Following the Crowd to Flavors We Dislike: A Modern Look at the Asch Experiments
“Since when do you drink that flavor?” I asked.
“Oh, this?” Alex said, lifting a vibrant can adorned in tropical hues. “Everyone said it’s good,” he shrugged, taking another sip of the new flavor.
“But you’ve always hated mango,” I pointed out, watching as he winced slightly. It was a subtle tell that his taste buds didn’t agree with him. For years, I had watched him religiously consume the same energy drink during every single lunch break.
I knew this was strange. But I had a feeling it was the group, and not Alex that decided on the change. Watching him struggle with his drink, I realized this wasn’t just a matter of taste.
It was something deeper.
People don’t just adopt new preferences for no reason. Decades ago, Solomon Asch uncovered the invisible pull of group pressure. In his now-famous conformity studies, Asch demonstrated how the pressure of group consensus could lead individuals to deny themselves, choosing instead to align with the majority.
Even when that majority was objectively wrong.
In Asch’s original experiments, participants faced a simple task: matching the length of a line to one of three comparisons. When surrounded by others who unanimously gave incorrect answers, 37% of participants chose to conform at least once. They publicly agreed with what they could clearly see was wrong.
Just as Alex allowed the external collective enthusiasm for a new flavor to override his well-established distaste for mango, Asch’s subjects frequently surrendered their individual judgment to the power of the group. Alex didn’t magically start enjoying mango, just as Asch’s participants didn’t actually see the lines differently.
Instead, they choose their need for social harmony and cohesion.
Why Do We Give In?
But why do we give in to the crowd?
This tendency to conform originates in our biological past. Early humans depended not just on strength or intelligence but also on group cohesion. This need for social connection continues to influence our behavior today.
This need for social connection sometimes overrides an individual’s commitment to factual accuracy.
Research by Baumeister and Leary shows that social exclusion triggers neural responses akin to physical pain. When the prospect of isolation looms, people are more inclined to align with the majority, even if it contradicts themselves. This is not simply a matter of weak thinking, but an adaptive response to the discomfort of social rejection.
People call this cognitive dissonance. When our personal beliefs clash with the group, we feel an uncomfortable tension. It is this that often pushes us to realign with the majority, just to ease the discomfort. This response reflects an adaptive psychological mechanism rather than a lack of intelligence. It is a feature of our sophisticated psychological mechanisms that help us navigate social environments.
However, not everyone succumbs to group pressure. Studies by Allen and Levine (1969) reveal that just one dissenting voice can reduce conformity, suggesting that even minimal opposition encourages independent thought. This finding reinforces the idea that while our social nature can unite us, it can also lead to decisions that conflict with our better judgment.
Our social nature can both unite us and lead us to decide against our better judgment.
The Fragility of Perception and Reality
Perhaps the most unsettling lesson from Asch’s experiments is not just that we conform, but that social pressure can make us doubt our own direct experiences. When participants in Asch’s studies were interviewed afterward, many reported actually seeing the incorrect line lengths.
But they choose the incorrect answer to be part of the group.
This phenomenon has clear implications today. When misinformation spreads, individuals may come to see false narratives as factual because those narratives are widely accepted. The same psychological mechanism that made Alex convince himself he enjoyed a flavor he historically disliked works on a much larger scale in society. This influences everything from political beliefs to scientific understanding.
Moreover, the concept of groupthink shows that a strong consensus can stifle critical evaluation. This even happens among intelligent, well-educated individuals. This has become clear in modern political discourse, where digital echo chambers amplify false consensus.
Understanding this doesn’t make us immune to it, but it does give us a fighting chance.
A Week Later
A week later, I spotted Alex in the break room again. This time, he was clutching his familiar old energy drink, the one he’d sworn by for years. The mango can was nowhere in sight.
“Back to the classics?” I asked.
He laughed, a bit sheepishly. “Yeah, turns out everyone was just caught up in the hype.” He paused, then added, “You know what’s funny? I don’t think any of us actually liked it.”
Perhaps that’s the most important lesson from Asch.
Conformity’s grip, while powerful, isn’t permanent.
In a world where the pressure to conform seems ever-present, it’s worth remembering that truth, like taste, has a way of eventually cutting through the noise.
Even if it takes a few sips of disgust to get there.
