people’s moral values, which has potential implications for politics, law and health—including the timing of elections and court cases.

A new UBC Psychology study has revealed regular seasonal shifts in people’s moral values.

The finding has potential implications for politics, law and health—including the timing of elections and court cases, as well as public response to a health crisis.

The research published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) analyzed survey responses from more than 230,000 people in the U.S. over 10 years and revealed that people’s embrace of certain moral values fluctuates depending on the time of year. The seasonal patterns also emerged in smaller data samples from Canada and Australia.

“People’s endorsement of moral values that promote group cohesion and conformity is stronger in the spring and fall than it is in the summer and winter,” said Ian Hohm, the study’s first author and a doctoral student in UBC’s psychology department. “Moral values are a fundamental part of how people make decisions and form judgments, so we think this finding might just be the tip of the iceberg in that it has implications for all sorts of other downstream effects.”

Since 2009, a website established by social psychology researchers has been collecting survey data that measures participants’ endorsement of five moral values:

• Loyalty: Valuing devotion to one’s group and maintaining strong group bonds.
• Authority: Respecting and following leadership and established rules.
• Purity: Emphasizing cleanliness, sanctity and upholding tradition.
• Care: Prioritizing kindness and preventing harm to others.
• Fairness: Ensuring equal treatment for everyone.

Loyalty, authority and purity are referred to by researchers as “binding” values because they encourage conformity to group norms. They also align closely with modern political conservatism. Care and fairness may be considered more liberal values, with their focus on individual rights and welfare. All have been shown by research to guide people’s judgments about right and wrong.

The researchers found that respondents endorsed the “binding” values more strongly in spring and fall, but not as much in summer and winter—a pattern that was remarkably consistent over 10 years.

Source: Evolutionary Social Cognition Laboratory

They also found evidence that the summer decrease in endorsement of binding moral values was more pronounced in areas with more extreme seasonal climate differences.

Anxiety a possible explanation The study observed a potential link between these seasonal moral shifts and levels of anxiety, using large-scale data on seasonal anxiety provided by Dr. Brian O’Shea, a co-author of the paper and assistant professor of psychology at the University of Nottingham.

“We noticed that anxiety levels peak in the spring and autumn, which coincides with the periods when people endorse binding values more strongly,” said Dr. Mark Schaller, the study’s senior author and a professor of psychology at UBC. “This correlation suggests that higher anxiety may drive people to seek comfort in the group norms and traditions upheld by binding values.”

Implications for politics, law, health, social relations The findings have wide-reaching implications, with potential examples including:

• Elections: The timing of elections could have an impact on outcomes, as shifts in moral values influence political opinions and behaviours.
• Legal judgments: The timing of trials and legal decisions could be influenced by seasonal variations in moral values, because those who endorse “binding” values tend to be more punitive of those who commit crimes and violate social norms.
• Disease response: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the extent to which people followed social distancing guidelines and were vaccinated was influenced by their moral values. Knowing these values change with the seasons could help tailor more effective health campaigns.
• Intergroup prejudice: Seasonal changes in moral values might affect how people view outsiders or those who don’t conform to group norms.

The research team plans to delve deeper into the connections between anxiety and moral values and to investigate how these seasonal patterns influence prejudices and legal judgments.

Featured Researcher Ian Hohm

Doctoral Student, Dept. of Psychology

Featured Researcher Mark Schaller

Professor, Dept. of Psychology

This news release was originally published on the UBC News website.

Recent News

Ubc psychology welcomes cognitive scientist dr. hee-yeon im.

Rin – Pets of UBC Psych

Three Psychology researchers awarded CIHR Project Grants

• Join our Mailing List
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions

Is ‘weird-checking’ the new fact-checking?

Aug 12, 2024

Examining social psychological principles that explain why Democrats’ strategy of calling ideas “weird” works.

This blog post was co-authored by Madeline Jalbert , a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, and Ira Hyman , a psychology professor at Western Washington University.

• Democrats have recently started to call some Republican attitudes and behaviors “weird” — a strategy we refer to as weird-checking . The approach shares many similarities with social norm interventions that social psychologists have found to be effective.
• Our own attitudes and behaviors are heavily guided by perceived social norms — what we think others believe and do. Unfortunately, people frequently have incorrect views of which ideas are widely shared. Extreme and minority views are often overrepresented in the media, making them appear to be more common and acceptable than they are.
• Weird-checking communicates what others actually believe and can disrupt these inflated perceptions of consensus . It can also orient us to more carefully consider whether the attitude or behavior is consistent with societal values and expectations. This strategy can be used to address problematic attitudes and behaviors that can not be addressed through traditional fact-checking methods

That’s just weird . Over the last few weeks, you have probably seen Democrats referring to some Republican ideas and policy proposals as weird. Thanks to Tim Walz, the Minnesota Governor and Democratic vice presidential nominee, weird has become a central part of the political discourse. The news media is currently flooded with discussion of this new strategy and its success, with a few examples of recent headlines including “Democrats Embrace ‘Weird’ Messaging on Trump” (from The New York Times ), “Why the ‘Weird’ Label is Working for Kamala Harris’” (from the BBC ), and “‘Weird’ is Democrat’s Most Effective Insult” (from The Washington Post ). This approach represents a shift away from Democrat’s standard fact-checking attempts (see this recent TechDirt piece by Mike Masnick for a discussion). We’ve started to refer to this strategy as “weird-checking” — like fact-checking, but checking if something is weird instead of checking if it’s true.

Why does weird-checking work? One key reason for its success can be explained by its appeal to social norms, which play a powerful role in whether we accept or reject an idea or action. As individuals, we look to what others believe and endorse to inform our own attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Schwarz & Jalbert, 2021 ). The phenomenon of checking our ideas and actions against what others believe and do is referred to as “social proof” (Cialdini, 2009) — if something has broad acceptance, there must be something to it (Festinger, 1954) . When we see that others endorse a message, we’re also more likely to endorse it (Cialdini, 2009) . 

Unfortunately, we may not know what other people think. This is because our perceptions of what others believe and do are often constructed through our own experiences rather than from information about actual rates (Tankard & Paluck, 2016) . For example, we typically assess the popularity of an opinion by relying on cues like how familiar it feels or how many times we recall seeing it in the news or on social media. We’re less likely to use information obtained through an opinion poll. Indeed, media exposure is our primary source of information on many issues (Shehata & Strömbäck, 2021; Su et al., 2015) . Media is not, however, constructed to be representative of the actual distribution of beliefs and opinions that exist in the world. Instead, the news disproportionately shares extreme and uncommon views (e.g., Koehler, 2016) , and our social media algorithms often prioritize sensational content that grabs and maintains our engagement (e.g., Bucher & Helmond, 2018; Dujeancourt & Garz, 2023) . 

Media exposure can shift our perception of norms (Gunther et al., 2006; Paluck, 2009) , and disproportionate exposure to reports of minority attitudes and behaviors may make those attitudes and behaviors seem more common and acceptable than they actually are. Some of our work has found that the mere repetition of information increases perceptions that the information has consensus — an “illusory consensus” effect (Jalbert & Pillai, 2024) . Other researchers have found that repeated exposure to reports of immoral behaviors makes them seem more common and, in turn, more acceptable (Pillai et al., 2023) . These processes may help explain why people have a tendency to overestimate the extremity of views of those who do not share their political orientation or underestimate how many others actually share their own policy-related opinion (e.g., Levendusky & Malhotra, 2016; Yang et al., 2016) . For example, most people believe that climate change is a substantial problem that their government should address but substantially underestimate the percentage of people who agree with them (Andre et al., 2024; Sparkman et al., 2022) .

In addition to the effects of being exposed to information, other aspects of the messages may also lead people to (often incorrectly) believe those ideas have widespread consensus. Politicians frequently bake information about broad consensus into their messages. A recurring part of Trump’s rhetoric includes referring to the “many people” who say or believe the message he wants to promote. For example, in a press conference last Thursday, Trump (incorrectly) claimed that “They wanted to get rid of Roe v. Wade and that’s Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and everybody. Liberals, conservatives, everybody wanted it back in the states” (Montanaro, 2024) . As another example, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) argued on May 8, “We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections.” In this case, Johnson was not only repeating false information (Swenson, 2024) but was also claiming that this was something widely known and accepted. Combined with the influences of disproportionate and repeated news coverage, these political messages can easily mislead people on which positions are widely held.

Weird-checking as a social norms intervention

A recent survey by Data for Progress asked US voters to judge how weird they found recent claims made and actions taken by members of the Republican party. Most voters found several of them — including claiming that Kamala Harris only recently became a Black person and supporting the monitoring of pregnant women to prevent them from traveling for reproductive healthcare — to be “very weird” (Springs, 2024) . When left unchecked, the disproportionate and repeated coverage of these behaviors may make them especially susceptible to falsely inflated perceptions of consensus. Without looking at this poll, people may not know that the majority of other people also find these behaviors to be abnormal. By weird-checking unpopular beliefs, including these, Democrats are helping communicate more accurate perceptions of the true state of consensus.

Communicating information around consensus is a powerful intervention, well-established by social psychologists to be effective in promoting belief correction and behavior change across a variety of domains. For example, communicating doctors’ consensus around COVID-19 vaccines can increase vaccination rates (Bartoš et al., 2022) , and sharing social norms around engaging in energy and water conservation habits can increase those behaviors (Goldstein et al., 2008; Nolan et al., 2008; Schultz et al., 2007) . Communicating consensus information can also be used to reduce undesirable behaviors like littering (Kallgren et al., 2000) and drinking and driving (Perkins et al., 2010) . And, more recently, sharing consensus information has been found to help reduce belief in misinformation (Ecker et al., 2023) .

Communication around consensus also does not have to be explicit to change our minds. In some of our work, we’ve investigated how false information shared online is evaluated when it appears with social truth queries: questions posed by another user drawing attention to whether information is true (e.g., “How do you know this is true?”, “Is there evidence for that?”, “Do other people believe that?”). We have consistently found that the presence of these truth queries reduces belief in and intent to share false information. These truth queries are thought to be effective in part because the mere act of asking a question disrupts assumptions that the information has consensus and changes how we process it (Jalbert et al., 2023) . Similarly, calling something weird may lead people to use a different frame than they normally would to guide how that information is interpreted and understood (see Starbird, 2023 , for a relevant discussion).

An additional note is that these efforts may be effective even when they don’t convince everyone that a particular attitude or behavior is weird. Because people have a strong motivation to affiliate and receive the approval of others (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) , just knowing that others consider a sentiment weird may make someone less likely to publicly endorse or share it. 

We also want to note an important limitation to our discussion of weird-checking so far. We have been focused on the effects of calling attitudes and behaviors weird. However, politicians have also been referring to the people who promote these attitudes and engage in these behaviors as weird too. Doing so may lead people to reconsider those politicians in the same fashion — e.g., are these people reasonable? How similar are they to what people expect of someone who holds their position? How many others generally agree with their beliefs and values?

Why weird-checking may sometimes be better than fact-checking

Why might weird-checking be helping Democrats change the narrative in places where typical fact-checking efforts have been unsuccessful? In many situations, fact-checks can be effective in getting people to update their beliefs (Walter & Murphy, 2018) . However, fact-checking has its shortcomings. One particularly important one is that attitudes and the acceptability of behaviors can’t be fact-checked. You can’t fact-check, for example, whether someone should support the monitoring of pregnant women to restrict their travel. But you can weird-check this view.

In addition, the truth of a message is often nuanced and complicated, making it difficult to communicate and digest. Fact-checks ask us to focus on the specific details of an attitude held or action taken by one person. Weird-checking may allow us to bypass engaging these details (an often frustrating and not-so-fruitful task that distracts from the overarching takeaway) and instead do a more general gut check of whether the attitude or behavior is consistent with our values and norms and those our society endorses.

Why weird-checking works

Why does weird-checking work? Calling an attitude or behavior weird communicates information about social norms and consensus, factors that play a critical role in guiding our own beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Extreme and minority views are often overrepresented in the media, and repeated exposure to them may make them appear to be more common and acceptable than they actually are. Referring to an attitude or behavior as weird disrupts inflated perceptions of consensus, provides information about the views of others, and orients us to more carefully consider whether the attitude or behavior is consistent with societal values and expectations. You don’t have to use the word weird to get this effect. You could use a more traditional approach like sharing opinion poll information. Or you could try out another phrasing like unusual, strange, bizarre, or out-of-touch. But weird works.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Drew Gorenz, Michael Grass, Angela Harwood, and Rachel Moran-Prestridge for their thoughtful input and suggestions on this piece.

Illustration at top based on icons via The Noun Project .

• Andre, P., Boneva, T., Chopra, F., & Falk, A. (2024). Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action. Nature Climate Change , 14 (3), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01925-3
• Bartoš, V., Bauer, M., Cahlíková, J., & Chytilová, J. (2022). Communicating doctors’ consensus persistently increases COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04805-y
• Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The Affordances of Social Media Platforms. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell, The SAGE Handbook of Social Media (pp. 233–253). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473984066.n14
• Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice . Boston: Pearson Education.
• Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology , 55 (1), 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
• Dujeancourt, E., & Garz, M. (2023). The effects of algorithmic content selection on user engagement with news on Twitter. The Information Society , 39 (5), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2023.2230471
• Ecker, U. K., Sanderson, J. A., McIlhiney, P., Rowsell, J. J., Quekett, H. L., Brown, G. D., & Lewandowsky, S. (2023). Combining refutations and social norms increases belief change. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 76 (6), 1275–1297. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221111750
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations , 7 (2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
• Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research , 35 (3), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.1086/586910
• Gunther, A. C., Bolt, D., Borzekowski, D. L. G., Liebhart, J. L., & Dillard, J. P. (2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication , 56 (1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00002.x
• Jalbert, M., & Pillai, R. M. (2024). An illusory consensus effect: The mere repetition of information increases estimates that others would believe or already know it . PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/65trk
• Jalbert, M., Wack, M., Arya, P., & Williams, L. (2023). Social truth queries: Development of a new user-driven intervention for countering online misinformation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition . https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000142
• Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: When Norms Do and Do not Affect Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 26 (8), 1002–1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002610009
• Koehler, D. J. (2016). Can journalistic “false balance” distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied , 22 (1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000073
• Levendusky, M. S., & Malhotra, N. (2016). (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly , 80 (S1), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv045
• Montanaro, D. (2024, August 11). 162 lies and distortions in a news conference. NPR fact-checks former President Trump. NPR . https://www.npr.org/2024/08/11/nx-s1-5070566/trump-news-conference
• Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 (7), 913–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316691
• Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 96 (3), 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011989
• Perkins, H. W., Linkenbach, J. W., Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2010). Effectiveness of social norms media marketing in reducing drinking and driving: A statewide campaign. Addictive Behaviors , 35 (10), 866–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.05.004
• Pillai, R. M., Fazio, L. K., & Effron, D. A. (2023). Repeatedly encountered descriptions of wrongdoing seem more true but less unethical: Evidence in a naturalistic setting. Psychological Science , 34 (8), 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231180578
• Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science , 18 (5), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
• Schwarz, N., & Jalbert, M. (2021). When (fake) news feels true: Intuitions of truth and the acceptance and correction of misinformation (p. 25). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003121756-2
• Shehata, A., & Strömbäck, J. (2021). Learning political news from social media: Network media logic and current affairs news learning in a high-choice media environment. Communication Research , 48 (1), 125–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217749354
• Sparkman, G., Geiger, N., & Weber, E. U. (2022). Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half. Nature Communications , 13 (1), 4779. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32412-y
• Springs, A. (2024, August 5). Voters Think Recent GOP Actions and Quotes Are Very Weird . Data For Progress. https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/8/5/voters-think-recent-gop-actions-and-quotes-are-very-weird
• Starbird, K. (2023, December 6). Facts, frames, and (mis)interpretations: Understanding rumors as collective sensemaking. Center for an Informed Public . https://www.cip.uw.edu/2023/12/06/rumors-collective-sensemaking-kate-starbird/
• Su, L. Y.-F., Akin, H., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2015). Science news consumption patterns and their implications for public understanding of science. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 92 (3), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015586415
• Swenson, A. (2024, May 18). Noncitizen voting, already illegal in federal elections, becomes a centerpiece of 2024 GOP messaging . AP News. https://apnews.com/article/voting-immigrants-noncitizen-trump-republicans-2024-1c65429c152c2a10514b5156eacf9ca7
• Tankard, M. E., & Paluck, E. L. (2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social Issues and Policy Review , 10 (1), 181–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12022
• Walter, N., & Murphy, S. T. (2018). How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs , 85 (3), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564
• Yang, J., Rojas, H., Wojcieszak, M., Aalberg, T., Coen, S., Curran, J., Hayashi, K., Iyengar, S., Jones, P. K., Mazzoleni, G., Papathanassopoulos, S., Rhee, J. W., Rowe, D., Soroka, S., & Tiffen, R. (2016). Why are “others” so polarized? Perceived political polarization and media use in 10 countries. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 21 (5), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12166

Share this:

• 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)

Join the CIP, KNKX and KUOW for ‘Stand with the Facts: Protecting Election Integrity’ on September 11

Aug 6, 2024

You're invited to join KNKX, KUOW, and the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public (CIP) for Stand with the Facts: Protecting Election Integrity with special guest, NPR correspondent Shannon Bond — September 11, 7:30 p.m. in Town Hall Seattle’s Great Hall. 

Rumors questioning the legality and legitimacy of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee

Jul 31, 2024

In this unprecedented moment of American electoral history, we will continue to see narratives that question the legality and legitimacy of a nomination process, even once some of those answers have been made clear legally and procedurally. 

At ICA, CIP postdoctoral scholar Yiwei Xu receives top paper and outstanding dissertation awards

Jul 23, 2024

CIP postdoctoral scholar Yiwei Xu with the International Communication Association's Information Systems Division Top Paper Award and the Annie Lang Outstanding Dissertation Award.

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

August 15, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

Ugandan women's autonomy key to safer sex, researchers say

by Washington University in St. Louis

Ugandan women's ability to negotiate the conditions and timing of sex, such as refusing sex and asking for condom use with their partners, is key to preventing several reproductive health outcomes, say experts from the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis.

"The cultural norms that sanction unequal power dynamics in relationships; unjustly acknowledge male sexual freedom over female autonomy; restrict women's mobility; and reinforce female submission to their partners' sexual needs; exacerbate this vulnerability," wrote the authors of a correspondence in the Aug. 10 issue of the journal The Lancet .

Sub-Saharan Africa represents nearly 30% of all new HIV infections globally. Uganda stands out as one of the countries with the highest burden of young people living with HIV, with young women having the highest rates of HIV.

This disproportionate burden on young women partly stems from entrenched gender norms that are shaped by the patriarchal system in Uganda, which typically privileges men and enforces rigid gender roles and expectations, the authors wrote.

Authors of the correspondence are Josephine Nabayinda, a research associate at the Brown School's International Center for Child Health and Development (ICHAD); Samuel Kizito, MD, a faculty associate at ICHAD; Anita Nagawa, a research assistant at ICHAD Uganda; and Fred Ssewamala, the William E. Gordon Distinguished Professor at the Brown School.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Q&A: Research suggests having connection to dogs may lower depression, anxiety

8 minutes ago

AI shows greater efficiency in detecting early signs of bowel cancer

9 minutes ago

Scientists discover kidney cancers rely on mitochondrial metabolism to metastasize

13 minutes ago

Cleaning up the aging brain: Scientists restore brain's waste removal system

3 hours ago

AI sperm checker enhances IVF success

5 hours ago

Study reveals diet as main risk factor for colon cancer in younger adults

15 hours ago

New brain-computer interface allows man with ALS to 'speak' again

International study detects consciousness in unresponsive patients with severe brain injury

New clue into the curious case of our aging immune system

New research poised to transform approach to diagnosing and treating acute leukemia in children

16 hours ago

Related Stories

Child behavioral health in sub-Saharan Africa

Jan 27, 2022

Adolescent girls face alarming rates of intimate partner violence, analysis reveals

Jul 30, 2024

One in 10 Australians sexually harassed by peers: Study

Apr 12, 2024

How inequality drives HIV in adolescent girls and young women

Nov 29, 2021

Conformity to masculine gender norms linked to muscle dysmorphia among young people

Apr 17, 2024

Exploring why young women in Australia are reluctant to enter politics

Recommended for you.

Healthy lifestyle lowers the risk of post-COVID complications, finds study

21 hours ago

Chemicals in makeup, sunscreen may raise odds for dangerous pregnancy complication

19 hours ago

Early life exposure to common chemical permanently disrupts gut microbiome, mouse study finds

As election approaches, national poll shows which health topics concern older adults most

Study links life purpose to sustained functioning in U.S. veterans

Aug 14, 2024

Australia offers lessons for increasing American life expectancy

Aug 13, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter