6  Conformity

written by Adeyemi Adetula (original draft), Gabriel Agboola Adetula (original draft), Alma Jeftic (revision), and Nadia Saraí Corral-Frías (revision)

6.1 The Classic

In 1951, Solomon Asch, a Polish-American psychologist, sought to answer the question to what extent social pressure from a group can influence an individual’s behavior, even when the group is objectively wrong — a psychological mechanism underlying conformity. The experiment was conducted at a time when the world was grappling with the aftermath of World War II, and there was a growing concern about the dangers of conformity and groupthink.

#definition Conformity

Conformity is changing one’s behavior, judgment, or opinion to match a group, even when the group is objectively wrong (Asch, 1951, 1956). Solomon Asch measured it by how often a real participant gave the same incorrect answer as unanimous confederates on clear line-judgment tasks.

#definition Groupthink

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon where a desire for group harmony or conformity results in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. It occurs when group members suppress dissenting opinions, self-censor, and fail to critically evaluate alternatives to maintain consensus (Janis, 1972). Unlike Asch’s (1951) conformity to perceptual judgments, groupthink describes flawed collective decisions in cohesive, insulated groups under stress. Some indicators of groupthink include collective rationalization and stereotyping outgroups.

Asch (1951) was inspired by earlier studies on social influence, such as the work of Sherif (1935), which demonstrated that people’s judgments can be influenced by others. Asch’s social influence theory proposed that conformity tends to override personal critical judgment due to informational and normative influence. In his study, he designed a “vision test” experiment involving 123 male college students. Each participant was placed in a group of 7-9 confederates — actors who were in on the experiment. They were asked to complete a simple task to identify which line (A, B, or C) was the same length as a reference line. The lines were presented on a card, and the participant had to respond aloud, along with the confederates. The participant was seated at the end of the table, and each of the confederates would give their answers first, followed by the participant. The experiment consisted of 18 trials, with the confederates giving incorrect answers on 12 of the trials. The participant’s response was the focus of the study. Asch’s findings were evident. Participants provided accurate responses in 99% of trials when confederates offered correct answers. Conversely, when confederates presented incorrect answers, participants conformed to the group’s erroneous response in 32% of instances. A substantial proportion (75%) of participants conformed to the group’s incorrect answer on at least one occasion. Notably, when a partner (a confederate providing correct answers) was introduced, conformity decreased to 5%. The findings indicated that participants exhibited increased conformity to the group’s opinion when the group 1) presented a unanimous incorrect answer, 2) expressed uncertainty regarding their own judgment, and 3) consisted of individuals with “elevated” social status, in this case participants’ fellow students. Asch concluded that people have the tendency to conform to group opinions, even when they contradict personal judgment. The findings suggest this behavior is driven by a desire to avoid social rejection and preserve harmony within the group. Because the task was simple and the correct answer was visually obvious, the study provided a powerful demonstration that conformity can occur even when there is little genuine uncertainty about what is correct. Moreover, the findings underscored the role of social support, showing that even one ally can be enough to weaken majority pressure and encourage independent judgment.

#definition Confederate

A confederate was an actor in on the experiment who posed as a regular participant (Asch, 1951, 1956). Asch’s original line-judgment experiments used male college students from Swarthmore College as confederates; however, other variations of his paradigm have used non-college students. Confederates were physically present in the experiment room with the one real participant. Their role was to deliberately give unanimous incorrect answers on line-judgment tasks, creating group pressure to test whether the real participant would conform or maintain their own accurate judgment.

#yourturn
Let us consider the process of reforming criminal behavior or unlearning an entrenched belief. What degree of social influence or exposure is required for an individual to conform to illegal conduct or adopt irrational beliefs? Conversely, would a single dissenting opinion be sufficient to disrupt such behavior or belief after a prolonged period of conformity?

But why did participants conform? Asch’s study identified three reasons. Informational influence made them doubt their own judgment and trust the group’s consensus as more accurate. Normative influence led them to avoid rejection and preserve social harmony, even when being wrong. Group cohesion created a sense of belonging that discouraged disrupting the group’s unity. These mechanisms suggest that conformity is not simply passive obedience, but a response shaped by how people interpret reality and manage their place within the group. This classic study was not without criticism and its limitations. Critics identified three main issues: 1) lack of ecological validity as the study was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting, which may not reflect real-world situations, 2) limited generalizability as the study only involved male college students, which may not be representative of the broader population, and 3) methodological limitations given the study relied on a single task (line judgment), which may not be representative of other types of judgments. Other replication and extension studies have been conducted to expand the theory some of which we discussed below.

6.2 The Aftermath

How has this theory held up after seven decades? To answer this question, we considered three studies: 1) Franzen and Mader’s (2023) replication and extension studies, 2) Mori and Arai’s (2010) replication, and 3) Bond and Smith’s (1996) meta-analysis.

Franzen & Mader (2023) conducted a close replication of the Asch’s original social influence and conformity experimental studies and an extension study. Their work demonstrated how people conform to group pressure, even when they know the answer is wrong. This replication study on conformity adopted the same method as Asch’s (1951) line judgment task. One part of the experiment was designed to replicate the original Asch experiment. For this purpose, 210 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to two groups. Group 1 judged line lengths without an incentive for correct answers. As in Asch (1951), each session included five confederates and one naive participant seated in a row, with the naive participant always in Seat 5. Participants completed 10 line-judgment tasks of varying difficulty, calling out the number of the correct line in order from participant 1 to 6, and then completed a short questionnaire. In Group 2, the experimental design and procedure were identical to those in Group 1, except that correct answers in the line-length judgment task were incentivized. In addition to a 20 Swiss Franc show-up fee, participants received one Swiss Francs for each correct response in the line judgment task (see Franzen & Mader (2023); for the full procedure report). In later parts of the experiment, participants additionally responded to five general questions on political issues in Switzerland, and to items assessing their Big Five personality traits, self-esteem, intelligence, and motivation. The findings showed that conformity rates were lower than those in Asch’s original work, but the social influence situation remained significant. Franzen & Mader (2023) found an error rate of 33% in the non-incentivized condition, closely replicating Asch’s original findings. However, the error rate decreased to 25% when correct answers were incentivized. They found a conformity rate of 38% when expressing opinions on political statements. These findings show social influence theory still holds even half a century after their original demonstration, though less robustly than originally reported, especially when responses are incentivized. When applied practically, the theory revealed high conformity in political opinions among Swiss participants, suggesting cultural and contextual factors moderate the effect.

Mori and Arai’s (2010) work was comparable experimentally to Asch’s (1951, 1952, 1956). The @Mori & Arai (2010) replication aimed to resolve inconsistencies in Asch experiment replications, particularly around the use of confederates and whether participants detected them. Mori & Arai (2010) adopted a method similar to Asch’s line judgment task, but used a computerized setup. The key difference here from Asch’s samples was that no confederates were asked to give incorrect answers; instead, 2-4 actors gave predetermined incorrect answers via the computer, creating a majority opinion. Hence, social influence has been manipulated through pre-programmed responses and attributes given to other participants. All participants were Japanese university students (N=104; 40 men and 64 women) and told fellow participants they were responding simultaneously via computer. Consequently, although participants responded privately via computer, they believed they were part of a group. Participants were shown a standard line and three comparison lines, and asked to identify the matching line. The findings of Mori & Arai (2010) showed that conformity rates were similar to Asch’s original study, despite the absence of confederates who gave incorrect answers. Participants conformed to the perceived group opinion, even when they knew the answer was incorrect. Therefore, (2010) study demonstrated that social influence can occur without direct social pressure, highlighting the power of perceived group norms. Mori & Arai (2010) discussed how personal acquaintance, age, gender, task difficulty, confederate in reality, minority and majority group, culture differences, and generational differences may influence conformity rate.

Last, we consider the meta-analysis by Bond & Smith (1996). This meta-analysis included 133 studies that used Asch’s line judgment task, including replications and variations — studies have covered various cultures, group sizes, and participant demographics. The analysis examined the effect of sizes and moderators of conformity, such as cultural individualism-collectivism and group size. The main findings of Bond & Smith (1996) indicated that conformity rates varied across cultures, with higher conformity in collectivist cultures. Group size and unanimity influenced conformity, consistent with Asch’s findings. The meta-analysis also revealed that the effect sizes decreased over time, suggesting cultural shifts in conformity. Bond and Smith’s (1996) meta-analysis highlighted the importance of cultural context in understanding conformity and social influence. These findings allow us to evaluate whether Asch’s findings can be reproduced, but also how conformity changes across historical periods, research methods, and cultural contexts.

#yourturn
Why do you think participants in more recent studies are less likely to conform than participants in studies conducted earlier?

Taken together, studies of the aftermath of the Asch original classic studies were consistent although not as robust as the original study reported (Bond & Smith, 1996; Franzen & Mader, 2023). These studies identified several factors that shape conformity, alongside influences such as anonymity, group cohesion, and individual differences like self-esteem and personality. Group size matters, but its effect ceases to increase after three or four people as additional confederates contribute little to the overall level of conformity. Unanimity is also crucial as a unanimous majority exerts strong social pressure. Nevertheless, a single dissenting voice can substantially reduce conformity by disrupting the perceived consensus. Task difficulty also plays a role. When tasks are ambiguous or hard, people are more likely to rely on the group’s judgment rather than their own. Cultural context plays a moderating role as well. Some studies reported that participants in collectivist cultures, which are common in many African and Asian countries, generally exhibit higher conformity rates compared to individualist cultures, which are more typical in Western countries. Incentives can affect the pattern as well. While monetary rewards may lessen conformity, they do not eliminate it entirely. Finally, social norms continue to operate even when they are not explicitly stated. People often align their behavior with what they perceive as normal or expected in a given situation. Together, these findings show conformity is not automatic but contingent on situational and social variables that either amplify or dampen the tendency to align with others.

#yourturn
Social media now connects us to people everywhere, and our feeds usually show us ideas we already like. Does this setup make global conformity more common?

6.3 Conclusion

Asch’s conformity experiments revealed a robust demonstration of the influence of social pressure on individual behavior that was largely substantiated from subsequent extension and replication studies. The persistent effect highlights the importance of critical thinking, dissent, and diversity for reducing the likelihood of groupthink and promoting independent thought. The social influence theory has several real-world applications and implications in different domains (Franzen & Mader, 2023). For instance, in marketing, advertisers leverage social proof—labels such as “best-seller” or “most popular”—to shape consumer choices by signaling what others prefer. In politics, campaigns invoke perceived majority opinion (e.g., “most people agree”) to persuade voters. In workplaces, it can influence group decision-making and can either support cohesion or suppress innovation in various organisations. In contemporary digital/online environments, conformity may be amplified by algorithms, online activities, and visible approval metrics such as likes, shares, and trending content.

Bond & Smith’s (1996.) meta-analysis/extension study reveals that conformity rates vary across cultures, with collectivist cultures showing higher rates. However, their meta-analysis included 116 (out of the 133) studies investigated in the US and Europe, which raises questions about the cultural applicability of social influence theory beyond the US and Europe. Research suggests that people from collectivist societies, common in Africa, tend to exhibit higher conformity rates compared to individualistic cultures. These studies imply that conformity should not be treated as a fixed process, but as a context-dependent variable shaped by culture and specific social situations. Hence, there is a need for further investigation in contexts of Africans and non-Western cultures considering also that collectivist cultures often prioritize group harmony over individual opinions. In Nigeria, for instance, this could mean that individuals might be more likely to conform to group decisions, even if they disagree, to avoid conflict or maintain social relationships. However, most research on social influence and group conformity in Sub-Saharan African cultures has primarily focused on undergraduate populations (Animba et al., 2023) majorly relying on Western-developed theories that may not be applicable to African contexts. Extension and replication of Asch’s (1951) experiment in diverse Sub-Saharan African cultures could provide valuable insights into the dynamics of social influence in collectivist and high power distance cultures (see also Pinxteren, 2021). By understanding the factors that contribute to conformity, a society can embrace individuality and promote desirable social change.