• 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)

    Results Summary table BOYS GIRLS Number of participants 10 10 Total questions conformed in 62 60 Mean 6.2 6.0 Median 6.5 6 Mode 6,7,8 3,6,9 Range 7 6 % of questions conformed in 62 60 As you can see by looking at this summary table most of the averages worked

  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 ...

    Sheriff claimed that he had shown conformity. The individuals were experiencing informational social influence. Ref2 Crutchfield's participants were asked a series of questions and shown an array of alternative answers as well as lights apparently indicating answers of the other subjects.

  2. The matching hypothesis

    Mean per person Mode per person Median per person Range per person 1. Male 4.05 2 3 5 1. Female 5.35 6 6 7 2. Male 3.78 3 3 5 2. Female 3.88 3 3 5 3. Male 3.76 2 3 5 3.

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

    Even though this experiment was carried out many years ago, it explains conformity well and also it will be interesting to focus on any difference in conformity levels nowadays. Studies like the Crutchfield experiment (as already referred to in the background knowledge)

  2. Matching Hypothesis

    This then opens the question. Do people get together with people of the same levels of physical appearance as themselves? It is thought that all humans would go for the more attractive individual available but would be worried that this person would then accept a better offer and leave.

  1. The Matching Hypothesis

    Two questionnaires were created; One with 20 males (10 single males and 10 coupled males) and another with 20 females (10 single females and 10 coupled females). The participants were asked to rate each of the people on the questionnaire on their physical attractiveness with a score between 1 and 10 (1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest).

  2. Obedience & Conformity: The Situation In Abu Ghraib

    All theses acts de-humanized the detainees making it easier for the guards to obey and conform to the abuse at Abu Ghraib. However, that neither of theses intellectuals adjustments happen instants instead they happen gradually. (Susan Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2009)

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