Psychology
Will You Comply? — The “Asch Conformity Experiment”
Are your convictions stronger than the social pressure?
We rarely doubt the strength of our convictions and beliefs, and the external factors that shape our decisions often remain unnoticeable. In my previous article “How Much Do We Know About Our Decision-Making Processes” I went through different aspects of what directs our decisions, but here I want to focus on social pressure as a major force that can suppress our convictions and direct the decisions we make.
The “Asch Conformity Experiment”, conducted by Solomon Asch in 1951, studied the extent to which social pressure could influence a person to conform to a group’s opinion, even when it contradicted their judgment.
Solomon Asch’s experiment involved groups of eight male college students participating in a perceptual task, where the true focus was on how the subject of the experiment would react to actors’ behavior. The actors, who knew the experiment’s true aim, unanimously gave incorrect answers on specific trials. Despite obvious correct answers in the first two trials, subjects often conformed to the actors’ wrong responses in subsequent trials. Post-test interviews revealed that many subjects went along with the group.
And just to give some context on the questions, the participants examined a card featuring a line, followed by another card displaying three lines labeled A, B, and C. Among these, one line matched the length of the initial card, while the remaining two lines were distinctly longer or shorter.
The results of the experiment showed that almost 36% of the participants conformed with the actors’ wrong answers. Interestingly, if a “partner” were present among the actors, only 5% of the participants went along with the majority (giving wrong answers).
Neuroimaging findings reveal that when an individual’s actions/opinions diverge from the group’s, there is an increase in activity in the rostral cingulate zone, linked with conflict processing. Concurrently, activity in the nucleus accumbens, associated with anticipating rewards, decreases. Intriguingly, the magnitude of these neural signals predicts the likelihood of conformity.
What those findings show is that our brain will try to conform with the group to avoid conflict, while expecting a reward.
But Is Conformity A Bad Thing?
In my opinion: Yes and No!
The Good:
If we look at conformity as an adaptive trait that helped our ancestors survive in group settings, we can categorize conformity as a positive behavior. Conforming to group norms offers advantages in terms of cooperation, resource-sharing, and protection, thereby contributing to the survival of the group, so from an evolutionary perspective, it could have played a major role in the birth of different societies and civilizations.
Looking at the neuroscience results, it is also clear that conformity lowers the level of conflict in a group.
Conformity is also instrumental in the transmission of cultural values, traditions, and knowledge from one generation to the next. This ensures the continuity of societal practices and provides a framework that helps individuals navigate their roles within the larger cultural context.
In certain situations, conformity facilitates efficient decision-making. When faced with uncertainty, individuals may rely on the collective wisdom of the group, leading to more informed and well-rounded choices that draw on a diverse range of perspectives.
The Bad:
While conformity may promote social cohesion, it could also stifle individual creativity and the generation of novel ideas. To avoid conflict and be broadly accepted, individuals will often constrain themselves and avoid exploring controversial ideas.
With conformity there could never be contemporary art or progress.
In his book “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind”, Gustave Le Bon argues that crowds are irrational and form a collective mind, displaying impulsive behavior. The collective mind is driven by emotions and instincts rather than reason, leading to a loss of individuality and a tendency to act in ways that one might not in isolation.
Le Bon also examines the roles of leaders in groups and how those who follow the leader will dim their personality and will become part of the muted followers. Individuals will lose their identity, and throw away their morals and ideas for the crowd due to their fear of conflict or rejection if they resist conformity.
Safety versus one’s individuality. Imaginary rewards versus firm beliefs. Conforming is a difficult task for the self, a constant battle between individuality and the collective mind, weighing the benefits and the consequences.
Excessive conformity can foster a culture of unquestioning obedience, undermining critical thinking and independent judgment. When individuals prioritize fitting in over questioning the status quo, they may overlook ethical concerns, contributing to the perpetuation of harmful practices or social injustices. The reluctance to challenge prevailing norms can lead to the unquestioning acceptance of authority, potentially facilitating the rise of oppressive regimes or stifling movements for positive change.
On a personal level, conformity may also lead to internal conflict and a sense of dissonance. Individuals who suppress their authentic selves to conform may experience psychological distress, as the disjunction between their true beliefs and the adopted group norms creates a tension that can manifest as stress, anxiety, or even a loss of self-esteem.
Furthermore, the pressure to conform can be particularly pronounced in sensitive areas such as cultural, political, or religious beliefs. In societies where conformity is strongly encouraged, dissenting opinions may be marginalized or penalized, hindering the democratic exchange of ideas and fostering an environment where diversity of thought is discouraged.
Going back to Asch’s experiment, an interesting result was observed when there was a “partner” in the group. The subjects immediately felt more convinced in their own beliefs and perceptions. As I mentioned previously, only 5% of the participants followed the majority of the group with the wrong answer. Another interesting result was the fact that the participant felt a strong connection with the “partner” giving the same answer. An immediate bond was formed. The formation of that instant bond shows why in our modern society it is so easy for social media to polarize groups of people and why they feel so strongly connected if they share the same idea on some topic. Regardless of their differences, they can feel strong connection with other members of the group and push each other further and further into the rabbit hole.
The “Cancel Culture” as a form of enforced conformity
The strength of the “cancel culture” comes from the “moral” stand it represents. It is the modern version of Asch’s experiment, where the ideas of a specific group can influence individuals' behavior. The self feels constricted by the fear of cancelation.
Just like in Asch’s experiment, the target, which in this context is the society, is silenced and has no voice or a way to bring different opinions on the matter and should comply with the decision of the group. If someone is “canceled”, you should either conform and put more fire in the pit, be silent, or voice a different opinion and become the new target of the same cancelation.
Just like a tsunami wave, you either go with the flow trying to survive, or you get lost in the cold and dark water if you try to fight it.
Although it might be difficult for individuals to control the way they act in groups, understanding the underlying forces that shape the behavior in group environments might help us understand others better. The unknown is what we are afraid of. The unknown in others and the unknown in us — a never-ending path of exploring the mind.
Sources: