Psychology › Social psychology
Social influence: conformity and obedience
· Concept
Well replicatedStrong, repeated evidence.
How other people's presence, opinions and commands change what we believe and do, from going along with a crowd to obeying authority.
See it on the Psychology map →What it says
Researchers separate three forms. Conformity is matching a group, shown in Muzafer Sherif's 1935 light-illusion experiments and Solomon Asch's 1951 line tests. Compliance is agreeing to a direct request, studied by Robert Cialdini. Obedience is following orders, made famous by Stanley Milgram. Two motives drive it: wanting to be right, using others as information, and wanting to fit in. Usually this is sensible; it misfires when the group or authority is wrong.
Why it matters
It shows situations can outweigh character. In markets it feeds herding, bidding wars and panics, as buyers treat others' enthusiasm or fear as information.
The evidence
Conformity and obedience findings have been repeated across decades and countries. Some famous demonstrations, notably the Stanford prison experiment, did not hold up, so specific claims need checking.
Open questions
How much people privately change their minds versus just going along in public, and why some individuals resist pressure that sways most others.
Inside this (4)
Connections (6)
▸Observational learning (Bandura, Bobo doll) underpins Social influence: conformity and obedienceMixed evidence
The connection
Bandura showed people learn behavior by watching others, without being rewarded or punished themselves. Much social influence works the same way: people copy what models and peers do, treating others' choices as information about what is correct or acceptable. Robert Cialdini later called this social proof.
Who showed it and when
Albert Bandura's Bobo doll studies at Stanford, 1961–1963, and his social learning theory (1977), alongside conformity research by Sherif and Asch.
How solid is it?
The link is mainly conceptual: imitation and conformity research grew up separately, though both show that others' behavior strongly shapes our own.
Open questions
Whether copying a model and conforming to a group use the same mental process, and how much learning versus social pressure explains any given case.
▸Asch conformity experiments demonstrated Social influence: conformity and obedienceWell replicated
The connection
Asch's line studies became the classic demonstration of normative influence: going along to fit in, even when the right answer is plain. They helped Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard separate this from informational influence, trusting others when you are unsure, a distinction still used today.
Who showed it and when
Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania, 1951–1956; Deutsch and Gerard's 1955 paper at New York University built on Asch's procedure.
The evidence
Asch's 1956 monograph reported 123 participants, and the effect has been reproduced in many countries, though often at lower levels than Asch found.
Open questions
How much the effect reflected 1950s American culture: a 1980 British repeat with science and engineering students found almost no conformity, though most later studies still find some.
▸Milgram obedience experiments are the most famous studies of Social influence: conformity and obedienceMixed evidence
The connection
Milgram's studies became the defining evidence that ordinary people defer to authority, extending social influence from going along with peers to following orders. His variations showed obedience depends on the situation: the authority's closeness and legitimacy, and whether others refuse.
Who showed it and when
Yale University, New Haven, 1961–1962, with about 780 volunteers from the community; published in 1963 and in Obedience to Authority (1974).
How solid is it?
Partial replications in California (2009) and Poland (2017) found similar shares willing to continue, though the researchers halted at 150 volts for ethical reasons.
Open questions
Archive studies suggest many participants doubted the shocks, and some argue the studies show identification with science more than obedience.
▸Stanford prison experiment was long cited as proof of Social influence: conformity and obedienceWeak or failed to replicate
The connection
For decades textbooks used the study to argue that social roles alone can turn ordinary people cruel, the strongest version of situational influence. Zimbardo applied this to Abu Ghraib in 2004. Archival evidence of coaching and role-playing means it no longer counts as evidence for that claim.
Who showed it and when
Stanford University, August 1971; Zimbardo's testimony for an Abu Ghraib guard's defense and his 2007 book The Lucifer Effect.
How solid is it?
Analyses in 2018–2019 showed guards were urged to be tough, and a 2007 study found that ads for a 'prison life' study attracted more aggressive volunteers.
Open questions
Real prisons do produce abuse, so researchers debate what actually drives it: roles, leadership, institutional culture or who is recruited.
▸Cialdini's principles of persuasion systematize Social influence: conformity and obedienceWell replicated
The connection
Social influence research showed how others change us: Asch on conformity, Milgram on obedience, Festinger on the drive for consistency. Cialdini turned these lab findings into a practical list of levers. Social proof is conformity, authority is obedience, and commitment builds on consistency, giving marketers, negotiators and fraud trainers a shared vocabulary.
Who showed it and when
Arizona State University, where Cialdini spent most of his career; about three years undercover in sales and fundraising jobs before Influence appeared in 1984.
The evidence
Each principle cites published experiments, such as Freedman and Fraser's 1966 foot-in-the-door study and Dennis Regan's 1971 study in which a gift soda doubled raffle-ticket purchases.
Open questions
Whether the list is complete or the principles overlap, and how they vary across cultures; consistency pressure tested weaker among Asian students than Americans.
▸Group behavior: in-groups, crowds and bystanders amplifies Social influence: conformity and obedienceWell replicated
The connection
Groups intensify influence. Discussion pushes like-minded members toward more extreme positions (group polarization), cohesive teams suppress dissent (groupthink), and a unanimous majority exerts far more pressure than a split one. In markets the same dynamics fuel herding, bubbles and panics.
Who showed it and when
James Stoner's 1961 'risky shift' thesis at MIT; Serge Moscovici's 1969 polarization studies in Paris; Irving Janis's Groupthink (1972).
The evidence
Group polarization is well replicated, including in a 1986 meta-analysis; groupthink rests largely on case studies such as the Bay of Pigs.
Open questions
How much online echo chambers polarize people is disputed, as is when group deliberation corrects errors rather than amplifying them.