Conformity and Obedience

6 min read Updated Apr 19, 2026

Three famous experiments shape every MCAT question on social influence. Learn the setup, the findings, and the key variables of each.

Conformity: Adjusting to the Group

Conformity is adjusting your behavior or thinking to match a group standard. Two main drivers:

Normative social influence. Going along to be accepted or to avoid rejection. You know the group is wrong but don’t want to stand out.
Informational social influence. Going along because you think the group has better information. You’re actually unsure, and the group’s answer seems likely correct.

Both produce the same outward behavior but differ in motivation.

Asch’s Line Studies (1951)

Participants were shown a “standard” line and asked to pick which of three comparison lines matched its length. The answer was obvious. But confederates (actors posing as other participants) gave deliberately wrong answers first. The real participant was asked last.

Two cards from Asch's conformity experiment side by side. The left card shows a single black vertical 'standard' line. The right card shows three comparison vertical lines labeled A, B, and C of different lengths; line C clearly matches the standard's length while A is shorter and B is longer — The Asch line stimuli. The correct match for the standard (left) is obvious - line C on the right - yet participants gave the wrong answer about a third of the time when confederates around them deliberately picked A or B. *Credit: Fred the Oyster via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).*

About one-third of responses conformed to the incorrect group answer. About 75% of participants conformed at least once across multiple trials. Only 25% never caved.

Bar chart showing conformity rate as a function of unanimous majority size. The bars from left to right read: 1 confederate ~4%, 2 confederates ~14%, 3 confederates ~32%, 4-9 confederates ~35%, 10-15 confederates ~33% — Conformity climbs sharply from 1 to 3 confederates and then plateaus. Adding bodies past about 3-4 doesn't increase pressure - a key MCAT detail about group size. *Credit: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0).*

Why? Mostly normative influence - participants privately knew the right answer but didn’t want to stand alone. When debriefed, most reported feeling the pressure acutely.

Factors That Increase Conformity

Group size up to ~3-4 people. Beyond that, added conformity pressure levels off.
Unanimity. One dissenting voice in the group dramatically reduces conformity.
Cohesion. The tighter the group, the stronger the pull.
Status. Higher-status models produce more conformity.
Public responses (vs. private written answers).
Cultures that emphasize collectivism show higher conformity rates than individualist cultures.

Milgram’s Obedience Studies (1961-1963)

Black-and-white newspaper photograph of social psychologist Stanley Milgram in middle age, wearing a suit and patterned tie, gesturing while speaking — Stanley Milgram (1933–1984), the Yale social psychologist whose obedience studies remain the most cited - and ethically debated - experiments in social psychology. *Credit: Dayton Daily News (1974) via Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain).*

Stanley Milgram tested how far ordinary people would go to obey an authority figure. The setup:

Participant arrives at Yale lab, meets “researcher” (authority) and “learner” (actually a confederate).
Participant is the “teacher.” Learner is in another room, strapped to an electroshock apparatus.
Each time the learner gets a word-pair answer wrong, the teacher is instructed to deliver an electric shock of increasing voltage - from 15 volts (slight) to 450 volts (marked “XXX - Danger: Severe Shock”).
The learner (who isn’t actually shocked) cries out, bangs on the wall at 300 V, and eventually falls silent.
When the teacher hesitates, the researcher calmly issues verbal prods: “Please continue.” “The experiment requires you to continue.” “You have no other choice; you must go on.”

Top-down schematic of Milgram's obedience setup. An experimenter labeled E sits at one desk holding a clipboard. A teacher labeled T sits at a separate desk in front of a row of shock-generator buttons. Across a partition, a learner labeled L is strapped into a chair with electrodes; wires run from the teacher's shock console to the learner — The classic Milgram setup. The experimenter (E) instructs the teacher (T) to administer escalating shocks to the learner (L) in another room. The physical separation made the victim more abstract - one of the situational factors that boosts obedience. *Credit: Fred the Oyster via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).*

Milgram expected virtually no one would deliver the maximum shock. Instead, 65% of participants administered the maximum 450 volts. Many showed extreme distress but kept going.

Factors That Increase Obedience

Authority figure present (researcher physically in the room).
Authority figure is legitimate (wearing lab coat, Yale affiliation).
Institutional setting (prestigious university).
Victim depersonalized or distant (in another room, not visible).
Gradual escalation (small steps easier to continue than a sudden large ask).
Diffusion of responsibility (“I’m just following orders”).

Factors That Decrease Obedience

Victim visible or present in same room.
Authority figure absent or via phone.
Conflicting authorities (two experimenters disagreeing).
Peers disobeying.
Personal accountability made salient.

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)

Color portrait of psychologist Philip Zimbardo as an older man with a goatee and dark hair, wearing a gray suit and patterned tie, gesturing animatedly while speaking with a clip-on microphone near his mouth — Philip Zimbardo (1933–2024), who designed and ran the Stanford Prison Experiment - and later acknowledged how much his own role as "prison superintendent" shaped the outcome. *Credit: Elekes Andor via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).*

Philip Zimbardo randomly assigned 24 mentally healthy college students to be “guards” or “prisoners” in a mock prison built in the Stanford basement. The experiment was scheduled to run 2 weeks.

Within 6 days it was shut down. Guards became abusive and dehumanizing. Prisoners broke down psychologically. One prisoner developed a rash and had to be released; others became deeply depressed.

Grainy 1971 photograph from the Stanford Prison Experiment showing two student-guards in khaki uniforms, mirrored aviator sunglasses, and carrying batons walking down a hallway labeled 'Stanford County Prison'. A third guard sits on a table in the background — Student "guards" patrol the simulated Stanford County Prison in 1971. The reflective sunglasses and uniforms were intentional - tools of **deindividuation** that helped ordinary undergraduates dissolve into a punitive role within days. *Credit: Philip Zimbardo / prisonexp.org via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).*

Zimbardo’s interpretation: situations powerfully shape behavior. Ordinary people placed in powerful roles with institutional backing and no accountability drift toward those roles’ extremes.

Modern critiques: the experiment was methodologically flawed (Zimbardo himself acted as “prison superintendent” and encouraged harsh behavior; some guards were coached). Re-analyses suggest the results were less automatic than Zimbardo claimed. But the core lesson - that situations shape behavior more than most people realize - is supported by other research.

The Power of the Situation

Across Asch, Milgram, and Zimbardo, the big finding is the same: ordinary people do extraordinary things - good and bad - under situational pressure. This is the situationist perspective in social psychology. It doesn’t deny that personality matters; it just shows that situational forces are often underestimated.

This finding interacts with the fundamental attribution error (Chapter 7): we tend to explain others’ behavior dispositionally (“he must be cruel”) and underestimate situational pressures that would lead any of us to do the same.

Distinguish normative from informational social influence.

Click to reveal answer

Normative: going along to be accepted or avoid rejection (you know you're wrong but don't want to stand out). Informational: going along because you think the group has better information (you're genuinely unsure). Both produce conformity but differ in motivation.

What percentage of Asch's participants conformed to the incorrect group answer at least once?

Click to reveal answer

About 75%. About one-third of responses overall conformed to the incorrect group. Adding even one dissenting confederate dropped conformity dramatically.

What percentage of Milgram's participants delivered the maximum 450-volt shock?

Click to reveal answer

Around 65%. Most showed extreme distress but continued when prompted by the authority figure. Obedience dropped when the victim was more visible, the authority was less proximal, or peers disobeyed.

What was the key finding of the Stanford Prison Experiment, and why is it controversial today?

Click to reveal answer

Finding: ordinary people assigned to 'guard' roles became abusive, while 'prisoners' became depressed - situations shape behavior powerfully. Controversial because Zimbardo acted as superintendent and encouraged harsh behavior; some guards were coached. The core insight about situational power holds, but the results were less automatic than originally claimed.