Editing Asch conformity experiments (section)

== Variations on the original paradigm ==
[[File:Asch conformity 1955.jpg|thumb|An example of Asch's experimental procedure in 1955. There are six actors and one real participant (second to last person sitting to the right of the table).<ref name="Asch1955" />]]

In subsequent research experiments, Asch explored several variations on the paradigm from his 1951 study.<ref name="Asch1952b" />

In 1955 he reported on work with 123 male students from three different universities.<ref name="Asch1955" /> A second paper in 1956 also consisted of 123 male college students from three different universities.<ref name="Arsch1956" /> Asch did not state if this was in fact the same sample as reported in his 1955 paper; the principal difference is that the 1956 paper includes an elaborate account of his interviews with participants. Across all these papers, Asch found the same results: participants conformed to the majority group in about one-third of all critical trials.

;Presence of a true partner
:Asch found that the presence of a "true partner" (a "real" participant or another actor told to give the correct response to each question) decreased conformity.<ref name="Asch1951" /><ref name="Asch1955" /> In studies that had one actor give correct responses to the questions, only 5% of the participants continued to answer with the majority.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Morris|last2=Miller|title=The effects of consensus-breaking and consensus-preempting partners on reduction in conformity|journal=Journal of Experimental Social Psychology|volume=11|issue=3|doi=10.1016/s0022-1031(75)80023-0|pages=215–223|year=1975}}</ref> In subsequent interviews, subjects claimed a degree of "warmth"  and "closeness" towards the partner, and attributed an increase in confidence to their presence. Still, subjects rejected the notion that it was the partner who allowed them to answer independently.

=== Partner dissent and accuracy ===
:Experiments were also designed to determine if the partner effect on subject conformity was due to the partner's dissent from the majority or their accuracy in answering questions.<ref name="Asch1955" /><ref name="Arsch1956" /> In one experiment, Asch identified two classes of dissenter: "extremist" (under this condition, dissenters always chose the worst of the comparison lines and the majority chose the line closest to the standard in length) and "compromising" (dissenter: closest to standard; majority: worst comparison line). In compromising dissenter trials, subject conformity decreased overall and when they did conform, they conformed to the dissenter, not the majority. Compromising dissenters were seen to control the "choice of errors". In trials with an extremist dissenter, subject conformity decreased dramatically with only 9% of respondents continuing to answer with the majority. Therefore, partner dissent was found to increase independence, moderating errors (conformity). 
;Withdrawal of a partner
:Asch also examined whether the removal of a true partner partway through the experiment influenced participants' level of conformity.<ref name="Asch1951" /><ref name="Asch1955" /> He found low levels of conformity during the first half of the experiment. However, halfway through the experiment the partner rejoined the majority, answering in lockstep with the group. When their partner switched, the subject conformity rose to levels consistent to if they had never had a partner at all. Asch classified this finding as a "desertion" effect. In a variant of this study, the partner left the experiment halfway-through altogether (an excuse was provided for their departure). Under these conditions, the partner's influence lingered through the second half of the experiment; the subject's conformity to the group increased after the partner's departure, but not as drastically if the partner was perceived as having switched sides.<ref name="Asch1955" />
;Majority size
:Asch also examined whether decreasing or increasing the majority size had an influence on participants' level of conformity.<ref name="Asch1951" /><ref name="Asch1952b" /><ref name="Asch1955" /> When paired with a single individual who opposed their answers, the subject retained high levels of independence in their answers. Increasing the opposing group to two or three persons increased conformity substantially. Increases beyond three persons (e.g., four, five, six, etc.) did not further-increase conformity.
;Written responses
:Asch also varied the method of participants' responding in studies where actors verbalized their responses aloud but the "real" participant responded in writing at the end of each trial. Conformity significantly decreased when shifting from public to written responses.<ref name="Arsch1956" />

=== Degree of wrongness ===
Another research question examined by Asch was whether varying the magnitude of majority "wrongness" affected subject conformity to group norms.<ref name="Asch1955" /> To answer this question, the difference between the reference line and three comparison lines was systematically increased to determine if there was a point where the extremity of the majority's error affected subject conformity. The authors failed to find a point at which subject conformity to the majority was completely eliminated, even when the disparity between lines was increased to 7 inches.
;The Role of the Asch Experiment and Social Interaction  
In the replication of the Asch Experiment, particularly in studies within the field of economics, the impact of monetary incentives has been investigated. Although the rewards used in the replication may bear less resemblance to real-life decision-making processes, important findings regarding the influence of monetary incentives on group pressure have been obtained.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Asch |first=Solomon E. |date=1956 |title=Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0093718 |journal=Psychological Monographs: General and Applied |language=en |volume=70 |issue=9 |pages=1–70 |doi=10.1037/h0093718 |issn=0096-9753|url-access=subscription }}</ref>  
;The Influence of Political Views
Group pressure's impact on political views has been explored in settings akin to the Asch Experiment. These inquiries have demonstrated that group pressure can sway political opinions. The Crutchfield Experiment is noteworthy in this regard as it serves as a tool to comprehend the social sway on political stances. The Crutchfield Experiment elucidates how individuals respond under group pressure and the extent to which their perceptions can be swayed.<ref>{{Cite journal |title= The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch experiment| date=2023 | doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0294325 | doi-access=free | last1=Franzen | first1=Axel | last2=Mader | first2=Sebastian | journal=PLOS ONE | volume=18 | issue=11 | pages=e0294325 | pmid=38019779 | pmc=10686423 | bibcode=2023PLoSO..1894325F }}</ref>  Participants find themselves alone in a scenario where they evaluate a series of light combinations; however, they are actually privy to the responses of other participants and tend to adhere to group norms. This experiment furnishes a pivotal model for grasping the social influence on political views.<ref name="Crutchfield 191–198">{{Cite journal |last=Crutchfield |first=Richard S. |date=May 1955 |title=Conformity and character. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0040237 |journal=American Psychologist |language=en |volume=10 |issue=5 |pages=191–198 |doi=10.1037/h0040237 |issn=1935-990X|url-access=subscription }}</ref>  
;The Role of Individual Differences
Lastly, studies have examined personality traits that resist or succumb to group pressure in Asch experiments. Individual characteristics such as intelligence, self-esteem, and the need for social approval have been scrutinized for their impact on conformity.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Franzen |first1=Axel |last2=Mader |first2=Sebastian |date=2023-11-29 |title=The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch experiment |journal=PLOS ONE |language=en |volume=18 |issue=11 |pages=e0294325 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0294325 |doi-access=free |pmid=38019779 |pmc=10686423 |bibcode=2023PLoSO..1894325F |issn=1932-6203}}</ref> These studies have illustrated that different personality traits exert varying effects on conformity under group pressure. Individual differences are a topic that allows the study of unique characteristics and behavioral differences between individuals. Researchers such as Crutchfield and others have examined the relationship between personality traits and compliance behavior. For example, low agreeableness rates have been found to be associated with characteristics such as intellectual competence and leadership ability. However, the relationship between intelligence and adaptation is not clear. The effects of self-esteem and the need for social approval on adjustment have also been investigated.<ref name="Crutchfield 191–198"/> The effect of gender on adjustment has also been examined, but the results are conflicting.