Conformity

Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and

behaviors to group norms.[1] Norms are implicit, unsaid
rules, shared by a group of individuals, that guide their interactions with others. This tendency to conform occurs
in small groups and/or society as a whole, and may result
from subtle unconscious inuences, or direct and overt
social pressure. Conformity can occur in the presence of
others, or when an individual is alone. For example, people tend to follow social norms when eating or watching
television, even when alone.

privately disagree with the groups consensus they are

experiencing compliance or acquiescence. In turn, conversion, otherwise known as private acceptance, involves
both publicly and privately agreeing with the groups decision. Thus, this represents a true change of opinion to
match the majority.

Although peer pressure may manifest negatively, conformity can have good or bad eects depending on the situation. Driving on the correct side of the road could
be seen as benecial conformity.[3] With the right environmental inuence, conforming, in early childhood
years, allows one to learn and thus, adopt the appropriate behaviours necessary to interact and develop correctly
within ones society.[4] Conformity inuences formation
and maintenance of social norms, and helps societies
function smoothly and predictably via the self-elimination
of behaviors seen as contrary to unwritten rules. In this
sense it can be perceived as a positive force that prevents
acts that are perceptually disruptive or dangerous.

conformity which involves the taking of opinions that are

opposite to what the group believes. This type of nonconformity can be motivated by a need to rebel against
the status quo instead of the need to be accurate in ones
opinion.

Another type of social response, which does not involve

conformity with the majority of the group, is called convergence. In this type of social response the group member agreed with the groups decision from the outset and
People often conform from a desire for security within a thus does not need to shift their opinion on the matter at
grouptypically a group of a similar age, culture, reli- hand.[5]
gion, or educational status. This is often referred to as In addition, Forsyth shows that nonconformity can also
groupthink: a pattern of thought characterized by self- fall into one of two response categories. First, an indideception, forced manufacture of consent, and confor- vidual who does not conform to the majority can display
mity to group values and ethics, which ignores realistic independence. Independence, or dissent, can be dened as
appraisal of other courses of action. Unwillingness to the unwillingness to bend to group pressures. Thus, this
conform carries the risk of social rejection. Conformity individual stays true to his or her personal standards inis often associated with adolescence and youth culture, stead of the swaying toward group standards. Also, a nonbut strongly aects humans of all ages.[2]
conformist could be displaying anticonformity or counter-

To conclude, social responses to conformity can be seen

to vary along a continuum from conversion to anticonformity. For example, a popular experiment in conformity
research, known as the Asch situation or Asch conformity
experiments, primarily includes compliance and independence. Also, other responses to conformity can be identied in groups such as juries, sports teams and work teams
for instance.[5]

As conformity is a group phenomenon, factors such as

group size, unanimity, cohesion, status, prior commitment, and public opinion help determine the level of conformity an individual displays.

2 Main experiments
2.1 Sherifs experiment (1936)

Social responses

Muzafer Sherif was interested in knowing how many people would change their opinions to bring them in line with
the opinion of a group. In his experiment, participants
were placed in a dark room and asked to stare at a small
dot of light 15 feet away. They were then asked to estimate the amount it moved. The trick was there was no
movement, it was caused by a visual illusion known as
the autokinetic eect. On the rst day, each person perceived dierent amounts of movement, but from the sec-

According to Donelson Forsyth, after submitting to group

pressures, individuals may nd themselves facing one of
several responses to conformity. These types of responses
to conformity vary in their degree of public agreement
versus private agreement.
First, when an individual nds themselves in a position
where they publicly agree with the groups decision yet
1

ond to the fourth day, the same estimate was agreed on

and others conformed to it.[6] Sherif suggested this was
a simulation for how social norms develop in a society,
providing a common frame of reference for people.

VARIETIES

or its unanimity? The experiment was modied to examine this question. In one series the size of the opposition was varied from one to 15 persons.[10] The results
clearly showed that as more people opposed the subject,
the subject became more likely to conform. However,
the increasing majority was only inuential up to a point:
from three or more opponents, there is more than 30% of
conformity.[8]

Subsequent experiments were based on more realistic situations. In an eyewitness identication task, participants
were shown a suspect individually and then in a lineup of
other suspects. They were given one second to identify
him, making it a dicult task. One group was told that
their input was very important and would be used by the
legal community. To the other it was simply a trial. Be- 3 Varieties
ing more motivated to get the right answer increased the
tendency to conform. Those who wanted to be more ac- Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman identied three
curate conformed 51% of the time as opposed to 35% in major types of conformity.[11]
the other group.[7]

2.2

Aschs experiment (1951)

Main article: Asch conformity experiments

Compliance is public conformity, while possibly

keeping ones own original beliefs for yourself.
Compliance is motivated by the need for approval
and the fear of being rejected.
Identication is conforming to someone who is liked
and respected, such as a celebrity or a favorite uncle.
This can be motivated by the attractiveness of the
source,[11] and this is a deeper type of conformism
than compliance.

Solomon E. Asch conducted a modication of Sherifs

study, assuming that when the situation was very clear,
conformity would be drastically reduced. He exposed
people in a group to a series of lines, and the participants
were asked to match one line with a standard line. All
Internalization is accepting the belief or behavior
participants except one were confederates and gave the
and conforming both publicly and privately, if the
wrong answer in 12 of the 18 trials. The results showed a
source is credible. It is the deepest inuence on peosurprisingly high degree of conformity: 74% of the parple and it will aect them for a long time.
ticipants conformed on at least one trial. On average people conformed one third of the time.[8] However a question is how the group would aect individuals in a situa- Although Kelmans distinction has been inuential, research in social psychology has focused primarily on two
tion where the correct answer is less obvious.[9]
varieties of conformity. These are informational conformity, or informational social inuence, and normative conformity, also called normative social inuence.
In Kelmans terminology, these correspond to internalization and compliance, respectively. There are naturally
more than two or three variables in society inuential on
human psychology and conformity; the notion of varieties of conformity based upon social inuence is ambiguous and indenable in this context.
For Deutsch and Grard (1955), conformity results from
a motivational conict (between the fear of being socially
rejected and the wish to say what we think is correct) that
leads to the normative inuence, and a cognitive conict
(others create doubts in what we think) which leads to the
informational inuence.[12]
Which line matches the rst line, A, B, or C? In the Asch conformity experiments, people frequently followed the majority judgment, even when the majority was wrong.

3.1 Informational inuence

Main article: Informational social inuence

After his rst test, Asch wanted to investigate whether

the size or unanimity of the majority had greater inu- Informational social inuence occurs when one turns to
ence on test subjects. Which aspect of the inuence of the members of ones group to obtain and accept accua majority is more important the size of the majority rate information about reality. A person is most likely

3
to use informational social inuence in certain situations:
when a situation is ambiguous, people become uncertain
about what to do and they are more likely to depend on
others for the answer; and during a crisis when immediate action is necessary, in spite of panic. Looking to other
people can help ease fears, but unfortunately they are not
always right. The more knowledgeable a person is, the
more valuable they are as a resource. Thus people often
turn to experts for help. But once again people must be
careful, as experts can make mistakes too. Informational
social inuence often results in internalization or private
acceptance, where a person genuinely believes that the information is right.[6]

3.2

Normative inuence

Main article: Normative social inuence

Normative social inuence occurs when one conforms to
be liked or accepted by the members of the group. This
need of social approval and acceptance is part of our state
of humans.[6] In addition to this, we know that when people do not conform with their group and therefore are
deviants, they are less liked and even punished by the
group.[13] Normative inuence usually results in public
compliance, doing or saying something without believing
in it. The experiment of Asch in 1951 is one example of
normative inuence
In a reinterpretation of the original data from these
experiments Hodges and Geyer (2006)[14] found that
Aschs subjects were not so conformist after all: The
experiments provide powerful evidence for peoples tendency to tell the truth even when others do not. They also
provide compelling evidence of peoples concern for others and their views. By closely examining the situation
in which Aschs subjects nd themselves they nd that
the situation places multiple demands on participants:
They include truth (i.e., expressing ones own view accurately), trust (i.e., taking seriously the value of others
claims), and social solidarity (i.e., a commitment to integrate the views of self and others without deprecating
either). In addition to these epistemic values, there are
multiple moral claims as well: These include the need
for participants to care for the integrity and well-being of
other participants, the experimenter, themselves, and the
worth of scientic research.
Deutsch & Grard (1955) designed dierent situations
that variated from Asch' experiment and found that when
participants were writing their answer privately, they
were giving the correct one[12]
Normative inuence, a function of social impact theory,
has three components.[15] The number of people in the
group has a surprising eect. As the number increases,
each person has less of an impact. A groups strength is
how important the group is to a person. Groups we value
generally have more social inuence. Immediacy is how

close the group is in time and space when the inuence

is taking place. Psychologists have constructed a mathematical model using these three factors and are able to
predict the amount of conformity that occurs with some
degree of accuracy.[16]
Baron and his colleagues conducted a second eyewitness
study that focused on normative inuence. In this version,
the task was easier. Each participant had ve seconds to
look at a slide instead of just one second. Once again,
there were both high and low motives to be accurate, but
the results were the reverse of the rst study. The low
motivation group conformed 33% of the time (similar to
Aschs ndings). The high motivation group conformed
less at 16%. These results show that when accuracy is not
very important, it is better to get the wrong answer than
to risk social disapproval.
An experiment using procedures similar to Aschs found
that there was signicantly less conformity in six-person
groups of friends as compared to six-person groups of
strangers.[17] Because friends already know and accept
each other, there may be less normative pressure to conform in some situations. Field studies on cigarette and
alcohol abuse, however, generally demonstrate evidence
of friends exerting normative social inuence on each
other.[18]

4 Minority inuence
Main article: Minority inuence
Although conformity generally leads individuals to think
and act more like groups, individuals are occasionally able
to reverse this tendency and change the people around
them. This is known as minority inuence, a special case
of informational inuence. Minority inuence is most
likely when people can make a clear and consistent case
for their point of view. If the minority uctuates and
shows uncertainty, the chance of inuence is small. However, a minority that makes a strong, convincing case increases the probability of changing the majoritys beliefs
and behaviors.[19] Minority members who are perceived
as experts, are high in status, or have beneted the group
in the past are also more likely to succeed.
Another form of minority inuence can sometimes override conformity eects and lead to unhealthy group dynamics. A 2007 review of two dozen studies by the University of Washington found that a single bad apple (an
inconsiderate or negligent group member) can substantially increase conicts and reduce performance in work
groups. Bad apples often create a negative emotional climate that interferes with healthy group functioning. They
can be avoided by careful selection procedures and managed by reassigning them to positions that require less social interaction.[20]

5
5.1

5 SPECIFIC PREDICTORS

Specic predictors
Culture

Stanley Milgram found that individuals in Norway (from

a collectivistic culture) exhibited a higher degree of conformity than individuals in France (from an individualistic culture).[21] Similarly, Berry studied two dierent
populations: the Temne (collectivists) and the Inuit (individualists) and found that the Temne conformed more
than the Inuit when exposed to a conformity task.[22]

were ranged from ages 18 to 91.[35] The results revealed

a similar trend older participants displayed less conformity when compared to younger participants.
In the same way that gender has been viewed as corresponding to status, age has also been argued to have status implications. Berger, Rosenholtz and Zelditch suggest that age as a status role can be observed among college students. Younger students, such as those in their
rst year in college, are treated as lower-status individuals and older college students are treated as higherstatus individuals.[36] Therefore, given these status roles,
it would be expected that younger individuals (low status)
conform to the majority whereas older individuals (high
status) would be expected not to conform [37]

Bond and Smith compared 134 studies in a meta-analysis

and found that Japan and Brazil were two nations that
conformed a lot whereas Europe and the United States
of America did not as much.[23] Bond and Smith also re- Researchers have also reported an interaction of genported that conformity has declined in the United States der and age on conformity.[38] Eagly and Chrvala examined the role of age (under 19 years vs. 19 years and
over time.
older), gender and surveillance (anticipating responses
to be shared with group members vs. not anticipating
responses being shared) on conformity to group opin5.2 Gender
ions. They discovered that among participants that were
Societal norms often establish gender dierences and re- 19 years or older, females conformed to group opinions
searchers have reported dierences in the way men and more so than males when under surveillance (i.e., anticwomen conform to social inuence.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] ipated that their responses would be shared with group
For example, Alice Eagly and Linda Carli performed a members). However, there were no gender dierences in
meta-analysis of 148 studies of inuenceability. They conformity among participants who were under 19 years
found that women are more persuadable and more con- of age and in surveillance conditions. There were also
forming than men in group pressure situations that in- no gender dierences when participants were not under
volve surveillance. In situations not involving surveil- surveillance. In a subsequent research article, Eagly suglance, women are less likely to conform.[31] Eagly has gests that women are more likely to conform than men
proposed that this sex dierence may be due to dier- because of lower status roles of women in society. She
ent sex roles in society.[32] Women are generally taught suggests that more submissive roles (i.e., conforming) are
[37]
to be more agreeable whereas men are taught to be more expected of individuals that hold low status roles. Still,
Eagly and Chrvalas results do conict with previous reindependent.
search which have found higher conformity levels among
The composition of the group plays a role in confor- younger rather than older individuals.
mity as well. In a study by Reitan and Shaw, it was
found that men and women conformed more when there
were participants of both sexes involved versus participants of the same sex. Subjects in the groups with
both sexes were more apprehensive when there was a
discrepancy amongst group members, and thus the sub5.4 Size of the group
jects reported that they doubted their own judgments.[25]
Sistrunk and McDavid made the argument that women
conformed more because of a methodological bias.[33] Although conformity pressures generally increase as the
They argued that because stereotypes used in studies are size of the majority increases, a meta-analysis suggests
generally male ones (sports, cars..) more than female that conformity pressures in Aschs experiment peak once
ones (cooking, fashion..), women are feeling uncertain the majority reaches about four or ve in number.[39]
and conformed more, which was conrmed by their re- Moreover, a study suggests that the eects of group size
sults.
depend on the type of social inuence operating.[40] This
means that in situations where the group is clearly wrong,
conformity will be motivated by normative inuence; the
5.3 Age
participants will conform in order to be accepted by
the group. A participant may not feel much pressure
Research has noted age dierences in conformity. For to conform when the rst person gives an incorrect reexample, research with Australian children and adoles- sponse. However, conformity pressure will increase as
cents ages 3 to 17 discovered that conformity decreases each additional group member also gives the same incorwith age.[34] Another study examined individuals that rect response.[40]

5.5

Dierent stimuli

[7] Baron, R. S.; Vandello, J. A. & Brunsman, B. (1996).

The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social inuence. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (5): 915927.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.915.

In 1961 Stanley Milgram published a study in which he

utilized Aschs conformity paradigm using audio tones
instead of lines; he conducted his study in Norway and
France.[21] He found substantially higher levels of con- [8] Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and Social Presformity than Asch, with participants conforming 50% of
sure.
Scientic American 193 (5):
3135.
the time in France and 62% of the time in Norway durdoi:10.1038/scienticamerican1155-31.
ing critical trials. Milgram also conducted the same experiment once more, but told participants that the results [9] Guimond, S (2010). Psychologie Sociale : Perspective
Multiculturelle. Warve:: Mardaga. pp. 1928.
of the study would be applied to the design of aircraft
safety signals. His conformity estimates were 56% in [10] Asch, S. E. (1952). Social Psychology. Englewood Clis,
Norway and 46% in France, suggesting that individuals
NJ:: Prentice Hal.
conformed slightly less when the task was linked to an
Compliance, Identicaimportant issue. Stanley Milgrams study demonstrated [11] Kelman, H. C (1958).
tion,
and
Internalization:
Three
Processes of Attitude
that Aschs study could be replicated with other stimuli,
Change.
Journal
of
Conict
Resolution
2 (1): 5160.
and that in the case of tones, there was a high degree of
doi:10.1177/002200275800200106.
conformity.

See also
Authoritarian personality
Countersignaling
Cultural assimilation
Milieu control
Propaganda: The Formation of Mens Attitudes
Spiral of silence

External links

References

[1] Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social inuence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591621.
[2] McLeod, S (November 2011). Conformity. Simply psychology.
[3] Aronson, E; Wilson, T. D.; Akert, R. M. (2007). Social
Psychology (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-233487-7.
[4] L, G (March 1931). Conformity. Peabody Journal of Education (Taylor & Francis, Ltd) 8 (5): 312.
doi:10.1080/01619563109535026. JSTOR 1488401.

[12] Deutsch, M; Grard, H. B (1955). A study of normative

and informational social inuences upon individual judgement.. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 51 (3): 629
636. doi:10.1037/h0046408.
[13] Schachter,, S (1951). Deviation, Rejection, and communication.. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
46: 190208. doi:10.1037/h0062326.
[14] Hodges,, B. H.; Geyer, A. L. (2006). A Nonconformist Account of the Asch Experiments: Values, Pragmatics, and Moral Dilemmas.
Personality and Social Psychology Review 10 (1): 219.
doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_1.
[15] Latan,, B (1981). The psychology of social impact.
American Psychologist 36 (4): 343356.
doi:10.1037/0003-066x.36.4.343.
[16] Forgas, J. P.; Williams, K. D (2001). Social inuence:
Direct and indirect processes. The Sydney symposium of
social psychology. New York:: Psychology Press. pp. 61
76.
[17] McKelvey, W.; Kerr, N. H. (1988). Dierences in conformity among friends and strangers. Psychological Reports 62 (3): 759762. doi:10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.759.
[18] Urberg,, K. A.; Degirmencioglu, S. M.; Pilgrim, C.
(1997). Close friend and group inuence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Developmental Psychology 33 (5): 834844. doi:10.1037/00121649.33.5.834.
[19] Moscovici,, S. N. (1974). Minority inuence. Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations. Chicago::
Rand McNally. pp. 217249.

[5] Forsyth, D. R. (2013). Group dynamics. New York:

Wadsworth. ISBN 978-1-13-395653-2. [Chapter 7]

[20] Felps, W; Mitchell, T R.; Byington, E (2006). How,

When, and Why Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel: Negative Group Members and Dysfunctional. GroupsResearch in Organizational Behavior 27: 175222.
doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(06)27005-9.

[6] Hogg, M. A.; Vaughan, G. M. (2005). Social psychology.

Harlow: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

[21] Milgram, S. (1961). Nationality and conformity. Scientic America, 205(6).

[22] Berry,, J W. (1967). Independence and conformity in

subsistence-level societies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 7: 415418. doi:10.1037/h0025231.
[23] Bond,, M. H; Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and Conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using the Aschs (1952b,
1956) line judgement task. Psychological Bulletin 119:
111137. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111.

REFERENCES

[37] Eagly, A.H. & Wood, W. (1982). Inferred sex dierences

in status as a determinant of gender stereotypes about social inuence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 915928.
[38] Eagly, A.H. & Chrvala, C. (1980). Sex dierences in conformity: Status and gender role interpretations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 203220.

[24] Bond, R. & Smith, P.B. (1996). Culture and conformity:

A meta-analysis of studies using Aschs (1952b, 1956)
line judgement task . Psychological Bulletin, 199(1), 111
137.

[39] Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity:

A meta-analysis of studies using Aschs (1952b, 1956)
Line Judgement task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111137.

[25] Reitan,, H; Shaw, M (1964). Group Membership,

Sex-Composition of the Group, and Conformity Behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology 64: 4551.
doi:10.1080/00224545.1964.9919541.

[40] Campbell, J. D., & Fairey, P. J. (1989). Informational

and normative routes to conformity: The eect of faction
size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the
stimulus Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57,
457-468.

[26] Applezweig, M H; Moeller, G (1958). Conforming behavior and personality variables. New London: Connecticut
College.
[27] Belo,, H (1958). Two forms of social conformity: Acquiescence and conventionality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 56 (1): 99104.
doi:10.1037/h0046604.
[28] Coleman,, J; Blake, R R & Mouton, J S (1958). Task
diculty and conformity pressures. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 57 (1): 120122.
doi:10.1037/h0041274.
[29] Cooper, H.M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex dierences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 131146.
[30] Eagly, A.H. (1978). Sex dierences in inuenceability.
Psychological Bulletin, 85, 86116.
[31] Eagly,, A. H; Carli, L. L (1981). Sex of researchers and
sex-typed communications as determinants of sex dierences in inuenceability: A meta-analysis of social inuence studies. Psychological Bulletin 90 (1): 120.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.1.
[32] Eagly,, A. H. (1987). Sex dierences in social behavior: A
social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[33] Sistrunk,, F; McDavid, J. W (1971). Sex variable in conforming behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17 (2): 200207. doi:10.1037/h0030382.
[34] Walker, M.; Andrade, M. (1996).
Conformity
in the Asch Task as a Function of Age.
The
Journal of Social Psychology 136 (3): 367372.
doi:10.1080/00224545.1996.9714014. PMID 8758616.
[35] Pasupathi, M. (1999). Age dierences in response
to conformity pressure for emotional and nonemotional
material. Psychology and aging 14 (1): 170174.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.14.1.170. PMID 10224640.
[36] Berger, J. Rosenholtz, S.J. & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status
organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6,
479508.

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

9.1

Text

Conformity Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity?oldid=637109790 Contributors: R Lowry, Edward, Jebba, Glenn, Pedant17,

Tpbradbury, David Shay, Bearcat, Robbot, Sander123, Sam Spade, Chris Roy, Taak, Bobblewik, Mark5677, Bodnotbod, Pgreennch, Zondor, Thorwald, Mike Rosoft, Discospinster, Martpol, Bender235, Rgdboer, Bobo192, Johnkarp, Nyenyec, Jag123, Jantin, Alansohn, Peterhartley2000, Woohookitty, Tabletop, Ion Zone, Rjwilmsi, Koavf, Reinis, Margosbot, Twipley, Nihiltres, Pete.Hurd, YurikBot, Sceptre,
Chris Capoccia, CambridgeBayWeather, Sjb90, NawlinWiki, Malcolma, CecilWard, Knullare, PhilipO, Black Falcon, Fram, MagneticFlux, Katieh5584, GrinBot, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Well, girl, look at you!, MartinPoulter, Robocoder, Can't sleep, clown will eat
me, Andy120290, Runefurb, EPM, Suidafrikaan, Kuru, Ecf912, Lue3378, JorisvS, Goodnightmush, IronGargoyle, Doczilla, RichardF,
Jcbutler, Iridescent, Blehfu, AussieDingo83, AbsolutDan, Peter1c, Ed Price, Penbat, Skysong, Jeremy68, Tawkerbot4, Alaibot, Mattisse, Thijs!bot, Epbr123, Peter morrell, Al Lemos, Whatever1111, Sinn, AntiVandalBot, QuiteUnusual, TimVickers, Danger, JAnDbot,
Kerotan, Magioladitis, Fusionmix, CTF83!, Pauderic, EagleFan, Cpl Syx, Fang 23, JohnCatlin, Packages, Zilong, J.delanoy, Maurice Carbonaro, Katalaveno, Jorourke92, Shay Guy, Christian Storm, LittleHow, SJP, Cometstyles, STBotD, DorganBot, Adam Zivner, CardinalDan, Benneta, AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, Wassermann, Mr. Absurd, Andrewaskew, Synthebot, Lova Falk, Snarfa, SieBot, N-HH, Flyer22,
JetLover, Paolo.dL, OKBot, Twinsday, Tanvir Ahmmed, ClueBot, SummerWithMorons, Ewawer, Taroaldo, Farolif, California123123,
Excirial, -Midorihana-, Jusdafax, Bionic-Sun, Abrech, Rhododendrites, Torrentweb, Editor2020, Stickee, MystBot, Addbot, Berthajones,
Fieldday-sunday, Zorrobot, Everyme, Luckas-bot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Tucoxn, JackieBot, Wrooker, Flewis, Citation bot, JimVC3, GrouchoBot, ProtectionTaggingBot, Setnakhamwas, SD5, Thehelpfulbot, Tophee1, D'ohBot, Aer-x, Pinethicket, Trappist the monk, Lotje,
Dinamik-bot, LilyKitty, Zieglerh, Minimac, RjwilmsiBot, Deagle AP, DASHBot, EmausBot, EleferenBot, Chadmacb, Wikipelli, PS.,
Josve05a, Coasterlover1994, Wikiloop, Meikletastic, Mentibot, Uziel302, U3964057, ClueBot NG, Widr, Vas1972, Helpful Pixie Bot,
Nikkablahblah, Northamerica1000, Wiki13, Jordissim, Mark Arsten, Reyam.ali, N3wt3stam3nt88, Daveman16, Sossw1, SP612, Cgraham09, Skepticalnicole, Commander v99, Cal99, Priya1993, Vythili2, Melonkelon, Nashea683, Toksoz, Imanlegro, Honeybooboooo,
Robert taylor69, Grace E. McDowell, CoolBreeze1337, Monkbot and Anonymous: 221

9.2

Images

File:Asch_experiment.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Asch_experiment.png License: CC-BY-SA3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

File:Logo_sociology.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Logo_sociology.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Tomeq183
File:Psi2.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Psi2.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

9.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0