7.3 Classic Studies in Conformity and Obedience

Conformity Studies

Asch's Line Judgment Experiments

Solomon Asch wanted to answer a straightforward question: would people deny what their own eyes told them just to go along with a group? To find out, he designed one of the most famous experiments in social psychology.

A participant sat in a room with 7–9 other people who appeared to be fellow participants but were actually confederates (people secretly working with the researcher). The group was shown a card with a single line, then a second card with three comparison lines. Their task was simple: say which comparison line matched the original.

On critical trials, all the confederates gave the same wrong answer before the real participant responded. The correct answer was obvious, yet across multiple critical trials, about 37% of responses were conforming (incorrect) answers. Roughly 75% of participants conformed at least once during the experiment, though a sizable minority never conformed at all.

Asch identified several factors that shifted conformity rates:

• Group size: Conformity increased as the group grew from 1 to about 3–4 confederates, then leveled off
• Unanimity: If even one confederate broke from the majority and gave the correct answer, conformity dropped sharply (by about 80%)
• Task difficulty: When the lines were closer in length, conformity increased because participants felt less certain

This study is powerful because the task was so easy. There was no ambiguity in the correct answer, yet social pressure alone was enough to make people publicly agree with something they could see was wrong.

Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Study

Muzafer Sherif took a different approach. Instead of clear-cut judgments, he studied what happens when a situation is genuinely ambiguous.

He used the autokinetic effect, an optical illusion where a stationary point of light in a completely dark room appears to move. Participants were asked to estimate how far the light "moved."

• When tested alone, each person settled into their own personal range of estimates (for example, one person might consistently say 2 inches, another might say 6 inches)
• When placed in groups, participants' estimates gradually converged toward a shared group norm, a common range that everyone settled on together

The key takeaway: in uncertain situations, people look to others to define reality. This process of norm formation happens naturally through social interaction, and once established, these group norms tend to persist even when people are later tested alone again.

Norm Formation and Group Influence

Sherif's work on norm formation extended well beyond the autokinetic effect. His most ambitious study was the Robbers Cave experiment, which examined how group norms develop and how intergroup conflict can be both created and resolved.

The setup: 22 boys (ages 11–12) at a summer camp were split into two groups that initially didn't know about each other. Each group developed its own norms, leaders, and identity.

1. In-group formation phase: Each group bonded through cooperative activities and developed group names, norms, and hierarchies
2. Friction phase: When the groups were introduced through competitive activities (tournaments with prizes), hostility escalated quickly. Name-calling, cabin raids, and strong negative stereotypes of the other group emerged
3. Integration phase: Simple contact between the groups didn't reduce hostility. What worked were superordinate goals, tasks that required both groups to cooperate (like fixing a broken water supply or pooling money for a movie)

This study illustrated that group norms and intergroup prejudice can form rapidly through competition, but shared goals that require cooperation can break down those barriers.

Obedience and Power Studies

Milgram's Shock Experiments

Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments are among the most well-known and disturbing studies in psychology. He designed them partly in response to the Holocaust, asking: how far will ordinary people go when an authority figure tells them to harm someone?

Here's how the study worked:

1. A participant (the "teacher") was paired with a confederate (the "learner") who was strapped into a chair in another room
2. The participant sat in front of a shock generator with switches labeled from 15 volts ("Slight Shock") to 450 volts ("XXX")
3. Each time the learner gave a wrong answer on a memory task, the participant was told to deliver a shock, increasing the voltage each time
4. No real shocks were given, but the participant didn't know that. The learner's pre-recorded responses escalated from grunts to screams to demands to stop, and eventually to silence
5. When participants hesitated, the experimenter used a series of verbal prods like "The experiment requires that you continue"

The result: 65% of participants administered shocks all the way to the maximum 450 volts. Every participant continued to at least 300 volts.

Milgram ran over 20 variations that revealed which factors increased or decreased obedience:

• Proximity of the learner: When the learner was in the same room, obedience dropped. When the participant had to physically press the learner's hand onto a shock plate, it dropped further (to 30%)
• Proximity of the authority: When the experimenter gave instructions by phone instead of in person, obedience dropped significantly
• Legitimacy of the setting: Moving the experiment from Yale University to a run-down office building reduced obedience
• Presence of disobedient peers: When other "teachers" (confederates) refused to continue, the participant's obedience rate dropped dramatically

Stanford Prison Experiment Dynamics

Philip Zimbardo's 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment explored how assigned social roles and situational power can transform behavior.

Twenty-four male college students, pre-screened for psychological stability, were randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners in a simulated prison built in Stanford's psychology building basement.

• Guards were given uniforms, mirrored sunglasses, and authority over the prisoners
• Prisoners were "arrested" at their homes, stripped, deloused, given smocks and ID numbers, and had their personal identities removed

What happened was striking. Within days:

• Guards became increasingly authoritarian, using psychological tactics like sleep deprivation, arbitrary punishment, and humiliation
• Prisoners showed signs of severe psychological distress. Some experienced emotional breakdowns, and one went on a hunger strike
• The experiment was planned for two weeks but was terminated after just six days, partly at the urging of Christina Maslach, a graduate student who was disturbed by what she observed

Zimbardo argued the study demonstrated the power of situational forces over individual personality. The "good" students assigned to be guards behaved cruelly not because of who they were, but because of the role and power structure they were placed in.

Ethical Considerations and Critiques

Both Milgram's and Zimbardo's studies raised serious ethical questions that reshaped how psychological research is conducted.

Ethical concerns:

• Psychological harm: Participants in both studies experienced significant distress. Milgram's participants showed visible signs of anxiety (sweating, trembling, nervous laughter). Some of Zimbardo's prisoners had emotional breakdowns
• Informed consent and deception: Milgram's participants didn't know the shocks were fake or that the "learner" was a confederate. They couldn't have truly consented to what they experienced
• Right to withdraw: Although Milgram's participants were technically free to leave, the experimenter's verbal prods ("You have no other choice, you must go on") pressured them to stay

Methodological critiques:

• Zimbardo served as both the principal researcher and the prison superintendent, which compromised his objectivity and may have influenced the guards' behavior
• Replication attempts of the Stanford Prison Experiment (such as the BBC Prison Study by Reicher and Haslam in 2006) produced different results, with prisoners sometimes resisting and guards not always becoming abusive
• Some critics argue Milgram's participants may have suspected the shocks weren't real, though follow-up surveys suggested most believed the situation was genuine
• Questions persist about ecological validity: do these artificial lab settings really tell us how people behave in real-world situations of authority and power?

Lasting impact: These ethical controversies directly contributed to the establishment of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and stricter ethical guidelines requiring informed consent, the right to withdraw, debriefing, and minimization of harm. Neither study could be conducted in its original form today.