Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This Content Downloaded From 163.178.101.95 On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:54:17 UTC
This Content Downloaded From 163.178.101.95 On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:54:17 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Scientific American
by Solomon E. Aseh
hat social influences shape every has also brought into existence the de nosis was but an extreme form of a
EXPERIMENT IS REPEATED in the Laboratory of Social Rela· on the next page). Six of the subjects have been coached before
tions at Harvard University. Seven student subjects are asked by the hand to give unanimously wrong answers. The seventh (sixth from
experimenter (right) to compare the length of lines (see diagram the left) has merely been told that it is an experiment in perception.
31
32
33
closeness; he was credited with inspiring perience of having had a partner and of sus, to be productive, requires that each
confidence. However, the subjects re having braved the majority opposition individual contribute independently out
pudiated the suggestion that the partner with him had failed to strengthen the in of his experience and insight. When con
decided them to be independent. dividuals' independence. Questioning at sensus comes under the dominance of
Was the partner's effect a conse the conclusion of the experiment sug conformity, the social process is polluted
quence of his dissent, or was it related gested that we had overlooked an im and the individual at the same time sur
to his accuracy? We now introduced into portant circumstance; namely, the strong renders the powers on which his func
the experimental group a person who specific effect of "desertion" by the part tioning as a feeling and thinking being
was instructed to dissent from the major ner to the other side. We therefore depends. That we have found the ten
ity but also to disagree with the subject. changed the conditions so that the part dency to conformity in our society so
In some experiments the majority was ner would simply leave the group at the strong that reasonably intelligent and
always to choose the worst of the com proper point. (To allay suspicion it was well-meaning young people are willing
parison lines and the instructed dissenter announced in advance that he had an to call white black is a matter of concern.
to pick the line that was closer to the appOintment with the dean.) In this It raises questions about our ways of edu
length of the standard one; in others the form of the experiment, the partner's ef cation and about the values that guide
majority was consistently intermediate fect outlasted his presence. The errors our conduct.
and the dissenter most in error. In this increased after his departure, but less Yet anyone inclined to draw too pessi
manner we were able to study the rela markedly than after a partner switched mistic conclusions from this report would
tive influence of "compromising" and to the majority. do well to remind himself that the ca
"extremist" dissenters. In a variant of this procedure the trials pacities for independence are not to be
Again the results are clear. When a began with the majority unanimously underestimated. He may also draw some
moderate dissenter is present, the effect giving correct answers. Then they grad consolation from a further observation:
of the majority on the subject decreases ually broke away until on the sixth trial those who participated in this challeng
by approximately one third, and ex the naive subject was alone and the ing experiment agreed nearly without
tremes of yielding disappear. Moreover, group unanimously against him. As long exception that independence was prefer
most of the errors the subjects do make as the subject had anyone on his side, he able to conformity.
34
100
� � --
50
80 I�
I\J
i='
z
w 40
0 i='
V
W
0
i""'"""'-oo
r---... �
u.
60 ....
V
• 0<:
\,l
Vl W
w
I-
u. 30
«
j
Vl
:::E 0<:
I
i= 0
Vl 0<:
w 0<:
40 W
I-
20
I
0
W
0<:
0<:
I
0
0
20
I
10
If
17
I
o o
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
CRITICAL TRIALS NUMBER OF OPPONENTS
ERROR of 123 subjects, each of whom compared SIZE OF MAJORITY which opposed them had an effect on the subjects. With
lines in the presence of six to eight opponents, is a single opponent the subject erred only 3.6 per cent of the time;'with two
plotted in the colored curve. The accuracy of judg· opponents he erred 13.6 per cent; three, 3 1.8 per cent; four, 35.1 per cent;
ments not under pressure is indicated in black. six, 35.2 per cent; seven, 37.1 per cent; nine, 35. 1 per cent; 15,31.2 per cent.
60
100
\ J� I'" Jl 50
80
'V V IV 1\
\
�J
i='
z 40
w
0 i='
J\
0<: V z
w J ....
)�
I J \ �
W 0
u.
60
...
\1 IV
•
Vl V 0<:
W
I V , j
w u. 30
I-
« Vl
:::E , 0<:
-�
i= 0
Vl
w
0<: �
40 0<:
W
I- 10
J�
0
W
0<:
0<:
II I
0
0
20
� I� j LU �
10
o o
�� I\II I V,
L- I'
123 4 5 6 7 891011 12 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
CRITICAL TRIALS CRITICAL TRIALS
TWO SUBJECTS supporting each other against a PARTNER LEFT SUBJECT after six trials in a single experiment. The
majority made fewer errors (colored curve) than colored curve shows the error of the subject when the partner "deserted" to
one subject did against a majority (black curve). the majority. Black curve shows error when partner merely left the room.
35