Imagine you are taking a test, and in the most difficult question, all your friends give a as an answer, while you answer b. The question that remains is: do you change your answer or do you remain dissuaded of your opinion?
In 1951, Solomon Asch undertook one of the most classic experiments in social psychology, to examine the conditions under which individuals resist or succumb to group pressures, even when they appear to be completely opposite from reality. Asch’s experiment involved male students, who sat around a table in groups of 7-9 people, in a visual perception experiment, during which he presented to them various cards with lines. On the left side of the cards, there was a standard line, while on the right side there were three comparison lines of different lengths (see image). Each participant was then asked to answer out loud which of the three lines on the right had the same length as the one on the left. In reality, however, all but one of the subjects were experimental collaborators who were instructed to answer incorrectly in 12 out of the 18 experiments. Thus, the unsuspecting participant always answered penultimately, having heard each time the incorrect comparisons of the previous participants.

The results of the experiment were very interesting. It appeared that 25% of the participants remained steadfast in their judgment throughout the experiment, 50% gave the same incorrect answer as the experimental collaborators in six or more trials, while 5% answered incorrectly, influenced by the group, and the 12 tests. At the end of the experiment, Asch asked participants why they answered incorrectly. Most said that they recognized the fact that they saw things differently from the group. However, they began to feel uncertain about their assessments, which turned into embarrassment, feelings of anxiety, as well as fear of criticism, and as a result, they agreed so as to not stand out. Others said that they were unsure of what they were really seeing and assumed that the team members were right. A small minority, on the other hand, said that they did see the lines like the rest.
Moscovici (1985) introduced the term “compliance” to describe precisely this process of changing a person’s feelings, perspective, and behaviour as a result of physical or symbolic pressure from a leader or group. In general, the prevailing perception among psychologists is that there are two processes that are responsible for compliance, informational influence and regulatory influence. According to M. Deutsch & Gerard (1955), “An informational social influence may be defined as an influence to accept information obtained from another as evidence about reality.”
It makes its appearance when people are uncertain, either because there is social disagreement or because the stimuli are truly vague, and thus people need to feel confident about their judgment. On the other hand, “regulatory influence is defined as that which causes the individual to comply in order to avoid the negative effects of non-acceptance, to be liked and accepted”. It seems that the latter makes its appearance when the perception prevails that the team has the power and ability to offer rewards or impose penalties depending on the respective behaviors.
As social beings, in our daily lives, we are often asked to take a position on various issues and to express our point of view. But to what extent are we independent free spirits? How many times have we really, in the context of a friendly discussion, remained steadfast in the position we had from the beginning and did not “eat humble pie”? And if we finally agreed with the “public opinion”, did we do it because the others were really right or for one of the reasons above?
References: Hogg M. & Vaughan G. (2010), Social Psychology, Athens Gutenberg (chapter 7)