1. Are you strong enough to stand up for yourself if you are a minority of one?
An exploration of how group pressure and obedience to authority influence individual thinking
and behavior, according to social psychology research in the late 20th century.
Keywords: Group pressure, obedience, authority, conformity
It is widely recognized that the foundation of social science is the interaction between individuals
and the influence of external factors, such as environmental, financial and social, on their
behavior. For psychologists, the impression that others create on our daily actions has been
researched to a vast extent, with several studies considering the hypothesis that people are very
often influenced by others when making decisions. Researchers such as Solomon Asch (1955) and
Stanley Milgram (1963, 1965, 1974), respectively, in their obedience and social pressure studies,
have pointed out the likelihood of individuals taking action following group thinking, even when
their principles and beliefs go in an opposite direction. Nowadays, in a globalized culture, with
the fast progress of communications, it is imperative to raise questions about how social
influencescoerceindividual opinions andhow vulnerablewearetosuch externalforces. Themain
purpose of this essay is to approach these questions from an academic perspective, focusing on a
series of experiments developed in the late 20th century, which have been replicated and
contrasting results with the aim of discover how persuadable we are.
As Aristotle noted many years ago, individuals respond to situations and context. The Greek
philosopher suggested that the need to belong to a group and to connect is inherent to human
nature (Myers, 2012). In some cases the power of social situations could trigger unwanted
responses that contradict moral behavior, for instance, in the Holocaust; many individuals turn
into elements of war under the Nazi influence. Nevertheless, many great commitments have also
been started in a social context, similar to the unprecedented worldwide support given to the
victims of the 2011 tsunami in Japan. Both situations have been studied under the phenomenon
called group polarization, which assumes that shared beliefs by group members, who have
common attitudes, intensify decisions (McCauley, in Myers, 2012). One case in point is that of
Clark McCauley who analyzed the origin of terrorism and noted that it does not happen
spontaneously, on the contrary, it born from the common grievances shared by group members
whose isolation from the society trigger violent acts that never would have occurred without the
support of other members. Ariel Merari (2002), conflict analyst, believes that suicide attacks are
a consequence of the group process, declaring ‘To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a
single case of suicide terrorism which was done on a personal whim’. Similarly, Theodore
Newcomb (1952) observed other effects provoked by the powerful group context, such as the
absenceofsocial restraints andtheleak ofindividualidentity or Deindividuation, which instigates
members to commit vandalism, due to the sense of defused responsibility, implied in the group
belonging.
As can be seen, group pressure is underestimated in some cases and it could be dangerous to any
individual within thesociety.Itappears thatpeople’s awarenessaboutthepowerthatsocial forces
wield on daily decisions is, primary and more extremely, absent in a significant division of human
kind. Researchers observed this absence and began studying social influence through elaborated
small-scalesocieties, withtheaim of explaining thereasoning behind the humandecision-making

2. process. One of the most influential studies was carried out by the social- psychologist Solomon
Asch in 1955 regarding the concept of Conformity, defined by professor Scott Plous as a ‘change
in behavior or belief as a result of social pressure’ (Plous, 2014). Asch was interested in the effects
of the opinions of others on our own, specifically, how strong is the need for social conformity
(Asch, 1955). The first sets of experiments regarding conformity were carried out by many social
psychologists, and generally followed a simple strategy; some questions about various matters
were raised between college students and they were asked to state their position some time later,
nonetheless, for the second time they were also briefed about the opinions on the matter, seized
by experts. Results showed that when confronted with opposite opinions, students change their
beliefs in the direction of the experts, nevertheless, the prematurity and the easiness of the
outcomes provoke mistrust; furthermore, the hypothesis that people succumb to the influence of
social pressure in every situation should not be taken lightly, yet human abilities to surge above
group force are widely recognized and not all individuals succumb under group pressure and its
influence.
Perhaps the most significant experiment that highlights group pressure is Opinions and social
pressure, carried out by Solomon Asch in 1955. Seven college students were gathered in a
classroom with the intention to participate in an experiment called Visual Judgments (Asch,
1955). On paper, the main idea was to compare two sets of graphics, lines of different lengths,
matching the former with its equal on the second set (Exhibit A), through eighteen trials. Inevery
trial there is only a correct answer that, in appearance, should not be difficult to find due to the
substantialdifferences betweenthe lengthsof each line.Each subjectis seated in anexactposition
and for each trial they give their answer individually, which goes naturally for the first two trials
due to the group unanimity; however, in the third round someone seated on the second last
position surprisingly disagrees with all the others in his choice of the correct match. The same
goes for the next round while the others stick with unanimity, yet the dissident start feeling
confused, hesitating and at some point feel ashamed for going in an opposite direction to the
group.
Exhibit A
What the dissident does not know is that the other six participants were informed to give wrong
answersatspecific trials, thushe is the focus ofthe experiment, and is seated in a specific position
where, despite his correct answers, the group pressure trigger a minority feeling due to the
opposite forces that had been placed on him; in first place the clear confirmation of his mind is
opposite to the unanimous answers in the group, in addition he must declare his answers in
public. Nonetheless, to make the experiment believable, the group occasionally gives the right
answers, to be in harmony with the dissident beliefs.

3. The central question to be solved is how people react under group pressure and its influence. It
has been suggested through the experiment that individuals have a breaking point at which they
can decide to stand up for themselves against the group or conform to the majority, thus rejecting
their own beliefs. Results were evaluated over more than one hundred students, who were
positioned in the minority condition, and they conclude that the vast extent of subjects succumb
to the majority. While individually students’ average percentage of error was less than 1 per cent,
under group influence they conform and go along with the majority 36.8 per cent of the trials
(Asch, 1955). Despite the consistency of participants, approximately one quarter of the sample
never conform to the mistaken criteria of the group, nonetheless, those who agree at least once
with the majority are incapable of find a way out of conformity. These preliminary findings reveal
some significant evidence related to the criteria of those who never conformed, however, the
reasons behind individual differences have not yet been studied, thus traits about personality and
cultural differences are still object of research and no conclusive evidence could be established
about the matter. It appears that once a subject has taken the isolated position that defies group
thinking,the probability ofdesistance is implausible, and according to the subjects it is reinforced
by pronounced core values, personal beliefs and a factual capacity of recovery from hesitation to
restore the balance.
On the other hand, for those who conform to the majority, the reasoning behind conformity
comprised an unconvinced criteria based on the answers from the group (Asch, 1955). According
to participants, their thinking was based on the erroneous conception of the reliability of the
group’s answers, motivated by group pressure, as Johnson declares ‘If I am wrong, they are
probably right’ (Johnson in Asch, 1955). Evidence suggests that the overwhelming need to merge
with the majority is intrinsically bonded to personality traits; conformity in most of the cases was
related with low awareness of consequences, and the mistaken believe regarding an apparently
better knowledge of the group.
In addition, the experiment raises further questions around the effectiveness of a large majority
comparedwithpeer pressure. Ithasbeen shownthata singlesubject exerting pressure on another
is ineffective or non-existent, while when the force was increased to two or three forming the
majority, the percentage of conformity raised to 13.6 and 31.8 respectively. This incidence of
increasing the majority has been proved to be accurate (Asch, 1955) and clearly is a significant
finding from the study, nevertheless, the strength of the group pressure was depleted with the
presence of a supportive partner in one forth (Asch, 1955), in other words, the subject’s wrong
answers declined to 25 per cent compared with the solo scenario; in addition, the dissident, show
a clearly noble reaction towards the supportive partner, reporting feelings of warmth, confidence
and closeness. It can be seen that even a slightly evidence of support can create a difference in the
minority thinking, filling individuals with the confidence required to broke away from the
majority pressure.
The group pressure experiment highlights fascinating facts about our daily decision-process, as
wellas variousimperativequestionsthatawaitinvestigation,regarding ourwaysofeducationand
the values that guide our conduct. To this extent, it can be concluded that individuals are more
often influenced by others when making decisions; however, this hypothesis should be under
constant reexamination due to the fact that social pressure necessarily does not imply naive
submission toit; individuality and theability torise abovegroupthinking areopen tohumanrace.
Despite the fact that being in society involve consensus, to be fruitful unanimity demands
individual contributions from a personal perspective and own experience. As it was illustrated in
the beginning, under the influence of conformity, consensus undermine personal beliefs and

4. individuals becomedependent of socialforces, creating insomecasesa threatfor thesociety itself.
Yet beyond the results, the experiment raises further open-ended questions such as the
relationship between conformity and personality traits, or the acceptance of society leaders based
on an unproven independence, specifically, about how do we construct our personal opinions and
beliefs. More interestingly, the significance of Asch’s results derived from the idea that there was
no obvious pressure to conform, nor punishments or rewards regarding individual beliefs. While
people easily conform through such slight pressure, what would happen if they are openly
intimidated? Stanley Milgram andvarioussocialpsychologists wonderif people wouldbe capable
to perform evil acts against each other under direct pressure, more precisely, following orders.
These experiments are very well known in social psychology, as well as controversial.
MIlgram’s aim (1965, 1974) was to demonstrate the effect of an authority figure over the
individual’s conscience and his decisions. In one of his studies about obedience, Milgram
highlight the behaviour of hospital nurses, who were called by an unidentified doctor which
instructed them toadministeranevident drug overdose to their patients (Hofling inMyers,2012).
The researcherdid a previoussurvey,betweena different group ofnurses, asking them abouthow
they would react in a similar situation. Roughly all of them declared they would have not followed
the doctor’s request, arguing the absence of a written order, the unusual dose and the
inconsistency of the order regarding the hospital policy and their own ethical concerns.
Nonetheless,whentheexperimentgroupof22 nurses received theactualoverdosecall,21 of them
obeyed without hesitating, before being stopped in their way to the patient. Even though not all
nurses were submissive in this scenario, they were following a common frame which is a
legitimate authority (the unknown Doctor) testing nurses’ obedience.
Small-scale experiments regarding human controlled conditions are object of criticism, therefore
Group pressure (Asch, 1955) and Obedience to authority demonstrations (Milgram. 1965) were
no exceptions. Some critics argued that human-based experiments stressed participants against
their will (Marcus in Myers, 2012), precisely Marcus declare that in the Asch’s and Milgram’s
experiments, participants experimented ‘agony’, sweating, groaning, trembling and, in some
cases, laughing nervously. In addition, some challengers argue that the short-term anxiety and
the possible long-term damage to participants are not acceptable (Burger, 2009). Nevertheless,
Solomon Asch and Stanley Milgram carried out a series of post-evaluations of participants’ health
after the experiment, indicating that most of them were glad of being part of the experiments and
declared to have learned something important about themselves through the demonstrations,
supporting the idea of future replications of the studies (Burger, 2009).
Despite the ethical concerns about experiments, discussion and debate about the findings are still
open. The obedience and group pressure studies demonstrate how individuals normally
underestimate the influence of circumstantial forces when making daily decisions. In spite of the
timely results of Asch and Milgram’s experiments, later replications have pointed out that people
would still following others and obeying today. The most important lesson that has been taught
through this thesis is that situational influence is likely to occur in any group environment,
although it has been shown that it could be though and hard to resist, every individual has the
ability to rise above social forces, to overcome group pressure and obedience to authority, when
it goes against personal values and beliefs.
Even though the lessons learned from laboratory experiments must be handled cautiously to
explain complex social behaviours, such as the Holocaust or genocide, small-scale societies
provide a starting point to understand the psychological factors behind the unexpected and

5. unstable human behaviour. Similarly, it has been demonstrated that well-intentioned deeds,
Altruism forinstance,havebeentriggered with a single individualact,from individualswhobroke
through social forces and defended human values above all. Confidently, these studies can be the
foundation for further research on the matter and the introduction of variations in schooling
programs that allow any society member to acknowledge the incentives and consequences of
being under the influence of the majority.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Asch, S. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), pp.31-35.
 Asch, S. (1970). Visual Thinking. Rudolf Arnheim. University of California Press,
Berkeley, 196(7), pp.361-362.
 Burger, M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American
Psychologist, 64, pp.1-11.
 Myers, D. (2012). Exploring social psychology. 6th Edition, Module 20, pp.217-231.New
York: McGraw-Hill.
 Plous, S. (2014). Group Pressure and conformity, Module 3, Wesleyan University,
Coursera Education.