• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Conformity discussion.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Introduction, Aims & Hypothesis Conformity was first researched by Jenness (1932) who placed a large number of beans in a bottle and asked students to estimate the number and then arranged for them to discuss their guesses with a group, later when asked to give their estimates again; he found their individual estimates had converged towards that of the group. In Sherif's (1935) study of conformity, Sherif used the autokinetic effect in which a stationary spotlight in the dark seems to be moving due to slight movements of the eye. When participants were asked by how much and in what direction did the spotlight move they tended to make judgements that were very close to each others when placed in a group. The fact that a group norm rapidly replaced the personal norms of the members of the group indicates the existence of social influence. Asch questioned the results of Sheriff's study and claimed that participants only conformed because the stimulus was ambiguous. Asch (1951) set up a situation in which 7 people all sat looking at a display they were given the task of saying out loud which one of the three lines a, b or c was the same the same length as the given stimulus line all but one of the participants were confederates. ...read more.

Middle

They were then shown the jar of lentil. After handing back the answer sheet the participants were debriefed as to the true nature of the 'competition' and asked not to discuss the experiment with any fellow colleagues for the rest of the afternoon. Controls and ethics * Counterbalancing control used in that experiment was conducted on one afternoon, the aim of this was to prevent tutors discussing the experiment with other tutors who potentially could have been participants therefore ruling out any order effects. * The fake answers in each of the conditions remained the same for each participant, this was to keep things standardised and so ruling out the possibility that differences in estimates were due to differences in fake answers. This was coupled with standard instructions. * Teachers who were held to have knowledge of psychology were excluded from the study; this was to control the potential of the Hawthorne effect. * Clearly where deception is used there will always be a lack in informed consent but this is justifiable using a cost-benefit analysis. It was decided the deception was of a very minor nature and was not enough to amount to cause emotional disturbance in anyone. Also the estimate that was to be obtained from the participant was considered trivial information, and when debriefed some participants who were deemed as conforming claimed they were giving a genuine independent estimate suggesting they didn't feel deceived. ...read more.

Conclusion

This would provide more of an insight on the factors that affect conformity i.e. culture, education, age etc. 2. Creation of an unambiguous situation. This would allow contrasting of both types of social influence which would provide a broader understanding of levels of conformity and allow us to distinguish which of the two is a stronger influence in our willingness to conform. 3. Involve real life participants that are there to represent social influence this is because in this investigation the presence of people was made through fake answers which inevitably produces a different reaction in some participants than if they were to encounter real persons. Appendix 2 Results-Mann-Whitney-U-Test Formula for Mann- Whitney- U- Test of significance U = Na* Nb = (Na* (Na+1))-T 2 Na= number of participants in condition A Nb=number of participants in condition B T= total sum of ranks in condition A Thus: U= 16*16+ (16*16+1)- 240.5 2 U= 256+ 257- 240.5 2 U= 256+ 128.5- 240.5 U= 384.5- 240.5 U= 144 The forth step was to calculate U' (U prime) the formula for this is: U' = NaNb - U Thus: U' = 16*16- 144 U' = 256- 144 U' = 112 The tabled value for significance at 0.05 was at 60, the U' has to be less than this value (60) for the null hypothesis to be rejected and the experimental hypothesis to be proved. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Social Psychology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Social Psychology essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Psychology Coursework - Conformity

    4 star(s)

    There fore referring to the method and results it shows that this research method of questionnaires lacks validity. There could be various reasons for this. One of these reasons is that maybe the participants did not actually conform by looking at the 'fake' questionnaires.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Preventing and Reducing Crime

    3 star(s)

    Farrington and West (1990) study found many re-offending criminals had worked in stable paid employment least or changed jobs most often. Analysis of information from 42 police forces in the UK showed high property crime was associated with increasing male unemployment, high growth in the amount of "theivable property and high wage inequalities".

  1. Marked by a teacher

    A Study to Show the Effect of Conformity on Estimating the Number of Sweets ...

    Individual estimates varied greatly as it is individual perception. However, when the participant became a part of a group, a group norm developed. This is a far less strict test in comparison to Asch. It also was more efficient than Asch as only a few results were collected in each of Asch's experiments due to the replication of majority influence dictating the small ratio of participants: confederates.

  2. The matching hypothesis

    This is because on wedding days the bride is especially groomed to look her best- and so usually looks much better than that in everyday life. This is, a confounding variable, as she is perceived to look more attractive than she actually is.

  1. The aim of this experiment is to find out if people will conform without ...

    Design An experiment method was chosen for this study of faceless conformity. An experiment is an arrangement of conditions and procedures controlled by the researcher for the purpose of testing some hypothesis. The experiment involved the manipulation of variables.

  2. The Matching Hypothesis

    and also 20 males (10 single males and 10 from the real couples that the 10 females came from). When the images were collated we firstly labelled the 10 real couples, letters from A to J (see Appendix III). We then split the image of the couples so we ended up with 10 males and 10 females.

  1. The experiment conducted tested the theory of conformity under the influence of group pressure.

    Solomon Asch contributed a classic study of group influence on the individual. His work appeared after the Second World War. Where Sherif stressed how the group outlook influenced subjects, Asch was interested in the grounds of resistance to group pressure.

  2. Matching Hypothesis

    This research shows that people tend to become more and more attracted to people as they get to know them better, but there is always the argument that the person would not approach the other person if they felt they were either far more attractive than themselves or if they viewed them as much less attractive.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work