Opiniones y Presión Social
Transcript of Opiniones y Presión Social
-
7/23/2019 Opiniones y Presin Social
1/8
450
sc EllyTIF1c OFFPRINTS
AMERICAN
Opinions and Social
Pressure
by Solomon
E.
Asch
t
F
SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN
NOVEMBER 1955
VOL 193 NO 5
PP. 31-35
c
Co py rig ht0 19 55 by Scientific American. Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. NOpart of this offprint may be reproduced by ny
mechanical
photographtc
or electronic
process. Or
in the f orm of a phonographic recording. nor
may
It be stored in
a
retrieval system, transm itted or utherwtse copled for publlc
o r
pr1v3te
us
w'thout xritten permlsslon of the publisher.
-
7/23/2019 Opiniones y Presin Social
2/8
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 t rong
is
the urge toward soc ial con formi 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
persons 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 tribe of canni-
bals accepts cannibal ism as a l together
fitting an d prop er. All the 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 ques t ions
they wou ld l ike to inves t igate in deta i l .
How,
and to what extent , do socia l
forces cons tra in peoples 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 communicat ion
has a lso brought into exis tence the de-
l iberate manipulat ion
of
opinion and the
engineering of consent. Th ere are
man y good reasons why, as c i t izens and
as sc ient is ts , we should be concerned
with s tudying the ways in which hum an
beings form their opinions and the role
that social conditions play.
Stud ies of these questions bega n 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 1 9 th ce n t up . Charco t
believed that only hysterical patients
could be ful ly hypnotized, but this view
was soon chal lenged by two other phys i-
c ians , Hyppolyte Bernheim and A A
Liebau l t , who dem ons t ra ted tha t they
cou ld pu t m os t peop le unde r the hyp-
notic spell. Bernheim proposed that hyp-
nos is was bu t an ex treme form
of
a
normal psychological process which be-
came known as suggestibility. It was
shown that monotonous reiteration of in-
s truct ions could induce in normal per-
sons in the waking state involuntary
bodily changes suc h as swaying or r igid-
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 l l up in the aphorism:
Social man is a somnambulist.
Wh en th e new discipline 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 subjects are asked by the
experimenter r ight) to compare the length of l ines (see
di gr m
on th nex 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 ptio n
2
-
7/23/2019 Opiniones y Presin Social
3/8
essentially adaptations of the suggestion
demonstra t ion. The technique general ly
followed a s imple plan.
The
subjects,
usually college students, were asked to
give their opinions or preferences con-
cerning various matte rs ; 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 opinions 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 subs tant 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 peoples
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 suspic ion. 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
studies indicate. Th ere is some reason to
won der wh ether i t was not the inves tiga-
tors who, in their enthus iasm for a
theory, were sugges t 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
sugges t 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 c han ge a persons judg-
ment of a s i tuat ion or an object without
first changing his knowledge or assump-
tions about it .
plies uncritical submission f
o
i t : inde-
n what follows I shall describe some
I experiments in an investigation of the
effects of gro up pressu re which was car -
r ied out recent ly with the h elp 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 k ind of a t t ack on the p rob-
lem and some of the more subt le ques-
tions that it raises.
A group of seven to nine youn g 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 white cards . O n 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 . One o f 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 se t of cards is exposed;
aga in the g roup i s unanim ous . The m em -
bers appea r read:; to endure politely an-
other boring experiment .
O n
the third
tr ia l there is an u nexpected d is turbance.
On e person nea r the end
of
the grouF
disagrees with all the others in his selec-
tion of th e match ing line. He 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 c hoice . Th e dissenter
becomes more and more worried and
hes i tant
as
the disagreem ent 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 ac tual 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 actually show
suspicion: when this happened, the ex-
periment \vas s topped and the resul ts
were no t coun ted . ) The re 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 ins titu-
tjons
of
highe r l ea rn ins (n o t includ ing
m y w ~ m .Swarthmo re College were
placed in the minority situation
de-
scribed :ho ve.
Two al ternat ives nere open to the
sub ject : he cou ld x t ndependen tly , re-
pudiat ing the majori ty , or he could go
along with th e majority , 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 t ime. under gro up pres-
SUBJECTS WERE
SHOWN
wo rards. One bore a standard line. The other bore three lines,
one of which was the same length as t h e standard. The subjec ts were asked
to
choose thisline.
3
-
7/23/2019 Opiniones y Presin Social
4/8
EXPERIMENTPROCEEDS
as
follows. In the top picture the subject (ce nte r) hears rules
of experiment for the first time. In the second picture h e makes hi s first judgment of
a
pair of
cards, didagreeing with the una nimous judgment
of
the others. In the third he 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
on
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 majoritys
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 the 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-
tions from talks with the subjects, each
of whom was in te r -J iewed a t the en d 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 ord er not to
spoil your results. Xany of the
in-
dividuals w ho wen t a long suspected that
the m ajority were 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 cons trued 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
yie lding 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
-
7/23/2019 Opiniones y Presin Social
5/8
ques t ion. In one series the s ize of t h e op-
posit ion was varied from on e to
13
per -
sons . The resul ts showed 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 subs tant 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 subs tant ia l ly .
Clearly the size
of
the opposi t ion is im-
Dis turbance of the majoritys 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 anothe r in-
dividual who did not -moly
of
the p re -
a r ranged a s 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 reduce d to one fourth: that
is. subjects ans\vered incorrectly only
one four th ;s often as under the pressure
of a unanimo us majo rity
[ s e e
chart a t
h e r
kf t o fuci t rg puge] .
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 t ed
\vi
th inspir ing
confidence. However. the subjects re-
pud ia ted the sugges tion tha t the pa r tne r
dec ided them to be independen t .
[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 sub ject .
In some experiments the inajori ty was
always to choose the w ors t 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 cons is tent ly intermediate
and the d i s s en 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 subjec t 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 s en 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 sub jects ; their
errors dropped to only 9 per cent .
Furthermore, all the errors were of the
inoderate varie ty. W e were able to con-
clude that dissent pet sc i n c r e s e d i n -
dependence and moderated the errors
that occurred, and th at the direct ion of
dissent exerted consistent effects.
a l l the foregoing experiments each
In sub jec t 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 b y
answering correctly on the first six trials.
\Vith his sup por t the subject usually re-
sisted pressure from the majorit -: 18 o
27 subjects were complete ly independ-
ent. Bu t after six trials the pa rtne r 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 unan im ous
miijoritv throu ghou t.
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 streng then th e in-
dividuals independence. Q ues t ioning a t
the conclusion
of
the experiment sug-
ges ted that we had overlooked an im-
portant c ircum stance; 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 that the part-
ner would s imply leave the group a t the
proper point . (T o al lay suspic ion i t was
announced in advance that he had an
appoin tm ent wi th the dean . ) In th i s
form of the exp erime nt, the partn ers 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 away 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, he
was
almost invariably independent, but
as soon as he found himself alone, the
tende ncy to conform to th e majority rose
abrup t ly .
.As
might be expected, an individuals
resistance to grou p pressure in these ex-
periments depen ds to
a
considerable de-.
gree on how wrong th e majori ty is. W e
varied the discrepancy between the
st:indar d line and t he other 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 regretful ly did no t
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 con tent 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 personality?
In
what 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 described 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 white black is a matt er of concern.
It rxises cluestions abo ut ou r ways of edu-
cat ion and about the values that guide
o u r conduct .
Yet anyone inclined to d raw too pessi-
mistic conclusions from this report w ould
do well to remin d himself that th e ca-
pacit ies for independen ce are no t 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 ind epend ence was prefer-
able to conformity.
ing experiment agreed nearly without
5
-
7/23/2019 Opiniones y Presin Social
6/8
-
7/23/2019 Opiniones y Presin Social
7/8
SOLO.LION
E. ASCH
is
professor of
psychology a t
Swar t hmore
College. H e
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 EPOX
HE
~ ~ O D I F I C A T I O SASD
DISTORTION
F
JUDGMENTS.
S . E. Ascli
in
Groups
Leudersliip und
M e n ,
ed i ted
by Har-
old
Guetzkow.
Curneg ie
Press
19.51.
SOCIAL E A R S I S G
ND
I M I T A T I O S . .
Sliller
a n d J . Dollard. Yale University
Press . 1941.
SOCI;\LP S Y C H O L O G Y .olomon E. Asch.
Prei i t ice-Hd1,
Inc. ,
1952.
m
?
-
7/23/2019 Opiniones y Presin Social
8/8
Study
Guide
Prepared by
JOHN
P. J. PINEL U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R IT I S H 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? Th e s tud y o f th i s ques t ion began w i 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 a l , awake
pe rsons 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 s cip line of soc ia l psycho logy was born a t t he 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 . The 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 ri o 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 re a s k 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 en ts in t he d i rec t ion o f the oppos ing v iews.
E v i d e nt l y t h e s h e e r w e i g h t of 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 the
op in ions them se lves were p rov ided . The au thor desc r ibes a
se rie s of exp e r im ents which have no t on ly conf i rm ed the
f ind ing th a t g roup p res sure c an sh ape op in ion , bu t a l so ra is ed
som e in te re s t ing new ques t ions .
Th e s am e gene ra l fo rm a t was a lways fo l lowed .
A
group of
seven to n ine sub jec t s w as 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
w e r e a sk e d t o c h o o s e t h e l in e w h i c h w a s t h e s a m e l e n g t h a s
t h e l i n e o n t h e f i r s t 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
answers one
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 r e 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 o f 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 ec t ? Two a l t e rna t ives were
open to the sub jec t : he cou ld ac t independen t ly , repud ia t ing
t h e m a j o r i t y ; o r h e c o u l d go a l o n g w i th t h e m a j o r i t y ,
repud ia t ing the ev idence o f h i s s enses . Unde r o rd ina ry c i r -
cum s tances ind iv idua l s m ade m is takes le s s 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 e pt e d 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 the
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? Aschs expe r im enta l
p rocedures were m odi f i ed s l igh t ly to exam ine
this
ques t ion .
In one s e r ies o f s tud ie s 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 t he r inc reases adde d l i t t l e to th e ove r -a l l e f fec t. Bu t even
when groups were l a rge , d i s tu rbance of 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 o f i t s power . S ub jec t s con-
fo rm ed to group p res 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
expe r 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 ty w a s
reduced . In such cases, if the p a r tn e r began to conform t o
t h e g r o u p , t h e n u m b e r of e r ro rs m a de 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 im p l y w i t hd r ew 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 cond i t ion in a com plex
s o ci e ty . b u t c o n s e ns u s , t o b e p r o d u c t i ve , r e q u i re s t h a t e a c h
ind i l idu a i con t r ibu te independen t ly ou t of exper ience and
ins igh[. W hen c onsensu s is produced by conform ity, the 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 Aschs ex-
2. Describe the results of Aschs 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
Aschs 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.
.