Conformity - Perception of Opinion and its Effects on Confidence of Reasoning and Behavior

Running Head: PERCIEVED OPINION AND CONFIDENCE OF BEHAVIOR 1

Conformity: Perception of Opinion and Its Effects on Confidence of Reasoning and Behavior

Varun S. Murugesan

University of Minnesota

PERCIEVED OPINION AND CONFIDENCE OF BEHAVIOR 2

Abstract

Previous research in the areas of conformity have studied how the majority has influenced the

minority, when the distinction between the two is clear and present. This study aims to see if

the blurriness between the two groups can affect a person’s behavior, and in essence, their

confidence levels in those behaviors. Participants were split into two groups, where in one a

participant had their ideas verbally supported, or verbally refuted by confederates. After shown

a series of optical illusions, the participants were asked to rate their own self-confidence, about

answers to optical illusion questions. It was found that that their confidence levels would

increase (if in the supported group) or decrease (if in the refuted group. However, because of a

small sample size, as well as lack of fully understanding the participants, such results are not

generalizable, and only apply to the 12 participants.


Conformity: Perception of Opinion and Its Effects on Confidence of Reasoning and Behavior

Throughout history, some of the greatest social movements have been the minority

influencing the majority, through social changes. These movements could be positive or

negative (ex. Civil rights movement, Hitler youth, gay rights movement, ISIS) but all stem from

ideas and people’s perception of them. These types of influential shifts arise from positive

reinforcement or positive punishment, allowing for the fostering or eradication of thoughts

and ideals. Through such ways, conformity occurs, creating a uniform group of citizens.

Before continuing, it is important to identify some of the terms and concepts that will be

used to explain this study. First, conformity is a change in thinking, feeling or acting following

pressure, real or imaginary, exercised by the group (Bocciaro & Zamperini, 2012) One of the

most pivotal studies in conformity was performed by Asch (Asch, 1951). Asch studied whether a

group could pressure a lone subject into selecting an incorrect answer. The results showed that

people were willing to forsake the correct answer for being accepted by the group. This is

known as normative social influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). This study helps to exemplify

the thinking that another person’s opinion or the perception of another person’s opinion can

yield changes in a person’s behavior. In Asch’s study, the subject believed that they were

incorrect, based on the attitudes of those around them. Also, this study helps to show another

form of social influence, called informational social influence. Informational social influence

happens people’s beliefs about what is true or correct (or false/incorrect) is shaped by the

perceptions of other people’s beliefs. This is also where someone will conform to the group to

be correct (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). In the Asch study, it just so happens that the incorrect


answer made someone accepted in the group.

Secondly, on the whole, conformity tends to be mostly informational social influence.

Most people tend to conform because we see other people as a source of information

(Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007). .This is because we use other people’s attitude, behaviors

and beliefs as markers for understanding the world around us. An example of how other

people’s behaviors can be used as information can be seen in Sheriff’s autokinetic study. A

group of subjects were asked to judge how far a light moved in a dark room (it is to be noted

that the light never moved, but was only perceived to move, due to the autokinetic effect) by

themselves or in a group. It was found that the subjects tended to judge the light movement

similar to the group, even if they had extreme answers by themselves (Sheriff, 1935). This study

showed that group norms are created when people interact, leading to a consensus, while

reducing outlier opinions. Sheriff’s study further helps to lay the groundwork for the idea that

another person’s opinion can change a person’s beliefs or attitudes.

A key example of how opinions or perception of opinions can change beliefs is through

the rise of Hitler and the Hitler youth. In a depressed and failing Germany, Hitler became a

beacon of hope and power for all his people, promising reform and economic growth. After he

rose to the top of government, he established Hitler Youth, which was a youth organization

within the Nazi Party in Germany, and consisted of boys and girls, from ages 10 up. The news

of children being taught almost religiously the views of Adolf Hitler spread through the world,

causing much disgust and concern. However, this horror and adoration of this movement is

exactly where much insight was gained. In Germany, Hitler was viewed as a hero, largely

thanks to conformity and the perception of his actions. The people were shown and taught of


the good that he was doing, which they in turn explained or told to others. As his ‘greatness

spread’, having respect for Adolf Hitler became the norm, or the in-group in Germany. Those

who did not conform to such perceptions fled for mainly two reasons: one, they were Jewish

(or another targeted group by the Nazi regime) or two, they did not perceive Hitler to be the

great leader that he was shown to be. As he gained followers, there was almost a complete

identification with the in-group (Watson, 1974). However, it was when Hitler started to

promote his Hitler youth did perceptions start to change. A chancellor tried to ban the group in

itself, but failed, largely thanks to how many Germans started to identify with Hitler’s views

and Hitler Youth. It had also gotten so bad that people were fearful of their neighbors, because

it was said that those who did not adore the Nazi regime and Adolf Hitler were exposed to the

SS, a Nazi-based secret police organization. This in-group identification became strongly tied

with normative social influence. As more and more people started to identify with Hitler and

his views, those who did not, started to change their behavior because of the opinion of

themselves not being in the in-group. This shows how a person’s (or in this case, a large

majority of a country) perception of a belief can be changed, based on the opinions of others.

Another reason for Hitler and Hitler Youth was the support that he got from those

around him. Much of Germany and his followers were giving Hitler a form of positive

reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is the addition of a stimulus that helps to increase the

frequency or probability of a desired behavior (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007). In Hitler’s

case, every time he came out with new policies to help improve Germany, he was met with

widespread approval, from citizens and government officials alike. This sort of support was the

positive stimulus that helped reinforce his behavior. As more people approved and reinforced


the path that Hitler was leading them on, the more confident and bold he got in his actions

(Kohl, 2011).

Lastly, the concept of confidence. Confidence is defined as self-assurance in one’s

personal judgment, ability or power (Bocchiaro & Zamperini, 2012). A lot of a person’s

beliefs tend to stem from the confidence and vigor in which they not hold in those beliefs,

but how often how they exercise those beliefs. If a person is more confident in their

beliefs, then such beliefs are much more rooted within that person. However, as we have

seen indirectly through the studies of Asch, Sheriff, and Kohl, a person’s confidence in

their beliefs may be challenged by outside opinions. That is what this study attempted to

explore directly.

If a person perceives others as having an opinion of their behavior that is different than

their own, then the confidence in certain behaviors of that person will change. Through the

use of positive punishment (which is the addition of a stimulus to decrease the frequency of

an undesired behavior), it was studied to see if certain beliefs, attitudes and behaviors will

become more salient, increasing confidence in performing and rationalizing those behaviors.

In this study, participants were randomly put into one of three groups: a group where

confederates supported the subject’s answer, a group that went against the subject’s answers,

or a group where the confederates answered questions based on their own thinking (which was

the control group). All three groups were shown optical illusions, with questions for each. The

subject was always asked to go first to select an answer and rationalize their thinking. Based on

what group the subject was in, the confederates would either support, go against or answer

based on their volition, regardless of what the subject said. After each trial, a small


questionnaire was given, asking participants to quantify how confident they were in their

answers. Based on the studies associated with conformity and perception of opinions, we

hypothesized that the subjects that had their answers openly supported would see a general

increase in their confidence levels, the subjects who had their answers openly refuted would

see a general decrease in their confidence levels and those in the control group would not

provide a clear pattern.

Method

Participants

12 participants, 6 female and 6 male, were involved in the study. All of the students

were full-time undergraduate students enrolled at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities, of

differing socioeconomic backgrounds and majors. These participants were gathered through

convenience sampling, as in those who knew the researchers and wanted to take part in a

psychology study were taken. The ages of the participants ranged from ages 18 to 24 (M = 20.5,

SD = 0.707). Of the participants, 25% identified as Caucasian, 16.7% as African American, 33% as

Asian or Pacific Islander, and 16.7% as Hispanic / Latino. There was no compensation offered

for participating in the study.

Materials

The entire study was focused on how the group’s support or undermining of the

participant’s answers, so it was crucial that the participant be not able to detect this. To do so,

the participants were shown a series of optical illusions (see Appendix A) and asked to fill out a

small questionnaire (see Appendix B). These optical illusions ranged from simple line illusions to


more complex unstable illusions. All of the illusions were shown on a computer screen, with the

participant (and the other confederates) sitting in a straight-line, facing the screen. Each of the

5 illusions was shown until each participant answered the question posed by each illusion. The

questions asked had had a huge scope, to once again stop the participant from detecting the

true nature of the experiment. All of the illusions had verbal questions that ranged from “What

do you see here?” or “How many lines are there?” followed up with asking each participant to

explain their reasoning for their answer. On the questionnaire, there was a smaller scope of

questioning. There were about 7 questions in the questionnaire that followed the verbal

questions. The key question (“How confident were you in answering the question for this

illusion?”) was placed about 2/3 of the way down on the questionnaire, to once again, avoid

detection. This question was answered on a 10 point scale, with “1” being not confident at all

about their answer to the illusion question in front of the others to “10” being the most

confident about their answer to the illusion question in front of the others. On the first trial,

there were 11 questions, with the last four gathering demographic information about gender,

race, age and major. This was used to simply understand more about the participants.

Complete copies of the 5 optical illusions, the verbal questions asked for each illusion, and the

questionnaire can be seen attached in Appendices A and B.

Procedure

Participants were randomly put into one of three groups: a group where confederates

supported the subject’s answer, a group that went against the subject’s answers, or a group

where the confederates answered questions based on their own thinking (which was the

control group). All three groups were shown optical illusions, with questions specifically asked


for each illusion. Such groups were based on when a participant agreed to partake in the

experiment. In essence, the first participant to agree was in the supported answer group, the

second was in the contradictory group and the third participant was in the control group. This

was repeated until there were 4 participants in each of the 3 groups.

The times to meet with the participants, confederates and researchers were identified.

A room in Northrop Auditorium was used as the testing room. Once all of the participants and

researchers were in the testing room, the participant was sat intentionally at the very right-end

of the row of seats (to ensure that they spoke first, so that they confederates could either

support or undermine the participant’s answer). The confederates took their seats to the left of

the participant, in no particular order. All of the participants were given a small informed

consent sheet and were talked through what was going to happen in the study (see Appendix C

for informed consent).This study used verbal consent, in that the informed consent was read

out loud to the participants and verbally the participants had to either agree or to disagree to

partake in the experiment.

After the informed consent process, the first illusion was shown on the computer

screen. The subject was asked a select question and then asked to explain their reasoning out

loud to the group. Next, based on what group the subject was in, the group would support,

undermine or be neutral to the subject’s answer. After each participant explained their

reasoning, the small questionnaire was given and filled out. This process was repeated until all

5 of the optical illusions, their questions and their questionnaires were filled out.


At the end of the experiment, there was a small debriefing. This explained what the

experiment was about and thanked the participants for their time. This debriefing can be seen

in Appendix D.

Results

Before running any tests on the data, the data were coded in the following way: all of

the data for condition A (in which the participant’s answers were vocally supported) and for

condition B (in which of the participant’s answers were vocally refuted) were split up. All of the

data for each condition was placed into three groups; a confidence level score column, a

question number column, and a participant number column. This allowed for easy input into an

analytic software. For each condition, a within group ANOVA test was run. For condition A,

analyses showed that there was a significant effect of condition (supporting a participant’s

answer) on the self-reported confidence levels F (2, 24) = 6.04, p < 0.001. For condition B

(refuting a participant’s answers), analyses also showed that there was a significant effect of

condition on the self-reported confidence levels F (5, 24) = 5.59, p <0.05. These significant

effects were found within the groups. Thus, those who were in condition A (M= 6.73, SD= 2.66)

and those who were in condition B (M= 6.67, SD= 2.07), all scored at significant levels indicating

the effect of vocal support or refute on confidence. The direction of this effect was non-

directional, in that Condition A showed confidence levels rising, while Condition B showed

confidence levels falling, although both groups had the same median confidence levels. The

Tukey’s HSD test was not performed because the data was simply used to show that there was

an effect, not as to where the effect took place within the group. Seeing how one person differs

from another within a condition would not demonstrate an effect of the condition on self-


reported confidence levels. The distribution of confidence level answers can be found in figure

1.

Discussion

The original hypothesis was supported. Our results do suggest that if a person perceives

others as having an opinion of their behavior that is different than their own, then the

confidence in certain behaviors of that person will change.

The results of this study do agree with other research done on similar topics. Asch found

in his 1951 classic conformity study, that a group could pressure a lone participant into

selecting an incorrect answer; this study helps prove why. If the participant can hear the group

not only pick the wrong answer, but explain why they think that their answer is the best and

explain why the participant is wrong, then a decrease in the participant’s confidence level can

be seen.

This change in confidence suggests that the concept of normative social influence is not

fully developed. Normative social influence asserts that people are willing to pick the wrong

answer, as long as it means that the group will favor them (Deutsch &Gerard, 1955). In this

study, the participant had no idea that they had picked an incorrect answer, until the

confederates were going against the participant’s answer choice. While this did not have an

effect on their verbal reasoning for answering a question a certain way, it was, however,

detected in the survey that each participant was required to fill out after they and the

confederates answered the illusion question out loud. This detection was in the form of

confidence scores going higher (in condition A) or going lower (in condition B).


While normative social influence could not have played a part in participant’s responses

(because the confidence level ratings were offered privately), it can be reasonably inferred that

confidence level ratings serve as a direct index of informational social influence. Deustch and

Gerard found in 1955, that this influence is when someone will conform to a group for the sake

of being correct. At one point, it is very possible that participants felt that their answers were

constantly being rejected. It was when a participant got discouraged and offered broader

answers, instead of specifics while answering a question. This helps to show that another

person’s opinion or perception of another person’s opinion can change someone’s behavior.

Conversely, when the participant’s answers were vocally supported, the research on

positive reinforcement stands to illustrate the results. As a person’s answers were praised more

as the experiment went on, there was a detectable rise in that person’s confidence levels. The

previous research done on this topic helps to explain that rise: every time a person answered,

and the confederates supported it, this support acted as a positive stimulus to reinforce the

participant’s behavior. While the participant did not start proposing wild and outrageous

answers to each illusion’s question, their confidence in their own answering abilities did

increase. This same kind of confidence was found in an analysis done of Hitler’s rise to power

(Kohl, 2011).

While a detectable change in confidence levels were found in both conditions, there are

some problems and limitations to the results presented. First, the sample size. It was extremely

small, with a sample size of only 12 participants. However, this limitation can be explained by

the fact that there was limited time and resources to actively collect the data and the

responding population to take part in the study was rather low. Second, we did not take into


account the personality types of each participant. Different people are affected by other’s

opinions, in drastically different ways. Some people become more confident when a person or

the group disagrees with their opinions while others become much less confident (Minghui &

Fengning, 2006). Third, the inherent variability in the response variable is high. Our response

variable (or the dependent variable) was confidence level. We never broke down what the

numbers mean, beyond a “1” is not confident and a “10” is very confident. It is extremely likely

that the participants could not adequately know the difference between a confidence level of a

“5” and a “7”, which can skew our results. These three problems can affect our data, causing us

to report an effect, when in reality; there might not have been one at all. This, in turn, affects

the generalizability of the data. Such problems affect that data and results, because random

noise may contributing participant’s responses, which make it more difficult to distinguish the

presence of absence of a true effect from random chance or variation.

Taken into account that there may be problems with a small sample size, personality

type, and variances in the dependent variable, the results reported are most likely not

generalizable for two reasons: one, the data was not collected via random sample; and two, the

12 participants are not representative of the population. To have data that is generalizable,

both of these conditions must be met. The data was collected through convenience sampling,

which is a form of nonprobability sampling, which is not generalizable to a larger population.

Also, the demographic make-up of the 12 participants is not representative of the larger

population. In this study, 33% of the participants were Asian Pacific Islander and 25% were

Caucasian, while the demographics of the larger population (in this case, the United States) are


actually 75% Caucasian and only 4.75% Asian Pacific Islander. This means that the results only

apply for these 12 participants, and cannot be generalized to any larger population.

For future research, doing the following would account not only for better results, but

also ensure more generalizable results: one, using only random sampling to get participants;

two, having a larger sample size, perhaps as many as 1, 000 participants; three, personality

tests should be determined, retrofitted and used on each participant; fourth, a thorough

explanation of the confidence level rating spectrum should be taught to each of the

participants; and fifth, more optical illusions should be asked, instead of just five.

One main question that this study raised, was whether the gender of the confederate

group supporting or refuting a person’s answer affect a person’s confidence level. A study in

which the two main variables are confidence and gender, would prove useful to further this

area of scientific research. Another question that was raised was if the types of questions used

affect a person’s confidence level. Optical illusions are, in their very nature, ambiguous. Using

questions with concrete answers that the participant might not know (i.e. a very complex

subject such as physics or engineering) might yield data that might correlate with the findings

here or illustrate a completely different effect. It is possible that with less ambiguous questions

participants might be more or less affected by how the confederates respond to their answer.

If a person perceives others as having an opinion of their behavior that is different than

their own, then the confidence in certain behaviors of that person will change. This simple

hypothesis was the foundation of a complex study. The data, however limited in its application,

did suggest that a person’s opinion can affect another person’s thinking, and in turn, their

confidence. History has proven this, through social movements calling out for proactive (or


even dangerous, in the situation with Hitler) opinions. These opinions act as small ripples, as

more and more people take part with these opinions, acting as reinforcement, causing a

greater chance for the same opinions to repeat.


References

Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments.

Groups, leadership and men, 177–190.

Aronson, E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. (2007). Conformity. Social Psychology, 230-231.

Retrieved from

http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI14/paper/viewFile/8391/8525

Bocchiaro, P., & Zamperini, A. (2012). Conformity, Obedience, Disobedience: The power of the

situation. Psychology, 275-294. Retrieved from http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-

wm/36456.pdf

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influence

upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.

doi:10.1037/h0046408

Kohl, D. (2011). The presentation of “self” and “other” in Nazi propaganda. Psychology &

Society, 4, 7-26. Retrieved from

http://www.psychologyandsociety.org/__assets/__original/2011/04/2Kohl_2011_.

pdf


Minghu, W., & Fengning, S. (2006). Correlation studies on interpersonal confidence and

personality characteristics of college students. Journal of Clinical Psychosomatic

Diseases, 06, 112. Retrieved from http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-

LCSX200606021.htm

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27, 187.

Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1936-01332-00

Watson, P. (1974). Psychology and Race, 4, 130.


Appendix A

Question asked: How many legs are there on this

elephant? (Please explain your reasoning.)

Question asked: What do you see in this picture? (Please explain your reasoning.)

Question asked: Is this a level balance?

(Please explain your reasoning.)


Question asked: Are the two red lines the same length?


Question asked: Which way is this staircase facing?



Appendix B

1) Did you see this illusion easily or did it take time? Circle one: Yes No

2) What did you see in this illusion? (Briefly write down 1-2 sentences.)

3) What did other people see in this illusion? (Briefly write down 1-2 sentences.)

4) Have you seen this illusion or types of this illusion before? Circle one: Yes No

5) How confident were you in answering the question for this illusion? Circle your

confidence, with

“1” being not very confident and “10” being very confident.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


6) Briefly explain what perceptual confusions it caused you.

7) How do you think this illusion works? Try your best in answering. (Briefly write down 1-2

sentences.

AFTER ILLUSION ONE, THESE 4 ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS WILL BE ASKED.

8) Gender: _________

9) Age: ____________

10) Race: (circle one)

Caucasian African American Asian or Pacific Islander Other

11) Major: _______________


Appendix C

Verbal Informed consent:

You have been asked to take part in a psychology study. The purpose of the study is to see the

how people see optical illusions and what perceptual / cognitive processes take over. We are

aiming to see how certain brain processes affect how a person consciously sees an optical

illusion.

You will be shown a set of 5 optical illusions. They will range from some simple to some harder

illusions. After each illusion, there will be a specific question for each illusion. You will be asked

to answer the question out loud and explain your reasoning. Then, after each participant has

answered the question, there will be a small questionnaire asking more in-depth questions

about the illusion. This process will be repeated 5 times. At the end, there will be a small

debriefing session.

There will be cost to you if you participate. There will be no personal benefit but the knowledge

received may be of value to perceptual science.

Your participation is voluntary. At any time you may withdraw your participation, without any

loss or benefits or rights to which you might be otherwise entitled.


All of the data collected will not be identified, so please do not write down your name or any

other personal identifier. All of the data collected will be confidential and your name will not be

associated with any research findings.

It is strongly recommended that you answer truthfully on the verbal questions after each

illusion and on the questionnaire. This is to ensure that the data collected is truthful and valid.

To give verbal consent, please say the following if you agree to participate: “I agree to

participate with this study.”

To not give verbal consent, please say the following if you do not agree to participate and wish

to leave the testing room: “I do not agree to participate with this study and wish to leave.”


Appendix D

Debriefing:

Thank you for taking part in this psychology experiment.

This study was concerned with seeing how confidence levels are subject to group approval or

disapproval. Previous studies have found that group influence is very real and this study aimed

to understand how confidence levels can be affected by group influence. Although this is was

directly explained to you, the data collected can show confidence levels as the group supports

or refutes your answer.

The other participants are confederates and were asked to either support or refute the verbal

answers that you gave, which was already predetermined. This was done to see if your

confidence levels are affected by the group opinion.

Thank you again for your participation.


FIGURES

Boxplot of Confidence Levels for

Condition A (support)

Boxplot of Confidence Levels for

Condition B (refute)

Co

nfi

den

ce L

evel

Figure 1. Boxplot of Confidence Level for Conditions A and B. The error bars represent the standard

deviations.

Co

nfi

den

ce L

evel

Date post:	14-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	varun-murugesan
View:	248 times
Download:	0 times

Conformity - Perception of Opinion and its Effects on Confidence of Reasoning and Behavior

Documents