Opinions and Social Pressure (Asch, 1955)

8/20/2019 Opinions and Social Pressure (Asch, 1955)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/opinions-and-social-pressure-asch-1955 1/8



Opinions

and

Social

Pressure

E x a c t l y w h a t i s

the

e f e c t

of the

opinions o f others on our own?

n other words ho w s trong

is

the urge toward soc ial confo rmi ty?

The ques t ion is app roached by me ans o f some unu sual exper iments

by

Solomon E. Asch

hat socia l influences shape every

person’s practices, judgments and

T,l iefs is a t ruism to wh ich anyone

will readily assent. A chi ld masters his

“native” dialect down to the finest

nuances ; a member of a t r ibe of canni-

bals accepts cannibal ism as a l together

fitting and pro per. All th e social sciences

take their departure from the observa-

tion of th e profoun d effects that grou ps

exert on their members . For psycholo-

gis ts , group pressure upon the minds

of

indiv iduals raises a host

of

quest ions

they would l ike to inves t igate in deta i l .

How, and

to

what extent , do socia l

forces constra in people’s opinions and

attitudes? This question is especially

pe r t inen t in our day .

The

sam e epoch

tha t has wi tnes sed the unpreceden ted

technical extension

of

com m unica t ion

has a lso brought into exis tence the de-

l iberate manipulat ion

of

opinion and the

“engineering of consent.” The re are

man y good reasons why, as c i t izens and

as scient is ts , we should be concerned

wi th s tudy ing the ways in w hich hum an

beings form their opinions and the role

that social conditions play.

Studie s of these questions beg an with

the interes t in hypnosis aroused by the

French physic ian Jean Mart in Charcot

(a t eache r

of

S iqm und F reud

I

toward

the end of the 19 th cen tu p . Charco t

believed that only hysterical patients

could be ful ly hypnotized, but this view

was soon chal lenged by two other physi-

c ians , Hyppolyte Bernheim and A A

Liebault , who demonstra ted that they

could put most people under the hyp-

notic spell . Bernheim proposed that hyp -

nosis was bu t an extreme form of

a

normal psychological process which be-

cam e known as “suggestibi li ty .” I t was

shown that monotonous reiteration

of

in-

s truct ions could induce in normal per-

sons in the waking state involuntary

bodily cha nges suc h as swaying or rigid-

i ty

of

the arms, and sensat ions such as

warmth and odor.

I t was no t

long

before social thinkers

seized upon these discoveries as a basis

for explaining numerous social phe-

nomena, from the spread of opinion to

the formation of crow ds and th e follow-

ing of leaders.

The

sociologist Gabriel

Tard e summed i t a ll up in the aphorism:

“Social man

is

a somnambulist.”

W hen the new discipl ine

of

social psy-

chology was born a t the beginning

of

this century, its first experiments were

EXPERIMENTTS REPEATED in the Laboratory of Social Rela.

tions a t Harvard University. Seven student sub jects are asked by the

experimenter r ight) to compare the length of lines

(see di gr m

on th

n e x t

p a g e ) .

Six of

the subjects have been coached bedre-

hand to give unanimously wrong answers. The seventh s i x t h from

the

left) has merely been told that it is an experiment in perce pti on

2



essentially adaptations of the suggestion

demonstra t ion. Th e technique general ly

followed a s imple plan. The subjects,

usually college students, were asked to

give their opinions or preferences con-

cerning various ma tters ; some t ime la ter

they were again

asked to s ta te their

choices, but now they were also in-

form ed of th e opinion s held by authori-

ties or large grou ps of their peers on th e

same matters . (O fte n the a l leged con-

sensus wa s fictitious.) Most of these

s tudies had substant ia l ly the same resul t :

confronted with opinions contrary to

their own, many subjects apparent ly

shif ted their judgments in the direct ion

of the views of the majorities or the

ex-

perts . The la te psychologis t Edward

L.

Thornd ike repor ted tha t he had suc -

ceed ed in mo difying the es thet ic prefer-

ences

of

adu ts by this proce dure. Oth er

psychologists reported that people’s

evaluations of the merit of a literary

passage could be ra ised

or

lowered by

ascribing the passage to different au-

thors . -4pparent ly the sheer weight of

num bers or au thori ty sufficed to change

opinions , even when no arguments for

the opinions themselves were provided.

Now the ve ry ease

of

success in these

experiments arouses suspicion. Did the

subjects actual ly chan ge their opinions ,

or were th e experim ental victories scored

onlv on paper? On grounds of common

sense, one must ques t ion whether

opinions are g eneral ly as watery

as

these

studie s indicate. T her e is some reason to

won der wh ether i t was not the inves tiga-

tors who, in their enthusiasm for a

theory, were suggest ibie . and whether

the ostensibly gullible su bjects were nok

prov id ing answers which they thought

good subjects were expected to give.

Th e invest igat ions were g uided by cer-

tain underlying assumptions, which to-

day are common currency and account

for much that is thoug ht an d said about

the operat ions of pro pagan da and public

opinion. The assumptions are that peo-

ple submit uncritically and painlessly to

external manipulat ion by suggest ion or

pres t ige , and th at an y given idea or value

can be “sold” or “unsold” without refer-

ence to i ts meri ts . W e should be skept i-

cal, how ever, of

the

supposi t ion that th e

power of social pressure ne

ssarily im-

pende nce an d the capaci ty to r ise above

group pas s im a re a l so open to hum an

beings. Fu rther, o ne may ques t ion on

psychological groun ds wheth er i t is pos-

sible as a ruls to ch ang e a person’s judg -

ment of a s i tuat ion or an object without

first chan ging his know ledge or assump-

tions about it .

plies uncritical submission

fo

i t : inde-

n what follows

I

shall describe some

I

experiments in an investigation of the

effects of gr oup pre ssure whic h was car-

r ied out recent ly with th e help

of

a num-

ber of my associates. The tests not only

demonstra te the operat ions of group

pressure upo n individuals but a lso i l lus-

t ra te

a

new kind of a t tack on the prob-

lem and some of the more subt le ques-

tions that

it

raises.

A

group of seven to nine young men,

all

col lege s tudents , are assembled in a

classroom for a “psychological experi-

ment” in visual judgment . The experi-

menter informs them that they wil l be

com parin g th e lengths of lines. He shows

two large wh ite cards . On one is a s ingle

vertica l black line-the stan dar d whose

leng th i s to be m a tched . On the o the r

card are three vertical lines of various

lengths . The subjects are to choose the

one that is of the sam e length as the l ine

on the o the r ca rd . On e of the th ree

actually is of the same length; the other

two are substa ntially different, the differ-

ence ranging from three quarters of an

inch to an inch and three q uarters .

The experiment opens uneventful ly.

The subjects announce their answers in

the order in which they have been seated

in the room, and on the first round every

person chooses the same matching line.

T h e n

a

second s et of ca rds is expose d;

aga in the g roup i s unan im ous . Th e m em -

bers appea r read:; to endure politely an-

other boring experiment .

O n

the third

tr ia l there is an unexpected dis turbance.

On e person nea r the end of the grouF

disagrees with

all

the other s in his selec-

tion of th e match ing line. H e looks sur-

prised. indeed incredulous , about the

disagreement . On the fol lowing tr ia l he

disagrees again, while the others remain

unanimou s in their choice . Th e dissenter

becomes more and more worried and

hesi tant as the d isagreement cont inues in

succeeding t r ia ls ; he moy pause before

announcing his answer and speak in a

low voice,

or

he may smile in an em-

barrassed way.

What the dissenter does not know is

that a l l the other members of the gro up

were ins tructed by the experimenter

beforehand to give incorrect answers in

unanimity a t certa in points . The s ingle

individual who is not a party to this pre-

arrangement is the focal subject of our

experiment . H e is placed in a pos it ion in

which, while he is actual ly giving the

correct answers, he finds himself unex-

pectedly in a minority of one, opposed

by a unanimous and arbi t rary majori ty

with respect to

a

clear and simple fact.

Upon him we have brought to bear two

opposed forces: the evidence of his

senses and the unanimous opinion of

a

group

of

his peers. Also, he must declare

his judgments in public, before a major-

ity which has also stated its position

publicly.

The instructed majority occasionally

reports correct ly in order to reduce the

possibility that the naive subject will sus-

pect collusion against him. ( I n only

a

few cases did the subject actual ly sh ow

suspicion: when this happened, the ex-

periment \vas s topped and the resul ts

were no t counted . ) There a re 18 trials

in each series . and on

1 2 of

these the

majority responds erroneously.

How

do people respond to g roup pres-

sure in this situation? I shall report first

the statistical resu lts of a series in wh ich

total

of 123

subjects from three institu -

tjons

of

highe r l ea rn ins (no t inc lud ing

m y

w ~ m .Swarthmo re College were

placed in the minority situation de-

scribed :hov e.

Two al ternat ives nere open to the

sub jec t: he cou ld x t ndependen tly , re-

pudiat ing the majori ty, or he could go

along with the majori ty, repudiat ing the

evi den ce of his senses. Of the

123

p u t t o

the test, a considerable percentage

yielded to the majority. Whereas in ordi-

nary circumstances individuals matching

the lines will make mistakes less than 1

per cent of the time. under group pres-

SUBJECTS WERE SHOWN wo rards. One bore a standard line. Th e other bore three lines,

one

of

which was the same length

a s the

standard. The subjects were

asked

to choose

thisline.

3



EXPERIMENTPROCEEDS

as

follows. In the top picture the subject ( cen ter ) hears rules

of experiment for the first time. In the second picture h e makes hi s first judgmen t of

a

pair of

cards, didagreeing with the una nimous judgm ent of the others. In the third h e leans forward

to ook at another pair

of

cards.

In

the fourth he shows the strain

of

repeatedly disagreeing

with the majority. In the fifth, af ter

12

pairs of cards have been shown, he explains that “he

has to call them as he sees them.” This subject disagreed with the majority o n all 2 trials.

Seventyfive per cent

of

experimental subjects agree with the majority in varying degrees.

sure the minori ty subjects swung to ac-

ceptance of the misleading majority’s

wrong judgm ents in

36.8

per cent

of

the

selections.

Of co urse individuals differed in re-

sponse. At one extreme, about on e quar-

ter

of

the subjects were complete ly in-

dependen t and neve r agreed wi th the

erroneous judgm ents

of

the majority. At

the o ther extreme, some individuals went

with th e majority nearly all the t ime. The

performances of individuals in this ex-

pe r im ent t end to be highly consistent.

Those who s t r ike ou t on th e pa th o f in -

dependence d o no t ,

as a

rule, succumb

to the majori ty even over an extended

series of trials, while those who choose

the pa th of compliance are unable to free

themselves

as

the ordeal is prolonged.

Th e reasons for the startlirig individu-

al differences have not yet been investi-

gated in deta i l . At this point we can

only report some tentative generaliza-

t ions from ta lks with the subjects , each

of

whom was inter-J iewed at the end

of

the experiment . Aniong the indepen dent

individuals w ere man y wh o held fas t be-

cause of s ta unch confidence in their own

judgment . The most s ignif icant fact

about them was not absence

of

re-

sponsiveness to the majority but

a

ca-

paci ty to recover from doubt and to re-

es tabl ish their equi l ibrium. Others who

acted independently came to bel ieve

that the majority was correct in its an-

swers , but they continued their dissent

on

the F imple ground that i t was their

obligation to call the play

as

they saw it.

Amo ng the extremely yielding persons

w e f o u n d a group w ho qu ick ly reached

the conclusion: “I am wrong, they are

right.” O ther s yie ded in orde r “not to

spoil your results.” Xany

of

the in-

dividuals w ho wen t a long suspected that

the m ajority w ere “sheep ” fol lowing the

first responde r,

or

that the majority were

victims

of

an opt ical i l lusion; neverthe-

less, these suspicions failed to f ree them

a t t h e m o m e n t of decision. %ore dis-

qui eting were th e reactions of subjects

who construed their difference from the

majority as

a

sigv

of

some general

deficiency in themselves, w hich a t all

costs they must hide. On this basis they

desperate ly t r ied to merge with the ma-

jority, not realizing the longer-range

consequences to themselves. A11 the

yielding subjects underes t imated the

frequency with which they conformed.

hich aspect of the influence

of a

w m a j o r i t y is m ore im por tan tAhe

size of the majori ty or i ts unanimity? Th e

experiment was modified to examine this

4



quest ion. In one series the s ize of t h e op-

posit ion was varied from on e to

13

per -

sons . Th e resul ts sh owed a c lear t rend.

IVhen a subject was confronted with

only

a

s ingle individual who contra-

dic ted his answers , he

\vas

sway ed l i t t le :

he con t inued to answer independen t ly

und correct ly in nearly a l l t r ia ls . When

the opposit ion was increased to two, the

pressure became substant ia l : minori ty

subjects no\v accep ted the wrong an-

swer 13.6 per cent of the t ime. Under

the pressure

of a

majority of three, the

subjects’ errors jumped to

31.8

per cent .

But further increases in the size of the

majority appare nt ly did not increase the

weight

of

the pressure substant ia l ly.

Clearly the size of th e opposi t ion is im-

Dis turbance of the majority’s unan im-

i ty had

1

striking effect. In this experi-

m ent the sub jec t was g iven the suppor t

of a t ruthful partner-e i ther another in-

dividual who did not -moly

of

the p re -

a r ranged as reem ent am ong th e re s t o f

the group, or a person who was ins truct-

ed to give correct answers throughout .

Th e presence of a suppo rt ing partner

depleted the majori ty of much of its

power. I ts pressure on the dissent ing in-

dividual \vas reduced to one fou rth: th at

is. subjects ans\vered incorrectly only

one four th ;s often as under the pressure

of a unanimous majority [ s e e

chart a t

h e r kf t o fucitrg p u g e ] .

T h e

weakest persons did not yield

as

readily.

\ los t interes t ing were the react ions to

the partner. General ly the feel ing

toward him was one of u.armth and

closeness; he

was

c red i ted

\vi

th inspir ing

confidence. However. the subjects re-

pud ia ted the sugges tion tha t the pa r tne r

decided them to be independent .

[Vas the pu tne r ’s e f fec t a

conse-

quence of his dissent, or was it related

to

his accuracy? W e now in t roduced in to

the expe r im enta l g roup

a

person who

was ins tructed to dissent from th e major-

i ty but a lso to disagree with the subject .

In some experiments the inajori ty was

always to choose the worst of the com-

parison l ines and th e ins tructed dissenter

to pick the l ine that was c loser to the

length of the s t anda rd on e ; in o the rs the

majori ty was consis tent ly intermediate

and the d i s sen te r m os t in e rwr . In th i s

m anner we were ab le to s t d y t h e r ela-

tive influence of “com prom is ing” and

“extremist” clpsenters.

Again the resul ts are c lear . When a

mod erate dissenter is present , th e effect

of the majority on th e subject decreases

by approx im a te ly one th i rd , and ex-

tremes

of

yielding disappear. Moreover,

m os t of the e r ro rs the sub jec t s do m ake

portant only

up

to a point .

. .

are moderate ,

rather

than flagrant. In

short, the dissenter largely controls the

choice of errors. To this extent th e sub-

jects broke away from the majori ty even

while bending to it.

On the o the r hand , when the d i s sen te r

always chose the line that was more fla-

grant ly different from the s tandard, the

results were of quite I different kind.

The extremis t dissenter produced a re-

markable freeing of the subjects ; their

errors dropped to only

9

per cen t .

Furthermore, all the errors were of the

inoderate varie ty. W e were able to con-

clude that dissent

pe t

sc i n c r e s e d i n-

dependence and moderated the errors

that occurred, and that the direct ion

of

dissent exerted consistent effects.

a l l the foregoing experiments each

In su bje ct was observed only in a s ingle

se t ting . We now tu rned to s tudy ing the

effects upon

a

given individual of a

change in the situation to which

he

was

cxposed. The first experiment examined

the consequences of losing

or

gaining

a

pnr tne r . The ins t ruc ted pa r tne r began by

answering correctly on the first six trials.

\Vith his supp ort the subject usually re -

sisted pressure from the majorit -: 18 o€

27

subjects were complete ly independ-

ent. Bu t after six trials the p artn er joined

the m ajority. s soon as h e d i d so, the re

was an abr upt rise in the subjects’ errors.

Their submission to the majority was just

about

;is

f requen t

‘1s

Ivhen the minorit .

subject w a s opposed b?. a unanim ous

miijoritv throu gho ut.

It

w a s

surprising to find that the es-

perience of h a t i n g had

n

par tne r and

of

having bra\:ed the majority opposition

\\-ith him h,id failed to strengt hen th e in-

dividuals’ independence. Q uest ioning a t

the conclusion

of

the experiment sug-

ges ted that we had overlooked an im-

portant c ircumstance; namely, the s t ron?

specific effect

of

“desert ion” by the pa r t -

ner to the other side. \Ve therefore

changed the condit ions

so

tha t the pa r t -

ner would s imply leave the group at the

proper point . (T o allay suspicion i t was

announced in advance tha t he had an

appoin tm ent wi th the dean . ) In th i s

form of the expe rime nt, the partn er’s ef-

fect out las ted his presence. The errors

increased after his departure , but less

markedly than after a partnbr switched

to the majority.

In a variant of this procedure the trials

began with the majori ty unanimously

giving correct answers . Th en they grad-

ually broke aw ay until on the sixth trial

the naive subject was a lone and the

grou p unanimously agains t him.

As

long

as the subject had anyone on his s ide , h e

was

almost invariably independent, but

as soon as he found himself alone, the

tende ncy to conform to the majority rose

abrup t ly .

.As

migh t be expected, a n individual’s

resistance to grou p pressure in these ex-

periments depen ds to a considerable de-.

gree on how wrong th e majority is . W e

varied the discrepancy between the

st:indar d line and the othe r lines system-

atically, with the hope of reaching

a

point where the error of the majori ty

\vould be so glaring that every subject

u.ouId repudiate i t and choose inde-

pendently. In this we regretfully did not

succeed. Even when the difference be-

tween the lines was seven inches, there

were still some who yielded to the error

of the majority.

Th e s tudy provides c lear answers

to

a

few relatively simple questions, and it

raises many others t hat ^await investiga-

t ion. W e would l ike to know the deg ree

of

consistency of persons in situations

nshich differ in co ntent an d stru cture. If

consistency of independence or conform-

ity in behavior is shown to be a fact, how

is it functionally related to qualities of

character and personal ity?

In

wha t ways

is independence related

to

sociological

or

cultural conditions? Are leaders more

independent than other people , or are

they adept at following their followers?

These and many other ques t ions may

perhaps be answerable by inves t iga-

tions of the typ e describe d here.

ite

i n

society requires consensus as an

indispensable condition. But consen-

sus . to be

product ive , requires that each

individual contribute independently ou t

of his

experience and insight. IVhen con-

sensus comes under the dominance of

conformity, th e social process is pollu ted

. ~ n d

he individual a t the same t ime sur-

xn de rs the powers on which h is func -

tioning as a feeling and thinking being

depends . Tha t we have found the t en-

dency to conformity in our society so

strong that reasonably intelligent and

u.ell-meaning young people are willirig

to call wh ite black is a matt er of con cern.

It rxises cluestions abo ut our w ays

of

edu-

cat ion and about the values that guide

our

conduct .

Yet anyone inclined to d raw too pessi-

mistic conclusions from this report wo uld

do well to remi nd himself th at the ca-

paci ties for independence are not to be

underes tim a ted . He m ay also draw som e

consolation from

a

further observat ion:

those who participated in this challeng-

exception that inde pende nce was prefer-

able to conformity.

ing experiment agreed nearly without

5



I 2 4 5

6

7

8

9 1 0 1 1 1 2

CRITICAL TRIALS

ERROR of 123 subjects, each of whom compared

lines in the presence of six to eight opponents, s

plotted in the colored curve. The accuracy of judg-

ments not under pressure

is

indicated in black.

I 2 3

4

5

6

7 8 9 1 0 1 l 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5

NUMBER O OPPONENTS

SIZE O F MAJ ORIT Y which opposed them had an effect on the subjects.With

a single opponent the subject erred only 3.6 per cent of th e time; w ith two

opponents he erred 13.6 per cent; three, 31.8 per cent; four, 35.1 per cent;

six, 35.2 per cent; seven, 37.1 per cent; nine, 35.1 per cent:

15

31.2 per cent.

P 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l O l 1 1 2

CRITICAL TRIALS

TB-0 SCBJECTS suppor ting each other against a

majority made fewer errors

colored curve)

than

one subject did against a majority Hock curve).

I 2 3 4 6 7

8

l o l l 12 13 I L i 5 1617 18

CRITICAL TRIALS

PARTNER LEFT SUBJECT after six trials in a single experimetft. The

colored curve shows the error of the subject when the partner deserted t o

the majority. Black curve shows error when partner merely left the room.

b



SOLO.LION

E.

ASCH is professor

of

psychology at Swar t hmore College. He

was born

i n \Vnrsaw in 1907, came t o t h e

U.S. in his youth a n d

graduated

from the

College

of

the City

of

S e w

York

in 1928.

=\fter taking his

l l .LL

ncl P1i.D. from

Columbia

University.

he

taug it

at

Brook-

lyn College

and

t h e

S e \ v School for So-

cial

Research before joini i ig the S \vnrth-

more

faculty ill 19-17.

Bibliography

E F F E C T S r G H O U P R E S S U R E

POX HE

~ ~ O D I F I C A T I O SASD

DISTORTION

F

JUDGMENTS.

S .

E. Ascli in Groups

Leudersli ip und Men,

ed i ted

by Har-

old

Guetzkow.

Curnegie

Press

19.51.

SOCIAL

E A R S I S G

ND

I M I T A T I O S .N

E.

Sli l ler and

J .

Dollard. Yale U nivers i ty

Press . 1941.

SOCI;\L

P S Y C H O L O G Y .

olomon E. Asch.

Prei i t ice-Hd1,

Inc. ,

1952.

m

?



Study

Guide

Prepared

by

JOHN

P.

J.PINEL

U N I V E R S I T Y

OF BRITISH

C O L U M B t A

OPINIONS AND SOCIAL PRESSURE

S o l o m o n E . A s c h

NOVEM ER

1955

I. SUMMARY

How, and how m uch , do soc ia l fo rces cons t ra in peop le ’s

op in ions? The s tu dy of th i s ques t ion began wi th in te re s t in

t h e p h e n o m e n o n of h y p n o si s. I t w a s s h o w n t h a t m o n o t o n o u s

re i t e ra t ion o f ins t ruc t ions cou ld induce in norm al , awake

persons invo lun ta ry re sponses , such as sway ing or r igidi ty of

t h e a r m s , a n d s e n s a ti o n s , s u c h a s w a r m t h a n d o d o r . W h e n t h e

d i sc ip line of soc ia l psychology was born a t the beg inn ing of

this cen tury , m any of i t s f i r s t expe r im ents were dem ons t ra -

t ions o f how sugges t ion cou ld a f fec t op in ion . Th e usua l fo r -

m a t w a s

fist

to a sk the sub jec t s the i r op in ions conce rn ing

v a r io u s m a t t e r s . S o m e t i m e l a t e r t h e y w e r e a sk e d t o s t a t e

the i r op in ions aga in , bu t th i s t im e they were

first

told of

op in ions he ld by au th or i t i e s o r l a rge g roups of the i r pee rs .

C o n f r o n te d w i t h o p i n i o n s c o n t r a r y t o t h e i r s , m a n y s u b j e c t s

sh i f t ed the i r judg m e nts in t he d i rec t ion o f the oppos ing v iews.

E v i d e n tl y t h e s h e e r w e i g h t o f n u m b e r s o r a u t h o r i t y w a s

suf fi c ien t to chan ge op in ions , even when n o a rgu m en ts fo r th e

op in ions them se lves were p rov ided . The au thor desc r ibes a

se r ie s of expe r im en ts which ha ve no t on ly conf i rm ed the

f ind ing th a t g roup pres sure ca n sha pe op in ion , bu t a l so rai s ed

som e in te res t ing new q ues t ions .

Th e sam e gene ra l fo r m a t w as a lways fo llowed . A group of

seven to n ine sub jec t s was a s sem bled in a c las s room -sup-

p o se d ly t o t a k e p a r t i n a n e x p e r i m e n t o n v i s u a l j u d g m e n t .

These sub jec t s were f i r s t shown a whi te ca rd wi th a s ing le

b lack l ine . F rom a s econd ca rd wi th th ree l ines the sub jec t s

were a sked to choose th e l ine which was th e s am e leng th a s

t h e l i n e o n t h e f i r st c a r d . T h e s u b j e c t s a n n o u n c e d t h e i r

a n s w e r s o n e at a t im e , in th e o rde r in which they were s ea ted .

However , on ly th e l a s t ind iv idua l in the s equence was a s u b -

j e c t ; t h e o t h e r s w e re i n l e a g u e w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n te r a n d

responded accord ing to a p rea r ranged p lan . Wha t d id the

s u b j e c t d o o n t r i a l s w h e n a l l t h e o t h e r m e m b e r s of t h e g r o u p

se lec ted

a

l i n e t h a t w a s n o t c o r r e c t ? Two a l t e rna t ives were

open to t he sub jec t : he cou ld ac t independen t ly , repudia t ing

t h e m a j o r i t y ; o r h e c o u ld go a l o n g w i t h t h e m a j o r i ty ,

repudia t ing the ev idence of h i s s enses. Under o rd ina ry c i r -

cum s tance s ind iv idua l s m ade m is takes l e ss tha n pe r cen t of

t h e t i m e , b u t u n d e r g r o u p p r e s su r e t h e s u b j e c t s ac c ep t ed t h e

w r o n g j u d g m e n t s i n 36.8 per cent of the cases . Of course ,

individu als differed mark edly in th eir responses ; some sub-

jec t s were com ple te ly independen t , neve r agree ing wi th t he

group on t e s t t r i a l s , whereas o the r sub jec t s conform ed a l -

most a l l t h e t i m e .

W h i c h a s p e c t

of

group in f luence

is

m o s t i m p o r t a n t - t h e

s ize o f th e m a jor i ty o r i t s unan im i ty? Asch’s expe r im enta l

p rocedures were m odi f i ed s l igh tly t o exam ine

this

ques t ion .

In one s e r ies o f s tud ies th e s i ze o f th e oppos i t ion was varied

f r o m o n e t o 15 persons . Th e effect iveness of the group pres-

s u r e i n c r e a s e d m a r k e d l y u p t o

a

group size of th ree , bu t

fu r the r inc reases adde d l i t t l e to th e ove r -a l l e f fec t. But even

when groups were l a rge , d i s tu rbance o f

the

g r o up u n a n i m i t y

had a s t r ik ing e f fec t. Th e p resence o f a suppor t ing pa r tn e r

dep le ted th e m a jo r i ty o f m uch of i t s power. S ub jec t s con-

form ed

to

group pres sure on ly one - four th a s o f ten in th e

presence o f one suppor t ing pa r tne r . Even when one of t h e

exper im ente r ’s co l labora to rs w as ins t ruc ted to d i s agree wi th

b o t h t h e g r o u p a n d t h e s u b j e c t , t h e r a t e o f c on f o rm i t y w a s

reduced . In such cases, if the “p a r tn e r” began to conform to

t h e g r o u p , th e n u m b e r

of

e r rors m ade by th e sub jec t inc reased

i m m e d i a t e l y ; b u t i f t h e p a r t n e r s i m p ly w i t h dr e w f r o m t h e

group , the inc rease in e r ro rs was m u ch m o re g radua l .

Consensus i s an ind i spens ib le condi t ion in a com plex

soc iety . bu t consensus , to be p roduc t ive , requ i re s th a t ea ch

ind i l idu a i con t r ibu te independen t ly ou t of expe rience and

ins igh[. Wh en co nsensus is produced b y conformity, th e socia l

process

is

po luted.

11 GLOSSARY

aphorism

a concise statement

of

a principle.

hypnosis

rance-like state produced

in

a subject by suggestion.

hystencai

imulating rhe symptoms

of

organic illness

in

the absence

of

any

somnambulist a sleepwalker.

organic pathology.

111.

ESSAY

STUDY QUESTIONS

4

What effect did the size

of

the majority and its degreeof unanimity have on

5 The support of a partner was removed in two ways. What were they and

6.

\-hen consensus comes under the dominance of conformity, the social

7. T$.e author concludes that the capacities for independence are not t o

be

1.

Briefly describe che research on “suggestion” which preceded Asch’s ex-

2. Describe the results of Asch’s experiments.

3.

Under group pressure a subject may say that he has changed his opinion.

hut it

is

difficult to determine whether he really has. Discuss with respect to

Asch’s experiment. What experiments could be performed to deal with this

question?

its degree

of

influence?

what effect did the

loss

of support have?

process

is polluted. Discuss.

;.lyiiereStjmated.What evidence is there

for

this conclusion?

periments.

.

Documents

Opinions and Social Pressure (Asch, 1955)