Solomon Asch Analysis

Is it really so hard to confide in our own opinions and judgment? Does fear of being wrong or being judged prevent us from stating what we actually feel? When I was in high school, I was influenced by my peers that being a conservative was the thing to be in the little town of Van Alstyne, Texas. Even though I did not agree with the majority of the political views, I was too fearful of what would happen if I just said what I actually thought. I was conformed to believe that in order to be accepted in this town, you had to abide by these certain views. This social conformity eventually led me into pretending something that I was not. Looking back at that now, it was dumb of me to think that I had to live up to these standards that were set;
conformity is an inevitable joke. In “Opinions and Social Pressure,” Solomon E. Asch argues that individuals are influenced by groups in order to conform to what society finds acceptable. He successfully fascinates the reader by providing statistical evidence and raises questions about how our society affects the individual, but fails to relate how these statistics relate to others other than young men and how the study related to specific situations in everyday life. Asch starts off his article by talking about the different trials that prove humans are socially pressured into conforming to society’s standards.
In the early 1950s, Solomon Asch conducted a series of experiments to investigate the effect of social pressures on an individual. A group of seven to nine college students, all male, assembled in a classroom for a “psychological experiment” (page 598; par. 1). These young men were told that they were taking part in a vision test experiment, which wasn’t true. The plot twist to this was that one of the participants in the group was the only one that did not know the real reason behind the experiment. Every single person in that room knew exactly what was going on except for him. The rest of the participants were among Asch’s group of associates. They were told, by the experimenter, to give incorrect answers unanimously (page 599; par. 5). Sometimes the incorrect answers they gave were so obvious but still preceded. In order to avoid suspicion from the subject, the associates were also told to give correct answers as well. The experimenter put two different cards in front of the participants; on one was a single vertical black line and the other consisted of three lines, all different lengths. On the second card, one of the lines was supposed to be the exact same
as the first card. The participants were to choose a line from the second card that matched the line on the first card. They stated their answers in the order in which they were seated, again either correctly or incorrectly. There were eighteen trials in each series, and on twelve of them the majority responded incorrectly on purpose (page 599; par. 6). “Of the 123 put to the test, a considerable percentage yielded to the majority,” Oxford says. In a different experimental trial, the experimenters selected a partner who would join the opposition and was either instructed to give correct answers or was uninformed of what was going on at all. The result of this was that the majority lost its power and the subjects only answered incorrectly one-fourth as often as they would have without their partner (page 600; par.14). Then, the experimenters introduced another person who was supposed to disagree with the majority but also with the subject as well. Oxford said that “In this manner we were able to study the relative influence of “compromising” and “extremist” dissenters” (page 600; par. 15). He found that with this other person involved, the majority’s effect on the subject decreased by one third (page 600; par. 16). Furthermore, all the trials differed in their own ways but all ended up with the same results, being; individuals were more likely to conform to social pressures because they were probably afraid to be wrong or deemed mindless. The next part of his article, Asch discusses the results of his experiments and provides us with statistics. He stated that, at the beginning of the experiment, subjects erroneously answered and conformed to the majority 36.8 percent of the time (page 599; par. 8). Later on, when the opposition was increased to two, subjects answered incorrectly 13.6 percent of the time (page 600; par. 12). Then he mentioned that the opposition was increased again, but this time to three; the subject errors’ then shot up to 31.8 percent (page 600; par. 8). His exact stats show how this experiment was watched in detail. This really proved how a majority can influence an individual’s answers. The first thing Asch did a really good job of is providing essential evidence to show just how far individuals will go to fit in and act in conformity. He conducted a series of trials and experiments that showed the influence of a majority on an individual. What made the results somewhat accurate is the fact that he switched it up in different experiments such as adding in other individuals that had no clue about the meaning of the experiment, which made it less obvious, to the subject, as to what the experiments were really there to do. Humans tend to always agree with the majority in hopes of being socially accepted by their peers or being too afraid of being wrong and Asch proved exactly that. Asch interviewed the subjects once the experiment was over and said that some of the individuals held back from saying the correct answer because they were too fearful of their own judgement, but others actually did believe that the majority was correct when answering, but they felt it was their duty to “call the play as they saw it” (page 599; par. 10). Asch certainly went all out when providing detailed statistics; he mentioned that when the opposition increased to two, subjects stated the wrong answer 13.6 percent of the time (page 600; par. 10) The second thing Asch does well is drawing a very engaging and intriguing conclusion and states, “...we have found the tendency to conformity in our society so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct.” It really makes you think about why conformity exists in the first place. Are we teaching our children that in order to fit in you must agree with what is socially acceptable? If so, this needs to end now. Trying to live up to social standards is a hassle and it will never allow people to express their individuality. Imagine how interesting the world would be if everyone wasn’t so afraid of showing who they truly are inside. In the trial where there was someone who disagreed with the majority, the subject is described as either pausing, speaking in a low voice, or smiling in an embarrassed way (page 598; par. 3). It is frightening what social standards does to people. It should not matter what people think about your opinion; if someone doesn’t agree with it, who cares? It is not the end of the world. It really seems like Asch is opposed to social standards and I agree with him completely. The first thing Asch didn’t do a very good job of was providing evidence on how other people, other than college-aged men, would react to this kind of pressure.
Asch’s experiment was very flawed, in a sense that it did not represent the human race as a whole. He stated that the experimentees were “a group of seven to nine young men, all college students….” The group should have consisted of females as well and would have provided a more accurate result. Also, he could have added in younger or older participants instead of just college-aged males. By adding in more participants that were not male or college-aged would have essentially made the results far more precise. Who knows, maybe females and older people react differently to social pressures than males do, but we would never know that with this experiment. The entire thing seems discriminatory. But overall, the test group does not seem
valid. The second thing Asch didn’t do very well was making it difficult to compare his results to real-life situations. He stated that these experiments were assembled in a classroom, but didn’t explain how this was comparable to something in the real world (page 598; par. 2). Also, it is hard to compare how lines relate to conformity in life. Comparing lines in a classroom is completely different from major occasions that take place in real life. Together, as a society, we can stop these social conformities by teaching our kids that it is more than acceptable to express who they are in this world. Opinions are formed because of outside influences; these influences force us, whether by an emotional or logical response, to form an opinion. There is no escaping the outside forces that unintentionally influence us to agree with what everyone else is saying. So, it is up to us to teach individuality to our children, or we are left with nothing but people who are all the same and lack ingenuity. There is no escaping the outside forces that unintentionally influence us to agree with what everyone else is saying. It is the fear of being wrong in our own judgment that stops us from expressing who we truly are (page 599; par. 10). Asch’s article on his experiment gives us an overview of the power of social conformity on the individual, but does not give clarification whether the study is the same for others. It also shows how conformity plays a pivotal role in how easily we can be influenced by things, even if we do not know anything about it.