---
title: Conformity
url: https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/
description: People sometimes go along with a unanimous group even when the group is plainly wrong, either because they start to doubt themselves or because they do…
section: Learn
---

![Illustration: a Cold War intelligence-dossier collage dominated by a distressed world map with connecting routes, coordinates and highlighted regions.](https://propagandaarchive.org/static/generated/detail/hero-map-heavy.jpg)

[Learn](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/) · Group identity

# Conformity

In brief

Most answers in Asch's experiments stayed independent, but some people went along with a unanimous, wrong group, and a single ally broke its hold; the effect replicates yet varies with era, culture and setup.

On this page

- [In brief](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/#in-brief)
- [What the research shows](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/#what-the-research-shows)
- [Has it held up?](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/#has-it-held-up)
- [How it shows up in political messaging](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/#how-it-shows-up-in-political-messaging)
- [How to spot it](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/#how-to-spot-it)
- [Persuasion or manipulation?](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/#persuasion-or-manipulation)
- [Archive techniques that lean on this](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/#archive-techniques-that-lean-on-this)
- [Related topics](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/#related-topics)
- [Sources](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/#sources)
- [Images](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/conformity/#images)

On this page

*Area: [Group identity](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/group-identity/) · Evidence:**strong**([How we rate the evidence](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/evidence-ratings/)). Group pressure on judgment replicates across decades and countries, but its size varies with era, culture and setup, and the classic study is often misdescribed.*

## In brief

People sometimes go along with a unanimous group even when the group is plainly wrong, either because they start to doubt themselves or because they do not want to stand out. Solomon Asch's line-judgment experiments are the famous demonstration. What is less often reported is that most of the answers in those experiments stayed independent, and that a single ally was enough to break the group's hold. Political messages that project unanimity, or that treat neutrality as defection, are working on this pressure.

## What the research shows

In the 1950s Asch seated a real participant among a group of confederates (people secretly working for the experimenter) and asked everyone, in turn and out loud, which of three lines matched a reference line in length. The task was easy: alone, people almost never erred. On 12 "critical" trials the confederates unanimously gave the same wrong answer. Across those trials about 37 percent (36.8) of the participants' answers went along with the incorrect majority. About three quarters of participants conformed at least once, while about a quarter never did [1]. Conformity rose as the unanimous majority grew to three people and then leveled off, and it collapsed when just one confederate broke ranks and gave the right answer [1]. In interviews afterward, some conforming participants said they had come to doubt their own eyes, while others said they knew the group was wrong but did not want to appear different.

Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard named these two routes. "Informational" influence is treating others' answers as evidence about reality. "Normative" influence is going along to be accepted or to avoid disapproval. In their variations on Asch's task, conformity was lower, though not eliminated, when people answered privately rather than in front of the group, which points to the normative, social side of the pressure [2].

Rod Bond and Peter Smith pooled 133 Asch-type studies from 17 countries. Conformity in American studies had declined since the 1950s, and studies from more collectivist countries (cultures that emphasize group obligations over individual choice) tended to show higher conformity than studies from more individualist ones [3].

A 2023 replication in Switzerland by Axel Franzen and Sebastian Mader put 210 participants through Asch's original setup. The error rate on the line task was 33 percent, close to Asch's figure. Paying people for correct answers lowered it to 25 percent but did not remove it. When the group instead agreed on political statements, participants went along 38 percent of the time [4].

![Bar chart of four rates at which answers followed a wrong unanimous majority: 36.8 percent in Asch's study, and 33, 25 and 38 percent in a 2023 Swiss replication](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/images/psych-conformity-asch-rates.svg)

*Drawn by FRAME from Asch (1956) [1] and Franzen and Mader (2023) [4]. The setups differ, so the bars are not a like-for-like comparison. CC BY 4.0 (FRAME).*

Group pressure also moves real political behavior. In a large field experiment, Alan Gerber, Donald Green and Christopher Larimer mailed registered voters different reminders before an election. Turnout was substantially higher among those whose mailing promised to report their voting record to their household or neighbors than among those who only received an appeal to civic duty [5].

## Has it held up?

The basic effect has replicated for seventy years [3], [4]. What has not held up is the popular story that Asch showed people to be sheep. Asch himself saw the results as a study of independence as much as conformity, since most answers resisted the majority. Reviewing 99 textbook accounts published between 1953 and 1984, Ross Friend, Yvonne Rafferty and Dana Bramel found that authors increasingly described the study as a demonstration of near-total conformity, distorting what Asch reported [6].

Other caveats: the classic studies used small groups of strangers and an unambiguous physical judgment, and the rate varies with era, culture, the presence of an ally, and whether answers are public [2], [3]. Political opinions are more ambiguous than line lengths, which may leave more room for informational influence, as the Swiss replication's political-statement results suggest [4].

## How it shows up in political messaging

- **Publicized participation, WWII America.** The Treasury's payroll-savings campaign behind [Let's Fly This Flag: Everybody at Least 10 Percent in War Bonds](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/lets-fly-this-flag-1943/) set a target for "everybody" and displayed each workplace's participation with flags and window cards, making non-participation visible.
- **Shame at home, WWI Britain.** Savile Lumley's 1915 recruiting poster "Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?" pictured a father who had not enlisted being questioned by his young daughter, while his son plays with toy soldiers, casting the man who stayed out as the odd one out [7].
- **No neutral ground, 2001.** In his address to Congress after the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush told other nations, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" [8]. A binary like this removes the independent position that Asch found makes resistance possible.
- **"Silence is violence," 2020.** During the protests after George Floyd's killing, this became a common activist slogan, and on "Blackout Tuesday" large numbers of social media users posted plain black squares as a public sign of support [9]. The slogan treats not speaking as a form of harm, a premise critics disputed at the time [10]. Though addressed to individuals rather than governments, it likewise leaves no neutral position.
- **Civic reminders.** The Gerber study shows that nonpartisan get-out-the-vote messages can harness the same pressure by making behavior visible to neighbors [5].

![British recruiting poster: a man in an armchair is asked by his daughter what he did in the Great War while his son plays with toy soldiers](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/images/daddy-what-did-you-do-1915.jpg)

*[Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/daddy-what-did-you-do-1915/): "Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?", Parliamentary Recruiting Committee (United Kingdom), 1915, artist Savile Lumley. Public domain.*

![U.S. Treasury poster tying a workplace flag to a quota of everybody putting at least 10 percent of pay into war bonds](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/images/lets-fly-this-flag-1943.jpg)

*[Let's Fly This Flag: Everybody at Least 10 Percent in War Bonds](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/lets-fly-this-flag-1943/): U.S. Treasury Department War Bonds payroll-savings poster, 1943. Public domain (U.S. government work).*

## How to spot it

- The message stresses that everyone around the reader has already agreed or acted.
- Staying neutral, silent or undecided is described as taking the other side.
- Participation or non-participation is made public, or the reader is told it will be.
- Dissenters are absent from the picture, or are shown as isolated and odd.
- The apparent unanimity cannot be checked against independent numbers.

## Persuasion or manipulation?

Telling people accurately what their community is doing gives them real information; reminding them that others can see what they did adds social pressure, and is closer to the line. Honest use reports genuine numbers, leaves room for disagreement, and lets the reader decide in private. It tips into manipulation when the unanimity is exaggerated or manufactured, when neutrality is branded as betrayal, or when people are threatened with exposure to force a public show of agreement. Because a single visible dissenter weakens group pressure so much [1], hiding or silencing dissent is a common tell of manipulative use.

## Archive techniques that lean on this

- [Bandwagon](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/bandwagon/) — Bandwagon: presents popularity or momentum as the reason to join, drawing on both informational and normative pressure.
- [Manufactured consensus](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/manufactured-consensus/) — Manufactured consensus: fakes the unanimous majority that the Asch studies show is most persuasive, and removes the visible dissent that would break it.

## Related topics

- [Social proof](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-proof/) — Social proof
- [Pluralistic ignorance](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/pluralistic-ignorance/) — Pluralistic ignorance
- [Obedience to authority](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/obedience-to-authority/) — Obedience to authority
- [Group polarization](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/group-polarization/) — Group polarization
- [Social identity](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/) — Social identity
- [Identity fusion](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/identity-fusion/) — Identity fusion

## Sources

1. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. *Psychological Monographs: General and Applied*, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
2. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. *Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology*, 51(3), 629–636.
3. Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. *Psychological Bulletin*, 119(1), 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111
4. Franzen, A., & Mader, S. (2023). The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch experiment. *PLOS ONE*, 18(11), e0294325. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294325
5. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. *American Political Science Review*, 102(1), 33–48.
6. Friend, R., Rafferty, Y., & Bramel, D. (1990). A puzzling misinterpretation of the Asch "conformity" study. *European Journal of Social Psychology*, 20(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420200104
7. Lumley, S. (1915). *Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?* [Recruiting poster, PRC No. 79]. London: Parliamentary Recruiting Committee; printed by Johnson, Riddle & Co. Imperial War Museums. https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/17054
8. Bush, G. W. (2001, September 20). Address to a joint session of Congress and the American people. The White House (archived). https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
9. Sinanan, J. (2020, June 4). Blackout Tuesday: The black square is a symbol of online activism for non-activists. *The Conversation*. https://theconversation.com/blackout-tuesday-the-black-square-is-a-symbol-of-online-activism-for-non-activists-139982
10. Hume, M. (2020, June 16). No, silence is not violence. *spiked*. https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/16/no-silence-is-not-violence/

## Images

| Image | Source | Licence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Bar chart: answers following a wrong majority (Asch 1956; Franzen and Mader 2023) | Drawn by FRAME from the cited studies (`make_group_identity_charts.py`) | CC BY 4.0, FRAME |
| *Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?* (1915) | FRAME gallery, [Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/daddy-what-did-you-do-1915/); Imperial War Museums record cited in source 7 | Public domain (published before 1931) |
| *Let's Fly This Flag* (1943) | FRAME gallery, [Let's Fly This Flag: Everybody at Least 10 Percent in War Bonds](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/lets-fly-this-flag-1943/) | Public domain (U.S. government work) |

### Image gaps

Photographs or film stills of the Asch experiments; the 2020 "Blackout Tuesday" black squares. Neither was verified as public domain or openly licensed, so they are cited, not hosted.

## Techniques

[Bandwagon](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/bandwagon/) [Manufactured consensus](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/manufactured-consensus/)

## Related

- [Social proof](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-proof/)
- [Pluralistic ignorance](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/pluralistic-ignorance/)
- [Obedience to authority](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/obedience-to-authority/)
- [Group polarization](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/group-polarization/)
- [Social identity](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/social-identity/)
- [Bandwagon](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/bandwagon/)
- [Manufactured consensus](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/manufactured-consensus/)
- [Identity fusion](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/identity-fusion/)