Asch Opinions And Social Pressure Analysis

Having read of Asch’s and Miligrams experiments in the past I still find it surprising how many of the participants obeyed or conformed to social pressures. Each experiment essentially comes to the same conclusion that people tend to obey authoritative figures and conform when they are under pressure. Although not all participants obeyed or conformed in each experiment a large majority did. Asch’s experiment seemed very simple, guessing which line was longer, but evolved into something very complex in regards to uncovering how people conform to certain situations. One would assume that although others may choose a line that is obviously incorrect the subject would choose the correct answer and stick to it. People in general conform to all types of situations, whether in school, home or work.

But conforming to what the majority is doing because it is deemed as cool is a whole different story. Instead of conforming to keep society running smoothly, we sometimes conform due to fear that we will receive hateful backlash for breaking against the norm or in fear that we will be wrong. Solomon Asch explains the latter reason when he conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform. In his experiment, there was only one true participant and 4 other fake participants that will help prove his point correct. Cards were shown to everyone where there were lines of different length illustrated. They all had to choose which line was the longest. The first four people at the table were the fake participants and purposely chose the wrong answers. The last person was the true participant in the experiment and in all of the experiments they conducted, the last person always went with what the rest of the group thought even though he knew that the answer was incorrect. After the experiment was conducted, the real participants were interviewed and asked why they went along with everyone else even though they knew the answer was incorrect. “Most of them said that they did not really

In 1951, Solomon Asch carried out several experiments on conformity. The aim of these studies was to investigate conformity in a group environment situation. The purpose of these experiments was to see if an individual would be swayed by public pressure to go along with the incorrect answer. Asch believed that conformity reflects on relatively rational process in which people are pressured to change their behaviour. Asch designed experiments to measure the pressure of a group situation upon an individual judgment. Asch wanted to prove that conformity can really play a big role in disbelieving our own senses.

Additionally, Spector (1983) utilised Rotter’s scale on 157 students to evaluate whether conformity is linked with locus of control. He discovered that participants with a higher internal locus of control weren’t as likely to conform only in circumstances of normative social influence, where people adapt in order to be accepted, whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups in situations of informational social influence, where people conform for their need to be right. (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) This finding proposes that normative social influence

On average, about thirty-two percent of the participants conformed to pick the blatantly wrong answer and over the twelve trials seventy-five percent of the students conformed at least once, and twenty-five didn’t conform at all. Many of the participants afterward admitted they conformed to give the wrong answer because they wanted to avoid being ridiculed and some thought the group really was correct. Is was the results of this experiment that led Asch to conclude that whenever people conform it’s to either fit in or because they believe that since they’re in the minority their conclusion is incorrect. Another influential experiment concerning conformity is the Stanford Prison Experiment. Conducted in 1973, Phillip Zimbardo wanted to determine if brutality in prison systems was due to the

Asch since his experiments are what pioneered the study of conformity. His study is considered a classic, and most of conformity studies based their study off of Asch’s experiments. Asch made a group of white, male college students study two separated cards that contained lines. One card was the base line, and the subjects had to choose from three similar line on the second card that matched the first card. Asch made his subjects report their findings out loud to the rest of the other subjects in the room. In all of his experiments, all but one subject were confederates, and that was the majority the lone subject had to face. The majority answered incorrectly throughout the experiments as Asch instructed them to do, and he study the experimental subject to see if he will conform to the incorrect majority. In his first experiments, a group of 7 to 9 students was used. The second experiment tested for the number of opposing subjects needed to reach a set rate of conformity. The final experiment tested the rate of conformity of the experimental partner if he had a supporting partner. The results of the first experiment showed that “the misleading majority’s wrong judgment [made the experimental subjects answer incorrectly] in 36.8 percent of the selections” (Asch 20). This was very interesting, and the rest of the other experiments showed different numbers as well. It only took three opposing subjects to make the experimental subject conform at 31.8% and beyond three subjects did not change the rate (Asch 21). A supporting partner made the experimental subject rate of incorrect answers reduced by one-fourth (Asch 22). This led me to look at other studies that explored conformity with different age groups and using females instead of males. For example, Walker and Andrade found in their experiments “that conformity decreases with age from childhood to maturity in the Asch (1956) situation” (371). Children tend to

This experiment found that when a group of two other people refused to obey the conditions of the experiment, then the third person would most likely do the same.  It was found that, “The presence of others who are seen to disobey the authority figure reduces the level of obedience to 10%” (McLeod 588). A similar finding is noted in Solomon Asch’s “Opinions and Social Pressure”, where it was found that when someone is among their peers, they are more likely to conform to the group opinion. Asch acknowledges that social pressure plays a large role because the individual “must declare his judgments in public, before a majority which has also stated its position publicly” (Asch 599). This confirms the idea that an individual is more likely to conform when they are being judged by their

All of the yielding subjects underestimated the frequency with which they conformed. Asch also considered which aspect of the majority was most influential—the size of the majority or its unanimity? The experiment was then modified by adding between one to 15 persons in opposition to the individual. The results showed a clear trend; with just one in opposition there was little change in answers. When the opposition increased to two the pressure suddenly became substantial with subjects accepting wrong answers 13.6 percent of the time.

Some factors that are found to increase conformity include: attractiveness of others in the group, complexity or difficulty of the task, and group cohesiveness. Asch created this experiment to deepen our understanding of the human psyche. This look into the human mind has shown us that we look for acceptance in other human beings. When under an anonymous shroud, the amount of correct responses increase. That being said, if there is no risk in being thought of as dumb or idiotic according to the choice, people are more likely to go through with their first choice

The experiment conducted by students in a social psychology class, used the same method that Milgram used to show how people conform to a group. The study found similar results to Milgram’s study, although it was conducted on a smaller campus with less people. Being that the outcome of the experiment was similar to the results of most other studies on conformity, it reinforced the idea that a group easily influences people. Based on the results of the previous studies mentioned above, it was hypothesized that more students and faculty passing by a crowd would conform when the crowd was

There is a fundamental human need to belong to social groups especially if people were to live and work together, it is likely that they need to agree on common beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours in order to get along and fit-in. Thus, we learnt to conform to rules of other people, the more people see others behaving in a particular way or making particular decisions, the more likely people will feel obliged to follow the suit. This is called conformity and can be defined in different ways, Aronson, Wilson & Akert (2014) stated it is the changing of one’s behavior due to the real or imagined influence of other people. According to Deutsch and Gerard (1955), social influence should be distinguished into two types, the informational social influence and normative social influence. The occurrence of social influence has implied to many real life events, which has drawn many researchers to attention. This has lead many researchers to design distinct experiments to try and understand the cause of the conformity, whether conformity is situation dependent, and whether we are able to resist social influences.

American psychologist, Rollo May, once said, “the opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it is conformity.” This philosophy is supported by Solomon E.Asch’s in his article, “The Opinions and Social Pressure.” In the article, Asch conducts a series of experiments that centralize on the influences of social pressure and the extent to which an individual, when confronted by the differing opinions of a majority, will surrender their perceptions to others. Asch argues that although humans believe they’re independent in their decision-making, they tend to pay heed to the majority because they fear the scrutiny of others and being an outcast in the group.

The article “Opinions and Social Pressure” by Solomon E Asch is about how people conform to social norms and how social learning is a large part of everyday life. Asch begins by explaining how social norms and pressures allow people to learn how to function within society from learning a language to understanding cultural aspects. The majority of the article describes series of experiments in which subjects are asked to match lines of the same size. The experiments presented throughout the article describe different settings and independent variables. The majority of the experiments conclude that people conform to the majority's opinion to different degrees regardless of whether it is correct or not.

Solomon Asch was a psychologist that conduced numerous expirments designed to illustrate the increasing conformity within social groups. The experiments also invesigated the effect the number of people present within the group had one the conformity rate. Asch hypothesized, “ that the majority of the people would not conform to something obviosly wrong; however, when surrounded by (other) individuals all voicing an incorrect answer, 75% of them(the participant) will conform to the groups answer” (Watzlawick 1976)

The article contributes to the ongoing scholarly debate regarding the formation of public opinion. In the communications literature, as well as the social sciences, scholars have argued that the public depend on the the elite and parties for information used to construct their own opinions. Other scholars have argued that events themselves shape public opinion, especially towards foreign policy issues such as the Iraq war. Within these scholars, there are those who support the reinforcement model which indicates that people select news events or stories that reinforce their existing attitudes. On the other hand, there are those scholars who argue that the public expose itself to events the contradict its own attitudes to update such attitudes, the surprising events model. This article utilizes the Iraq War as an example to test the empirical support of the above arguments using an experimental design.