Asch Conformity Studies: Journal Article by Gary I. Schulman

Research Background

Gary I. Schulman’s article revisits Solomon Asch’s famous conformity experiments conducted in the 1950s. These studies tested whether individuals would conform to incorrect majority judgments under social pressure. Schulman’s work specifically examines if conformity arises primarily from obedience to the experimenter or from yielding to the group majority. This distinction challenges earlier assumptions and calls for reinterpreting how conformity has been understood within the Asch framework.

Social Dynamics and Experimental Framework

Asch’s experiments involved groups where one real participant joined several confederates who purposely gave wrong answers about line lengths. The studies measured conformity by how often the subject matched the incorrect majority. Later research expanded on situational variables affecting conformity, such as group size, unanimity, and individual confidence. The consensus is that conformity peaks with a majority of three to five people, influenced by the desire to avoid conflict or social exclusion. Schulman’s contribution highlights the tension between conformity to experimenter authority and peer group influence, suggesting both forces may coexist in shaping behavior.

Theoretical Significance and Interpretation

Schulman’s analysis prompts reconsideration of the psychological processes behind Asch’s findings. Instead of viewing conformity as solely a function of social group pressure, it may also involve compliance with the perceived authority of the experimenter, blending obedience and peer influence. This challenges strict dichotomies in conformity theory and encourages integrating multiple social factors when studying conformity. The article therefore contributes to a richer, more complex understanding of conformity mechanisms and the contexts in which they operate.

Key themes

• Distinction between conformity to the group versus conformity to the experimenter’s influence.
• Questioning previous interpretations of conformity based solely on group pressure variables like status and personality.
• Examination of compliance as potentially directed by authority (experimenter) rather than peer group.
• Relevance of situational and methodological variables on observed conformity levels.
• Challenges in isolating the source of social influence in Asch’s original experiments.

Motifs & problems

The article explores the symbolic tension between group unanimity and the experimenter’s authority as dual forces potentially driving conformity. This duality forms an interpretive crux: whether participants are conforming because of peer pressure to fit in or because they comply with the perceived demands of the experimenter. The motif of defiance versus submission to social cues underlies the analysis, highlighting ambiguity in earlier studies’ assumptions about conformity’s nature and pointing to a need for reconsidering experimental design and psychological interpretation in conformity research.

Study questions

How does Schulman differentiate conformity to the group from conformity to the experimenter?
What implications does this distinction have for interpreting Asch’s conformity rates?
How might the experimenter’s role complicate assumptions about peer group pressure?
What methodological changes does Schulman suggest for future conformity studies?
How can we apply these insights to understand real-world group influence dynamics?
What other factors might interact with group conformity besides authority figure presence?
How do Schulman’s arguments challenge the traditional view of social conformity?
What new questions arise from viewing conformity as compliance to authority rather than only peer influence?

Critical approaches & debates

Schulman's article revisits Asch's conformity experiments by questioning whether conformity stems more from yielding to the majority group or compliance with the experimenter’s authority. Interpretations vary: a formalist approach scrutinizes the structure of Asch’s paradigm, emphasizing procedural influences; a social-psychological lens debates whether internalized group norms or external experimenter pressure dominate. Some critics note the political context of McCarthyism as influencing conformity rates, while feminist and postcolonial critiques highlight cultural and gender variability inadequately addressed by Asch. Disagreement persists on how effectively Asch’s design disentangles conformity to social consensus from obedience to authority, urging reinterpretation of conformity variables and subjects’ motives.

Key passages

Schulman’s key argument centers on data reinterpretation showing that conformity in Asch’s studies may reflect conformity to the experimenter as much as to the group consensus. This nuance shifts focus from mere group influence to layered social pressures during the trials. It challenges prior assumptions by exposing how experimenter demands might shape participant responses, complicating the traditional view of group unanimity’s role and highlighting the subtleties behind apparent agreement.

Bibliography

• Schulman, Gary I. (1967). Asch conformity studies: conformity to the experimenter and/or to the group. Sociometry, 30(1), 26-40. Seminal article analyzing internal and external sources of conformity.
• Asch, Solomon E. (1955). "Opinions and social pressure." Scientific American, 193(5), 31-35. Foundational study introducing the conformity experiment.
• Hogg, Michael A., & Vaughan, Graham M. (1995). Social Psychology (3rd ed.). Relevant for group size and influence factors on conformity.
• Brown, Rupert, & Byrne, Donncha (1997). Research on perceived collusion effects in group conformity.
• Larsen, Jeff E. (1974). McCarthyism’s impact on conformity rates; contextual critique.