Conformity Experiments

Why This Matters

Conformity experiments are the backbone of social psychology's most important insight: your behavior is shaped far more by situations than you probably realize. The AP exam loves testing whether you understand the difference between informational influence (conforming because you genuinely don't know the answer), normative influence (conforming to fit in), and obedience to authority (following orders from someone in power). These distinctions show up constantly in multiple-choice questions and form the foundation of FRQ responses about social behavior.

What makes these experiments so testable is that they reveal predictable patterns in human behavior that challenge our assumptions about free will and personal responsibility. You're being tested on your ability to identify which type of social pressure is operating in a given scenario, what situational factors increase or decrease conformity, and how minority influence differs from majority influence. Don't just memorize who did what—know what psychological mechanism each experiment demonstrates and when to apply it.

---

Normative Influence: Conforming to Fit In

These experiments show how people change their behavior to gain social acceptance or avoid rejection, even when they privately disagree with the group. The key mechanism is public compliance without private acceptance—you go along to get along.

Asch Conformity Experiments

• 75% of participants conformed at least once to obviously wrong answers about line lengths—demonstrating that social pressure can override clear perceptual evidence
• Conformity peaked with 3-4 confederates and didn't increase much beyond that; even a single dissenter reduced conformity by about 80%
• Normative influence was the primary driver—participants knew the right answer but feared social rejection for standing out

Crutchfield's Electronic Conformity Experiment

• Removed face-to-face interaction by having participants respond via electronic panels while seeing fake responses from "others"
• Conformity still occurred even without direct social contact, though at lower rates than Asch's setup—proving that perceived group opinion matters
• Tested more complex judgments beyond simple perceptual tasks, showing conformity extends to attitudes and opinions

Schachter's Deviation Experiment

• Groups rejected members who consistently disagreed with majority positions, demonstrating the social cost of nonconformity
• "Slider" confederates who eventually agreed were accepted; "deviant" confederates who never agreed were excluded and disliked
• Illustrates why normative pressure works—the threat of rejection is real and measurable in group dynamics

---

Informational Influence: Conforming When Uncertain

When situations are ambiguous, we look to others for guidance about reality itself. This produces private acceptance—you actually change your mind, not just your public behavior.

Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Experiment

• Used perceptual ambiguity (a stationary light that appears to move in darkness) to show how group norms form organically
• Individual estimates converged toward a group norm over repeated trials—participants genuinely internalized the group's judgment
• Classic demonstration of informational influence—when you don't know the answer, others' responses become your evidence

Jenness' Bean Jar Experiment

• First conformity experiment (1932)—participants estimated beans in a jar individually, then revised estimates after group discussion
• Estimates shifted toward the group average, especially for participants whose initial guesses were outliers
• Ambiguity drives conformity—the more uncertain the task, the more we rely on social information

---

Obedience to Authority

These experiments examine a specific type of social influence: compliance with direct orders from a legitimate authority figure. The mechanism isn't peer pressure—it's the perceived right of authorities to command obedience.

Milgram Obedience Experiment

• 65% of participants delivered the maximum 450-volt shock when ordered by an experimenter in a lab coat, despite hearing screams of protest
• Proximity matters—obedience dropped when the "learner" was in the same room and increased when the authority figure was physically present
• Demonstrated the "agentic state"—people shift responsibility to the authority figure, seeing themselves as mere instruments of another's will

Stanford Prison Experiment

• Guards became abusive within days without any instructions to do so—demonstrating how roles and situational power shape behavior
• Prisoners showed learned helplessness and emotional breakdowns; the study was terminated after only 6 days of a planned 2-week run
• Illustrates deindividuation and role internalization—uniforms, anonymity, and institutional context overrode personal values

---

Situational Factors in Helping Behavior

This research extends conformity principles to prosocial behavior, showing that whether you help someone depends heavily on circumstances, not just character.

Darley and Latané's Good Samaritan Experiment

• Hurried seminary students stepped over a person in distress even when they were literally on their way to give a talk about the Good Samaritan parable
• Only 10% of "high hurry" participants stopped to help compared to 63% of those with time to spare—situational pressure trumped personal values
• Demonstrates bystander effect principles—time pressure creates psychological "tunnel vision" that reduces awareness of others' needs

---

Minority Influence: When the Few Change the Many

Not all social influence flows from majority to minority. Under specific conditions, consistent minorities can shift majority opinions—a process that produces deeper, more lasting attitude change.

Moscovici's Blue-Green Experiment

• Consistent minority confederates who repeatedly called blue slides "green" influenced majority participants to see more green in subsequent tests
• Consistency is key—minorities who wavered had no effect; only unwavering disagreement produced influence
• Produces private acceptance through deeper cognitive processing—majorities trigger compliance, but minorities trigger genuine reconsideration

Bond and Smith's Cross-Cultural Conformity Study

• Meta-analysis of 133 Asch-type studies across 17 countries revealed significant cultural variation in conformity rates
• Collectivist cultures showed higher conformity than individualist cultures—group harmony is more valued in some contexts
• Conformity rates have declined over time in the U.S., suggesting historical and generational factors also matter

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Both Sherif's autokinetic experiment and Asch's line experiment produced conformity—what is the key difference in the type of influence operating in each, and how would participants' private beliefs differ afterward?

2. A student argues that Milgram's participants were just "bad people." Using evidence from the study, explain why this dispositional explanation is insufficient and what situational factors better account for the results.

3. Compare the Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram's obedience study: both demonstrate situational power, but what is the critical difference in how that power was communicated to participants?

4. If an FRQ describes a scenario where someone changes their opinion after hearing a small group consistently argue an unpopular position, which experiment should you reference, and what key factor made that influence possible?

5. Why did Bond and Smith's cross-cultural research find higher conformity rates in collectivist cultures, and how does this finding complicate universal claims about conformity based on Asch's original American sample?