In Asch's line experiments, many subjects conformed to the wrong group answer even when they privately knew it was wrong. What primarily explains this type of conformity?
AInformational conformity — subjects believed the group's superior perception over their own
BNormative conformity — subjects wanted to avoid the discomfort of being the lone dissenter and risking social rejection
CAuthoritative conformity — subjects deferred to the researcher's implicit approval of the group answer
DCognitive dissonance — subjects changed their private beliefs to match the group to reduce internal conflict
When subjects knew the group was wrong but conformed anyway, they were driven by normative conformity: the desire to be accepted and avoid the social costs of being the deviant outlier. Informational conformity — where you use others' behavior as evidence about reality — also occurred in Asch's experiments, but it explains conformity when subjects were genuinely uncertain, not when they were confident in the correct answer. The distinction matters: normative conformity can persist even when the individual possesses correct information, making it the more dangerous of the two in high-stakes group decisions.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
In Milgram's obedience experiments, which situational factor most dramatically reduced subjects' willingness to administer shocks?
ATelling subjects that the researcher had no real authority over them
BMoving the experiment from Yale University to a commercial building
CIncreasing the physical proximity of the victim so subjects could hear or see distress
DThe presence of another subject who refused to continue administering shocks
A single dissenting peer — another subject who refused to continue — dramatically reduced obedience rates. This finding is among the most practically important in social psychology: it demonstrates that situational conformity pressure can be broken by a single social permission to deviate. The effect of moving to a commercial building did reduce obedience somewhat, but the peer dissenter had a far larger impact. This is why organizational cultures that explicitly legitimate dissent — assigned devil's advocates, anonymous pre-vote polling — can be effective countermeasures to harmful conformity.
Question 3 True / False
A single person refusing to comply in the Milgram paradigm significantly reduces obedience rates in others exposed to the same situation.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
One of Milgram's most important findings was that when a confederate refused to continue administering shocks, obedience among real subjects dropped dramatically — from 65% to around 10%. A lone dissenter provides social proof that refusal is possible, legitimate, and survivable. This is the mechanism underlying the design of devil's advocate roles, anonymous voting before group decisions, and explicit organizational norms that protect whistleblowers: you only need one person to break the conformity lock.
Question 4 True / False
Mainly people with weak willpower or below-average intelligence tend to conform to unanimous group pressure in Asch-style experiments.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This is precisely the misconception Asch's research overturns. Approximately 75% of normal, intelligent subjects conformed at least once to an obviously wrong unanimous group answer. Milgram found similar results with ordinary people administering shocks. The lesson is not that most people are weak-willed — it is that situational pressures are far stronger than dispositional traits in determining behavior. This insight, called the 'fundamental attribution error' when reversed, is one of social psychology's central contributions: we systematically underestimate how much behavior is shaped by situational forces.
Question 5 Short Answer
What is the difference between informational and normative conformity, and why does the distinction matter for understanding when group influence is harmful versus helpful?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Informational conformity occurs when we use others' behavior as evidence about reality — it is most powerful when we are uncertain and the group has relevant expertise. This form of conformity can make groups smarter: pooling information from multiple observers improves collective judgment. Normative conformity occurs when we conform to avoid social rejection or disapproval, even when we know the group is wrong. This form is not about accuracy — it is about social acceptance. It is normative conformity that produces dangerous outcomes like groupthink, where privately skeptical members silence themselves to maintain group harmony.
The distinction has direct policy implications. When a group is uncertain and members have genuine information, conformity pressure can improve decisions. When members have private knowledge that contradicts the group consensus, normative pressure causes exactly the suppression of dissent that produces fiascos. Interventions that make dissent safe (anonymous polling, devil's advocates) directly target normative conformity without disrupting the information-pooling benefits of informational conformity.