Culture and Norms

UNIT 4 NORMS AND CONFORMITY:

ASCH’S LINE OF LENGTH
EXPERIMENTS

Structure
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Objectives
4.2 Solomon E. Asch – A Leading Social Psychologist
4.3 Line and Length Experiments
4.3.1 Asch’s Conformity Experiment
4.3.2 Asch’s Experiment in Detail
4.4 Alternatives Available with Probable Consequences
4.4.1 Variables
4.4.2 Procedure
4.4.3 Results
4.5 Explanation of the Yielding Behaviour
4.6 Variants in Asch’s Experiments
4.7 Salient Features
4.8 Critical Appraisal
4.9 Related Research on Asch’s Experiments
4.10 Let Us Sum Up
4.11 Unit End Questions
4.12 Suggested Readings and References

4.0 INTRODUCTION
In the title and structure of this unit, there is a name. Asch. A social psychologist
expert he conducted experiments on norm formation. This unit will be considering
all the works of Asch and his experiments which might be of particular interest
to you because you might be surprised to see that, under certain experimental
conditions, what Asch’s subjects said was not in line with what actually they
were seeing right in front of them and, further more interestingly, nobody had
instructed them not to tell what they were actually seeing. This unit will present
the Line and Length experiments conducted by Asch and point out how people
knowing fully well what they are perceiving decide to say the contrary which is
in line with the groups member’s thinking. In addition this unit will present the
different experiments with a number of variations from the Asch’s experiment.
There will also be a critical appraisal of the experiments and the conclusions
thereof with regard to norm formation.

4.1 OBJECTIVES
After completing this unit, you will be able to:
• explain the experiments of Asch;
44 • identify the salient features of Asch’s experiment;
• elucidate the concept of conformity and independence; Norms and Conformity:
Asch’s Line of Length
• Analyse the importance of conformity and independence in social settings; Experiments
and
• Describe Asch’s line and length experiments.

4.2 SOLOMON E. ASCH – A LEADING SOCIAL

PSYCHOLOGIST
Solomon E. Asch, who also worked with Max Wertheimer at the New School
for Social Research (yes, the same Wertheimer who
along with Koffka and Kohler founded Gestalt
Psychology about which you have read in the third
unit [Systems and theories of psychology] of the first
block [Introduction to psychology, objectives, goals]
of your BPC-001 [General Psychology] course), is
believed to extend the Gestalt theory to social
behaviour and social psychology. When he joined the
Swarthmore college he worked with another famous
Gestalt Psychologist, Wolfgang Koehler.

Besides Swarthmore College, he also taught at Brooklyn College and the New
School for Social Research and held visiting posts at MIT and Harvard. In 1952,
he published a book on social Psychology which gave a new direction to the
study of social behaviour throughout the world.

Prof. Asch also served as President of the Division of Personality and Social
Psychology of the American Psychological Association . Between 1966 to 1972,
he held the position of Director of the Institute for Cognitive Studies at Rutgers
University and from 1972 to 1979 served as Professor of Psychology in the
University of Pennsylvania.
From 1979 onwards, he served at the University of Pennsylvania as Emeritus
Professor of Psychology.
He died at the age of 88 years, on February 20, 1996
Asch is also credited for giving directions and new insights to another great
psychologist, Milgram in his highly influential research on obedience and
authority. He inspired & supervised Milgram’s Ph.D research also at Harvard
University. He is considered a pioneer of gestalt as well as social psychology
and his experiments still give inspiration to social psychology researchers
worldwide. Let us have a glance at his classic work.

4.3 LINE AND LENGTH EXPERIMENTS

Sherif’s work paved the way for experiments of Asch also as he was interested
to see whether the subjects would conform even if the situation involved an
unambiguous task. For this purpose, Asch chose line judgement task to conduct
his experiments. This series of his studies was published in the 1950s (1951,
1952, 1955, 1956, 1957) and his work is also popularly known as the Asch
Paradigm which is the main theme of this unit which you are just going to read
in the following sub-sections. 45
Culture and Norms 4.3.1 Asch’s Conformity Experiment

Solomon Asch, with experiments originally carried out in the 1950s highlighted
a phenomenon now known as “conformity”. In the classic experiment, a subject
sees a puzzle like the one in the above diagram. The question is, Which of the
lines A, B, and C is the same size as the line X? Take a moment to determine
your own answer.
Normally there should be no difficulty to give the answer. However Asch made
the subject concerned who was to respond alongside many others who were also
looking at the diagram. All these people were confederates of the experimenter.
These other “subjects” in the experiment, one after the other, say that line C
seems to be the same size as X. The real subject is seated next to last. How
many people, placed in this situation, would say “C” giving an obviously incorrect
answer that agrees with the unanimous answer of the other subjects? What do
you think the percentage would be?
Three-quarters of the subjects in Asch’s experiment gave a “conforming” answer
at least once. A third of the subjects conformed more than half the time.
Interviews after the experiment showed that while most subjects claimed to have
not really believed their conforming answers, some said they had really thought
that the conforming option was the correct one.
It is not a trivial question whether the subjects of Asch’s experiments behaved
irrationally. Robert Aumann’s experiment 20 years later proved Asch’s
experiments, thjough it formalised and strengthened an intuitively obvious point,
that is, other people’s beliefs are often legitimate evidence.
If you were looking at a diagram like the one above, but you knew for a fact that
the other people in the experiment were honest and seeing the same diagram as
you, and three other people said that C was the same size as X, then what are the
odds that only you are the one who’s right? In terms of individual rationality,
you will perhaps.
The conforming subjects in these experiments are not automatically considered
as irrational, but according to a meta-analysis of over a hundred replications by
Smith and Bond (1996), it was observed that conformity increases strongly up to
3 confederates, but does not increase further up to 10-15 confederates. If people
are conforming rationally, then the opinion of 15 other subjects should be
substantially stronger evidence than the opinion of 3 other subjects.
Adding a single dissenter reduces conformity very sharply, down to 5-10%. If
the subjects undergoing the experiment are emotionally nervous about being the
odd one out, then it’s easy to see how a single other person who agrees with the
subject or even a single other person who disagrees with the group as a whole ,
would make the subject much less nervous.
46
People are not generally aware of the causes of their conformity or dissent. For Norms and Conformity:
Asch’s Line of Length
instance, in the hypothesis that people are socially and rationally choosing to lie Experiments
so that they are not the odd one out, it appears that subjects in the one dissenter
condition do not consciously anticipate the conscious strategy that they would
employ when faced with unanimous opposition.

When the single dissenter suddenly switched to conforming to the group, subjects’
conformity rates went back up to just as high as in the no dissenter condition.
Being the first dissenter is a valuable (and costly!) social service, but one has to
keep it up.

Another interesting finding was that consistently within and across experiments,
the group which hasd only female subjects, conformed significantly more often
than the group which had all male participants. Around one half the women
conformed more than half the time, versus one-third of the men. In group and
out group manipulations (e.g., a handicapped subject alongside other handicapped
subjects) similarly show that conformity is significantly higher among members
of an in group.

Conformity is lower in the case of blatant diagrams as compared to those diagrams

wherein the errors are more subtle.

Another interesting aspect is that when subjects can respond in a way that will
not be seen by the group then the conformity drops.

4.3.2 Asch’s Experiment in Detail

Asch’s main aim was to experimentally study the effect of group pressure on
conformity behaviour in an unambiguous situation. Asch used extremely simple
perceptual material but exposed the naïve subject to an apparently wrong
judgement given by a group of subjects before his turn to reply came. This was
done mainly to find out whether he (the naïve subject) reports what he himself is
(correctly) seeing or yields/conforms to what the group is (wrongly) saying.

Carefully observe the figure given below wherein you will find two cards
displaying lines (a Standard Line and three Comparison Lines), and a group of
eight persons watching these lines. Here, the seventh person from left (S7, where
S stands for Subject) is naïve or critical subject and rest all other seven subjects
(S1 to S6, and S8) are the experimenter’s pre-instructed confederates.

47
Culture and Norms In the following paragraphs, you will find many terms which are frequently used
in psychological researches, tests and experiments. An understanding of these
related terms and their corresponding information about Asch’s experiment is a
must to get the gist of his work.

Subjects
Critical Subjects: A total of 123 male college students, between the ages of 17 to
25 (with a mean age of 20 years), drawn from three nearby educational institutions
excluding Asch’s own College, served as critical subjects. They were naïve and
knew nothing about the actual purpose of Asch’s study.

Asch was interested in the behaviour of the ‘focal’ subject that is S7 in the group.
As this subject was being exposed to the group and social pressure or influence
during experimental manipulations. Generally the subject (S7) was seated at the
end or at second last position in the row so that they may well hear what the
earlier participants are saying. By the time the subject’s turn comes to respond,
the responses of the other members of the groups are already known to the subject
and the possibility of his being influenced by their responses is also quite high.
To find out if this is so, the experiment was conducted.

Confederates: These subjects were actually the associates of Asch. They (S1 to
S6 and S8) were also called the majority and were there to cooperate with the
experimenter in the experimental plans. They were all pre instructed to give
either right or wrong answers on already fixed trials. They were also told to do
this job very cleverly and carefully so that the critical subjects do not come to
detect ‘their plan’. Their unanimity even in giving wrong judgements was also a
unique feature of the experimental plan.

Task
The main task was tomatch the lengths of lines (few inches) under optimal
conditions and announce the judgement. The subjects were told in the experiment
that it is a psychological experiment in visual judgement and that they would be
shown two cards: one bearing a standard line and other having three comparison
lines: numbered 1, 2, and 3. The subject was given the task of (i) to select the
line from among the three comparison lines that was equal to and matched in
length with the standard line. (ii) After that they have to speak loudly and announce
publicly its number (1st, 2nd or 3rd line). In each trial, a new set of standard and
comparison lines was used. Asch used a very simple discrimination task with
easily perceivable difference in length of the comparison lines. Actually, Asch
was not interested in confusing his critical subjects over the length of lines.

Trials
Total 18 trials were taken in a series with each group consisting of two trials,
viz., (i) Neutral trials and (ii) Critical trials.

Neutral Trials: Out of 18, 06 trials, introduced at different serial numbers as

tabled below, were those neutral trials on which the confederates also gave
“correct” judgements.

48
Critical Trials: Rest 12 were the critical trails on which the confederates publicly Norms and Conformity:
Asch’s Line of Length
announced “pre-decided” wrong answers. Experiments

The following was the sequence of a particular trail in Asch (1956) experiment:
Sl. Trial Type of Type of answer of the
No. Code Trial confederates
01 A Neutral Trial Correct Judgement
02 B Neutral Trial Correct Judgement
03 1 Critical Trial Majority responds incorrectly
04 2 Critical Trial Majority responds incorrectly
05 C Neutral Trial Correct Judgement
06 3 Critical Trial Majority responds incorrectly
07 4 Critical Trial Majority responds incorrectly
08 5 Critical Trial Majority responds incorrectly
09 6 Critical Trial Majority responds incorrectly
10 D Neutral Trial Correct Judgement
11 E Neutral Trial Correct Judgement
12 7 Critical Trial Majority responds incorrectly
13 8 Critical Trial Majority responds incorrectly
14 F Neutral Trial Correct Judgement
15 9 Critical Trial Majority responds incorrectly
16 10 Critical Trial Majority responds incorrectly
17 11 Critical Trial Majority responds incorrectly
18 12 Critical Trial Majority responds incorrectly

You might perhaps note that first nine trials (a – 6) have been repeated (d – 12)
and there was no break in between anywhere. As per column number four, the
confederates were pre-instructed to give set responses. But, the critical subjects
were also independent to give any answer as per their perception or as they
wanted it in any or all the 18 trails. Actually, this was the thing in which Asch
was interested that in clearly conflicting 12 critical trials, whom or what will the
critical subjects follow: their own perception or the majority group giving
unanimously incorrect responses. No discussion was allowed during the trials
and the subject was to give any response he liked/disliked. After the
experimentation, the subjects were interviewed also wherein they were given
the details of the experiment and experimental procedure and asked about their
experiences.

4.4 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE WITH

PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES
If you were in a situation like the above as a critical subject where there is clear
conflict in your perceptual judgement and the judgement of the majority, what 49
Culture and Norms possible alternatives you think were available with you for giving any judgement
on a particular critical trial. If you think as given in the table below, you are
right.
Table: Nature of pressure and available alternatives
Nature of Force Possible alternative Perceived/imagined
available probable consequences
The evidence of one’s Announce what you are You are contradicting the
senses (you are seeing seeing or give judgment group and declaring that
the stimulus right there based on your own the unanimous majority
in front of you). perception of the stimulus has given wrong
(Independence). judgement.
The unanimous opinion Follow the majority even You are suppressing the
of a majority group if they are wrong and give testimony of your own
(giving wrong answers judgement in line with perceptual experience, but
on pre-defined trials as theirs (Conformity). you will not be considered
instructed by Asch). odd man out.

4.4.1 Variables
Independent Variable: If Asch was not concerned with the varying lines of his
stimuli in various trials, then what else was it? As you have just read above, it
was the responses of the confederates on critical trials (wrong answers) which
he intelligently manipulated as independent variable.

Dependent Variable: Asch was interested in exploring/studying whether subjects

conform or yield to the wrong answers of the unanimous majority or stand
independent in giving their responses on the critical trails.

4.4.2 Procedure
Keeping in mind the seating arrangement of subjects in the psychology lab and
the sequence of the trials, let us proceed further to see how the experiment was
progressed.

Trial 01: A pair of cards carrying standard and comparison lines was presented
before the group and was asked to announce their respective judgements in the
order they were sitting. Their responses were noted. All gave similar judgment.

Trial 02: Another pair of cards, again carrying standard and comparison lines
was presented and the group was asked to announce their respective judgements
as pervious trial. Their responses were again noted and found that all gave similar
judgment.

Trial 03: Remember that the first two trails were neutral trials. This was followed
by the 3rd trial which was ‘critical’ trial. Here again, a new set of cards was
presented before the subjects but S1 (the confederate) gave wrong answer. Then,
S2 (again, the confederate) too gave the same but wrong answer. Third subject,
S3 (the confederate) followed the first two accomplices. So, did the fourth, fifth
and the sixth. By the time his turn came, the startled subject S7 (the critical,
naïve subject) was totally confused and disturbed. What his group members had
responded was not correct and he knew the correct answer. But, what to tell?
That, what he is perceiving right in front of him OR that, what the group members
50
had just announced one by one before him? Well, what ever he replied was Norms and Conformity:
Asch’s Line of Length
noted by the experimenter. Experiments

This way, the remaining trials were completed as per experimental design, and
with all the critical subjects. The results of the experiment are presented below.

4.4.3 Results
The main findings of Asch are summarised below:
1) When the same task was conducted with the Control Group (N = 37), without
any misleading majority, without any experimental manipulation, the
perceptual or judgmental errors occurred less than 01% of all the judgements.
So, more than 99% accurate judgments were found under controlled
conditions.
2) Taking the results of all 123 subjects together, the naïve subjects yielded to
the group pressure and conformed to the misleading majority’s wrong
responses in 36.8% of the judgements showing that the unanimous majority
distorted one-third of the reported estimates.
This is a serious matter of concern because the task was, as you have seen, very
simple, easy and matter of fact, and most importantly, the subjects were free to
given their actual responses, yet they conformed to the group pressure and gave
the replies in the direction of the group’s wrong judgement.

Towards a positive explanation of the findings, however, we can say that

approximately two third (63.2%) of the responses were independent, correct,
beyond group pressure and were not distorted in the direction of wrong majority.
And, this is important.
However, individual differences were also noted in the experiment. For instance
• About 25% of the subjects were completely independent throughout the
experiment.
• About 5% subjects always went with the wrong majority ‘without exception’,
nearly all the time.
• Internal consistency was obtained in the responses and judgement of the
subjects in the experiment.
• Those who were independent in the initial trials remained independent later
also, and those who conformed from the starting were always yielding to
the group judgements.

4.5 EXPLANATION OF THE YIELDING

BEHAVIOUR
The post-experiment interviews helped Asch to further understand why did the
minority subjects yield to the apparently wrong judgements of the majority. Their
conformity and yielding to the wrong majority was explained as given below:

1st Level: Yielding at the perceptual level

Although occurred rarely and in the subjects who had low levels of self confidence
and lack of trust in themselves, the subjects felt that they had actually seen the
51
Culture and Norms lines the way the majority announced their judgements. These subjects were not
aware of the conflict and believed their group to be right.

2nd Level: At the judgmental level

This occurred rather frequently. That is, the subjects yielded to wrong majority
in giving incorrect answers either because they could not ensure themselves as
to whether they had understood their task or the experiment properly or because
they did not want to spoil the experiment. They were aware of the conflict but
also believed their group to be right.

3rd Level. Yielding at the action level

This category of subjects were very much aware of their yielding to the wrong
majority and felt highly uncomfortable while yielding but yielded because they
feared being considered odd man out or considered an eccentric person and being
excluded from the group. Thus, they were aware of the conflict and also knew
that their group was wrong.

4th Level: Explaining the independence

Asch (1955) also explained the reasons of observed independence where his
subjects did not conform to the wrong majority and maintained their independence
and enjoyed their freedom to speak the perceived truth. Few subjects had this
committed confidence in themselves that led them to report their own perceptual
judgements and they had the capacity to recover the doubts caused by the wrong
majority. Few others reported that they sometimes believed that the majority to
be correct but they preferred to tell what they actually perceived.

4.6 VARIANTS OF ASCH’S EXPERIMENTS

Studying the aspects of influence of group further, Asch was interested in few
other variables which he thought might influence the respondent’s behaviour.
He modified his experiments by (i) changing the size of majority, (ii) bringing
variations in the unanimity of wrong answers, etc. The results found are given in
the table below.
i) Variations in Size of majority
Asch was also interested to see if the size of the majority had any influence on
the respondents’ behaviour. He varied the size of the majority from 01 to 15 and
with each condition, of course, new critical subject was required. He found:
Number of Number of Effect/Findings
critical subjects confederates
01 01 Very little effect, and the subjects
continued to respond independently.
01 02 Substantial pressure was found and 13.6
% wrong answers were obtained.
01 03 Errors jumped to 31.8%. Found fullest
possible effects of majority.
01 04 – 15 Further increase in size of majority had
no further substantial increase of pressure
on subjects.
52
These findings led Asch to conclude that the size of the opposing majority was Norms and Conformity:
Asch’s Line of Length
important only up to a certain number in influencing the subjects. Beyond that, Experiments
the size did not matter.

ii) Variations in Unanimity

By now, we have seen only one critical subject, all alone, in Aschs’s experiments.
What, if we have two critical subjects (minority of two) against the majority of
seven to nine?

In this variation, the findings revealed that the presence of a supporting partner
reduced the group pressure to one fourth and the critical subjects exhibited a
high level of independence.

But, what if this another dissenter joins the majority after six trials? Asch found
that there was an abrupt increase in the yielding to the erring majority and there
was a sudden increase in subjects’ errors. This shows that the presence of another
dissenter, that is a supporter brings the strength and confidence of the critical
subjects back and help them maintain their independence. And, that is perhaps
the reason for that the number of errors of the critical subjects increased suddenly
after the departure of the dissenter.

4.7 SALIENT FEATURES

A minute reading of the above experiments brings out some unique features
which further clarify the phenomena of conformity and independence. Let us
have a close look on few of these.

Character of the task

Unlike Sherif’s autokinetic experiment as seen in the previous unit, the task in
the Asch’s work was clear, unambiguous and obvious, an easily perceivable matter
of fact. The standard and comparison lines were right there in front of the eyes of
the subjects. They had to simply see and compare the readily perceivable lines
and to tell what they saw while giving their judgment.

Nature of subjects
There was no manipulation in the stimulus lines but with the confederates who
cooperated with the experimenter and produced an apparent conflict between
the actual matching line and the reported one, the manipulation was with the
confederates’ responses which the critical / naïve subject (minority) was free to
copy or not to conform.

Discussion
There was no discussion amongst the subjects during the experimental trials and
there was no direct persuasion from the side of confederates. Each subject was
independent to give the answer of his choice in all the trials.

Public announcement
The loud pronunciation of confederates’ judgement had a crucial effect on most
of the subjects. This was clearly more evident in the experimental condition
when they were allowed to give their judgements in writing.
53
Culture and Norms Immediacy
When we hear others around us saying their views loudly, we are certainly
influenced most of the times to give similar responses or views, particularly
when we are in such a situation that requires us to respond immediately.

Uneasy disagreement
When there was a clear conflict in what they saw to be actually right, but not
spoken by the group members and also they were going to conform (though
unwillingly), this condition was not an easy one for the subjects . Thus they
exhibited the symptoms of uneasiness because they were just going to reply
against their perception under group pressure.

Public disagreement
Most of the persons resist and do not conform or yield to wrong group pressure.
They publicly disagree and maintain their individuality for whatsoever the reasons
may be.

Number matters, but not as a rule

In Asch’s experiment, another interesting finding revealed that up to a certain
extent the number of persons in a group had influence on an individual’s behaviour
but beyond a given limit, too big group was found to have no effect.

4.8 CRITICAL APPRAISAL

Very recently, Dalal and Misra (2010) rightly stated that Asch’s work had a clear-
cut message that conformity is bad as it produces wrong judgements (p. 146 –
147). We can sense this when we read Asch (1955, p. 34), “That we have found
the tendency to conformity in our society so strong that reasonably intelligent
and well-meaning young people are willing to call White Black is a matter of
concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values
that guide our conduct.” Thus, concerned with the ill effects of conformity in
polluting the social process, Asch advocated the fostering the values of
independence in the social beings.

After minutely analysing 99 social psychology textbooks that got published in

US between 1953 and mid-1984, it was found that the authors had often distorted
Asch’s findings, accentuated the role of conformity and underestimated that of
independence.

However, one issue raised by Leyens and Corneille (1999) seems pertinent to be
presented here, “… Asch did not pursue the reasoning when he dealt with social
relations, at least in his famous “conformity studies.” There, he tried to show
independence rather than interdependence, and his experimental manipulations
prevented any interaction between participants.

Contrary to Lewin, who focused on interactions, Asch never studied them even if
he briefly wrote about them. The paradox is that his conformity studies are usually
presented in the group section of contemporary textbooks, when it may well be
that Asch influenced social psychology by leading the researchers away from
“real” interactions” (p. 354 – 355).
54
The issue raised by Leyens and Corneille needs to be adequately addressed because Norms and Conformity:
Asch’s Line of Length
interaction is a unique and characteristic feature of any social situation and a Experiments
group, and if there is no discussion and/or interaction permitted among the group
members even on the demands of the experiment, can the mere proximate physical
presence of few persons be safely termed as a group?

If we look at the psychological description of a group, Shaw (1981) finds one

thing common in all groups: their members interact. He therefore defined a group
as two or more persons who interact and influence one another. Also, according
to Turner (1987), the members of groups have feelings of “we” and perceive
themselves as “us” in contrast to “they”. More than fifty years ago, Bales (1950)
also says, “A small group is defined as any number of persons engaged in
interaction with each other (emphasis added) in a single face-to-face meeting or
a series of meetings, in which each member receives some impression or
perception of each other member distinct enough so that he can, either at the
time or in later questioning, give some reaction to each of the others as an
individual person, even though it be only to recall that the other person was
present.”

Whether you call the Asch’s subjects a group per se or not, there are definite
psychological studies, revealing that even mere presence of others influence and
enhance one’s performance, under the term social-facilitation. However, the same
is not always true and some researchers have also found that the presence of
others can hinder the performance as well.

What actually matters the most here, however, is that we need to learn and take
lessons from Asch and his work for the advancement of social psychology like
Rozin (2001), who had been the colleague of Solomon Asch at the University of
Pennsylvania for eight long years before Asch’s retirement. Secondly, if we are
convinced that independence should be preferred over conformity, we should
find and foster the ways to (a) combat the pressures to conform and (b) promote
independence.

Self Assessment Questions

1) What were the bases of Asch’s research?
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
2) Describe the importance of confederates of Asch’s experiments.
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
55
Culture and Norms
3) Explain the reactions of the subjects when they had to give judgements
contrary to their perceptions.
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
4) Comparatively analyse the variants of Asch’s line and length experiment.
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

4.9 RELATED RESEARCH ON ASCH’S FINDINGS

Working with a group of chimpanzees, Whiten, Horner and de Waal (2005)
reported evidence of a conformity bias that has been identified in human studies
by researchers like Asch (1956) as a powerful tendency to discount personal
experience in favour of adopting perceived community norms.

The credit for doing the first ever study of brain activity and finding the biological
evidence associated with perceptual and emotional processes during social
conformity and independence goes to Berns, Chappelow, Zink, Pagnoni, Martin-
Skurski, and Richards (2005).

To investigate the neural basis of individualistic and conforming behaviour while

facing wrong information, they used functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI) technology and a task of mental rotation in group pressure situations
(with a modification of the Asch paradigm). They reported that conformity was
associated with functional changes in an occipital–parietal network and activation
of the amygdala in independence or, in other words, when the participants went
against the group opinion.

In order to study the relationship between conformity and culture, a meta analysis
was performed by Bond and Smith (1996) utilising 133 studies, drawn from 17
countries, that used Asch’s line judgement task. They found that motivations to
conform were weak in Western societies than elsewhere and collectivist countries
revealed conformity more than individualist countries. In another work, while
Perrin and Spencer have been reported by Amir (1984) to unable to replicate the
‘Asch effect’, he found the ‘Asch effect’ replicable in Kuwait with Kuwait
University students.

To explain the conformity behaviour of the subjects of Asch’s experiments,

Noelle-Neumann, who formulated the spiral of silence theory in 1974, later used
56
the fact that “the subjects in Asch’s experiment saw ‘with their own eyes that the Norms and Conformity:
Asch’s Line of Length
line selected by majority as the best match is not the best match’ as evidence that Experiments
fear of isolation is the dominant factor influencing conformity (quoted in
Scheufele and Moy, 2000).

In order to apply teach the social psychology in their classroom settings, Stephan
Desrochers (see Halpern and Desrochers, 2005) used Asch’s line comparison
task for tardy students. He made the classroom seating arrangement in a way that
the two late comer two students naturally get the last two seats after coming late
to the class. Other students who used to be in time formed a small group to act as
confederates and Desrochers told them their role to give wrong perceptual
judgement about the matching lines. The tardy students arrived late by five minutes
while the sheet carrying standard and comparison lines was being passed. The
students were informed that in that basic perception experiment, they were to
tell the comparison line matching with the standard line. After listening to other
students’ responses, the late comer students stared at the lines thinking about
other students’ responses. One of them even said loudly that other’s response
did not seem to be correct at the first glance, but, being so different from others’
judgment, she doubted her own perception. After some apparent struggle, both
of them conformed to the class. This practically taught the students in general
and the tardy ones in particular the power of social influence.

As we saw in the previous unit also that research further generates research and
leads to advancement of knowledge and understanding of a given phenomenon.
The same applies here also. Finding possible explanations for the behaviours of
the critical subjects of Asch where they had altered their responses (perceptual
judgements) in conformity with the group, you might also say … following
Cronback (1946) that, they deliberately or intentionally altered or distorted their
responses to appear more socially favourable. Well, this impression management
is a factor of socially desirable responding. In addition to studying the personality
correlates of conformity, the conformity behaviour may also be studied and
explained in terms of social desirability by the interested social psychologists to
further understand the underlying dynamics of conformity.

4.10 LET US SUM UP

In this unit, we have learned about another great social psychologist, Solomon
E. Asch and his experiments on conformity and independence. Using the clear,
unambiguous stimulus, he has been able to show that under group pressure and
social influence, many people give responses contrary to their apparently correct
perception conforming to the group’s wrong perceptual judgements.

His findings, like Sherif’s, have inspired social psychologists worldwide to study
group processes from a new perspective. Although we have also found that they,
for the most part, have been found to divert the main assertion of Asch, or, at
least, have avoided independence highlighted equally by Asch in his experiments
and writings. With just one book and a few articles to his credit, he gave a new
line of thought to all. Even recently researchers focused and studied the biological
basis of conformity and independence, and found separate brain areas working
for these distinct social processes.

57
Culture and Norms Ending this unit here, we present a new starting point for further research: Coming
back to the original experimental situation of Asch, nothing personal of the critical
subjects was on stake. What would the persons do in actual social life situations
if they well–perceive the possible future consequences of their behaviour of
conformity and/or independence on themselves and their lives? If their behaviour
is going to actually affect their real personal life, will they still conform to what
the others are saying but they are perceiving it different, something contradictory
and not matching with their previous learning or the social reality?

4.11 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1) What is comparatively more important: conformity or independence, and
why?
2) Write a brief note on the Galileo’s saying that ‘sun was stationary and the
earth revolved round the sun’ in light of Asch’s paradigm.
3) From a fresher student’s point of view, can ragging in educational institutions
be explained in terms of conformity and independence?
4) If you have to study conformity on similar lines with Asch, what experimental
study would you plan in a given social setting of your choice? Give complete
details in terms of variables, experimental controls and proposed procedure.

4.12 SUGGESTED READINGS AND REFERENCES

Baron, R. A., Byrne, D. and Branscombe, N. R. (2008). Social Psychology (11th
ed.). New Delhi: Pearson Education, Inc..

McDavid, J. W. and Harari, H. (1994). Social Psychology: Individuals, Groups,

Societies. New Delhi: CBS.

References
Amir, T. (1984). The Asch Conformity Effect: A study in Kuwait. Social
Behaviour and Personality, 12(2), 187 – 190.

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

Asch, S. (1952). Social Psychology. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall)

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: General and Applied,
70, 1–70 [whole no. 416].

Asch, S. E. (1957). An experimental investigation of group influence. In

Symposium on Prentative and Social Psychiatry. Symposium conducted at the
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
58
Asch, S. E. (1987). Social psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Norms and Conformity:
Asch’s Line of Length
(Original work published, 1952). Experiments

Bales. R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small
groups. Cambridge, Mass: Addison – Wesley.

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one

against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70.

Berns, G.S., Chappelow, J.C., Zink, C.F., Pagnoni, G., Martin-Skurski, M.E.,
Richards, J., 2005. Neurobiological correlates of social conformity and
independence during mental rotation. Biological Psychiatry, 58, 245–253.

Bond, R. and Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of

studies using Asch’s line judgement task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111 –
137.

Cronbach, L. J. (1946). Response sets and test validity. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 6, 475-494.

Dalal, A. K. and Misra, G. (2010). The core and context of Indian psychology.
Psychology and Developing Societies, 22(1), 121 – 155.

Friend, R., Refferty, Y., and Bramel, D. (1990). A puzzling misinterpretation of

the Asch ‘conformity’ study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 29 –
44.

Halpern, D. F. and Desrochers, S. (2005). Social psychology in the classroom:

Applying what we teach as we teach it. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
24(1), 51 – 61.

Leyens, J-P. and Corneille, O. (1999). Asch’s social psychology: Not as social as
you may think. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 345 – 357.

Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon
Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 2 – 14.

Scheufele, D. A. and Moy, P. (2000). Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A

conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 12(1), 3 – 28.

Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behaviour.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisation theory.

New York: Basil Blackwell.

Whiten, A., Horner, V., and de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). Conformity to cultural

norms of tool use in chimpanzees. Nature, 437, 737 – 740.

59