Early attempts to explain the many uniformities observable in human social behaviour in terms of either a limited number of instincts (McDougall) or some general principle of learning such as imitation or suggestion (Tarde, Le Bon) proved to be unsatisfactory because they were essentially circular explanations. Research on conformity per se did not commence until the question of accounting for regularities in behaviour was tackled experimentally in the laboratory.
In the 1930s Sherif (1935) investigated, under laboratory conditions, the formation and functioning of social norms. He chose a task, based on the autokinetic effect, for which there were no pre-established norms or standards which might aid his subjects in making their judgements. When a fixed point of light is viewed in an otherwise totally darkened room it will appear to move. Sherif’s subjects had to estimate, in inches, the extent of this apparent movement. Individuals, making a series of such judgements alone, established their own particular norm. When several such individuals subsequently performed the task in each other’s presence, a convergence in their estimates was noted, i.e. the emergence of a group norm. Other individuals, who made their initial estimates under group conditions, subsequently maintained the group norm when responding alone. It was Durkheim (1966) who had first identified the state of anomie or normlessness. Sherif, by selecting the autokinetic effect, was able to investigate scientifically this social phenomenon, and he demonstrated how a social norm acts as a frame of reference to guiding individual action.
Enlightened liberals, who value the autonomy of the individual, disliked a possible implication of Sherif’s findings: that humans are gullible. In the early 1950s Asch hoped to demonstrate individual autonomy by removing the ambiguity in the stimuli to be judged. Naïve subjects in his experiment found themselves, on certain critical trials, in a minority of one when making simple judgements about the equivalence of length of lines (Asch 1956). They were unaware of the fact that the other participants were, in reality, stooges of the experimenter who, on the pre-selected trials, were unanimous in making a wrong choice. On each trial the naïve subject responded either last or last but one. On approximately two-thirds of the occasions when this conflict occurred, the naïve subject remained independent. So Asch had proved his point. Or had he? It was the minority response in the Asch situation, however, that riveted people’s attention, i.e. yielding to the opinion of the false majority. Individuals differed quite widely in the extent to which they conformed. That naïve subjects should conform on as many as one-third of such occasions deeply shocked many Americans and also, one suspects, Asch himself.
The experiment had an immediate impact outside of Asch’s own laboratory. Much was written, of a popular nature, about the prevalence of conformity in social life. By varying both the size and the unanimity of the false majority, Asch showed that the effect depended crucially upon the majority being unanimous and that it was maximal in strength with a majority of four. Crutchfield (1955) mechanized the Asch procedure by standardizing on a group of five and substituting electronic for live stooges. All five were naïve subjects, believing themselves to be subject number five. This greatly increased the efficiency of data collection without significantly reducing the level of conformity. Deutsch and Gerard (1955) increased the individual’s independence in the Asch situation by either increasing the salience of self to self (by requiring subjects to note down their own responses before hearing the responses of the others) or by decreasing the salience of self to others (with anonymous responding).
Milgram’s (1974) experimental studies of obedience were as controversial in the mid-1960s as Asch’s studies had been in the early 1950s. Milgram identified the conditions conducive to the carrying out of instructions coming from a legitimate source of authority (i.e. the experimenter). In response to Asch’s studies, Moscovici (1976) has developed a theory of minority influence. He is concerned with identifying how it is that minorities, over time, come to influence the majority. While his theory is based on laboratory evidence, Moscovici is more broadly interested in how creative individuals (like Freud, Einstein or Darwin) manage to convert the majority to their own way of thinking. He is thus more interested in studying creativity and change than in studying the maintenance of the status quo.
Robert M.Farr
London School of Economics and Political Science
References
Asch, S.E. (1956) ‘Studies of independence and submission to group pressure: 1. A minority of one against a unanimous majority’, Psychological Monographs 70.
Crutchfield, R.S. (1955) ‘Conformity and character’, American Psychologist 10.
Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H.B. (1955) ‘A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51.
Durkheim, E. (1966) Suicide, Glencoe, IL.
Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, London.
Moscovici, S. (1976) Social Influence and. Social Change, London.
Sherif, M. (1935) ‘A study of some social factors in perception’, Archives of Psychology 27.
