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.


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


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


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


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


6/8


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

?


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.

.

opiniones y presión social

Documents