Grace Holden, Stephanie Nelson, Sarah Joswiak, Grace Sell, and Brian Miller

From Lines to Logos:

A Social Conformity Study

University of Minnesota Duluth - College of Liberal Arts Comm Inquiry: Social Science

Methods, COMM 2030

Why Conformity?Imagine: RAT quiz alone first, then with your group

Your group is unanimously wrong

What do you do?

Fight the group’s decision with your right answers, or

Adopt the group consensus

If you chose the latter, you chose conformity

Conformity happens more than we think in real life situations and happens to many people

Theoretical Evidence

Conformity, as studied by Asch (1956) and Sherif (1937)

We define conformity:

The act of agreement with a group consensus when group answers differ from one’s own original correct answers, and therefore changing one’s answers to be parallel with group answers.

We measured conformity under the strictest level

Theoretical Evidence for

research questionsGenderNo significant relationship in most conformity studiesNature Vs. Nurture

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)Thinker Vs. Feeler Dimension

Difficulty order of questions in Asch’s work

High difficulty (similar to Asch’s moderate trials)

Low difficulty (similar to Asch’s extreme trials)

IVs/DVsIV1 - Gender

MaleFemale

IV2 - Difficulty OrderLow to highHigh to low

DV - Frequency of conformity Measured by the change between correct written answers and verbal wrong answers with group

This sets up a 2x2 factorial Design

Hypotheses and research questions

• RQ1: Are there more males or females that are thinkers or feelers?

• RQ2: Does biological sex and category of person (thinker/feeler) significantly predict conformity?

• H1: Females are more likely to conform than males.

• H2: When difficulty levels begin from high to low, subjects are more likely to conform.

• H3: Feelers are more likely to conform than thinkers.

Research design and

design statement Experiment Between subjects designFactorial Design: 2 x 2

Low to High

High to Low

Male Male

Low to High(condition 1)

MaleHigh to Low(condition 2)

FemaleFemale

Low to High(condition 3)

FemaleHigh to Low(condition 4)

Difficulty Order

Gender

Stimulus Materials

Three Step Experiment Personality test

Written Quiz

Verbal Quiz

Stimulus Materials, part I

Personality test

Male/Female

Thinker/Feeler

Myers-Briggs Foundation

Subject Number________________Condition Number______________

Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability.1)Biological sex: Male_______ Female__________2)Age____________3)GPA____________4)Year in school: Fr.._____ Soph.______ Jr.______ Sr.._______ Sr.. +_____

5) I look for what is important to others and express concern for others.Strongly disagree 1---2---3---4---5 Strongly agree

6) I enjoy technical and scientific fields where logic is important.Strongly disagree 1---2---3---4---5 Strongly agree

7) I am sometimes experienced by others as too idealistic, mushy, or indirect. Strongly disagree 1---2---3---4---5 Strongly agree

Stimulus Materials, part II

Written Logos Quiz20 Questions

Stimulus Materials, part III

Verbal Quiz

PowerPoint

Group Setting

Subject in seat 4 out of 5

Seating Arrangement

Procedure8-9 Subjects per cell (4 cells)Convenience sample from the library

Selected both males and females, then assigned to participate in “high to low” condition or “low to high” condition

n=33, 16 males and 17 females 3 part experiment

Personality survey (written)Written logos quizVerbal logos quiz in group

Each session lasted about 25 minutes

Demographic Info

n=33

Ages ranged from 18-24, M=20.18

16 males17 females

Statuses in school ranged fromFreshman (7), Sophomores (8), Juniors (11), Seniors (5), and Seniors + (2)

GPAs ranged from 2.10-3.89, M=3.18

Methods5 point Likert scale

Personality inventory (written)

Feeler scale: Cronbach’s Alpha=(.69) (using items Q1, Q3, Q5, Q6, Q8, and Q10)

Thinker scale: Cronbach’s Alpha = (.75) (using items Q2, Q7, Q9, Q11, and Q12)

ResultsRQ1: Are there more males or females that are thinkers or feelers?

Chi-square (1)= 6.06, p<.01, sig.

RQ2: Does biological sex and category of person (thinker/feeler) significantly predict conformity?

Factorial ANOVA: F(1,29)=2.21 p<.15, ns. Female feelers conform most (M=3.55), Male feelers conformed least (M=1.5).

Results continued

H1: Females are more likely to conform than males. Independent samples t-test: t(31)=.76, p<.46, ns.

H2: When difficulty levels begin from high to low, subjects are more likely to conform.

Independent samples t-test: t(31)=-.57, p<.57, ns.

H3: Feelers are more likely to conform than thinkers.Independent samples t-test: t(31)=1.42,p<.17, ns.

DiscussionThinkers/ Feelers

Males, as expected, were more thinkers, and females were an even split

No significance on gender differences But moving in the right direction with female feelersNo significance in gender predicted by other conformity studies, but not by Thinker/Feeler dimension

No significance on difficulty orderCould be explained with small sample size

LimitationsSample was small

Low powerHowever, many hypotheses were directionally appropriate

Did not ask if participants were previously aware of Asch’s & Sherif’s studiesOnly measured college-aged studentsDid not note conformity rates between ages:

Freshman/sophomores Juniors/seniors

Did not ask level of knowledge of subject (logos)Used a conservative measure of conformity (only counting conformity as correct written answers), but could have counted just a difference in written to verbal answers (uncertainty)

Future ResearchWe want to see if the pattern would replicate with a larger sample of males and females

We want to see if our sample has knowledge in the methods of our study

Knowledge of logos or familiarity of Asch’s and Sherif’s work

We could measure a larger age group or a different age group

We could measure conformity less conservatively

ReferencesAsch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological

Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1-70. Received from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

AticoD (2012). Logos Quiz (1.3) [iPhone App]. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/logos-quiz-game/id478364212?mt=8

Berns S. Gregory , Chappelow Jonathan, Zink F. Caroline, Pagnoni Giuseppe, Martin-Skurski E. Megan, Richards Jim (2005). ‘Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation’ Biological Psychiatry, Volume 58, Issue 3, 1 August 2005, Pages 245–253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012

Bond, R & Smith P.B (1996) Culture and Conformity: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) Line Judgement Task. Psychological Bulletin 119 (1) pg. 111-137 Retrieved on 10/9/12 from http://www.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Bond-Smith-Asch-meta-analysis.pdf

Cho, Y., & Chung, O. (2012). A Mediated Moderation Model of Conformative Peer Bullying. Journal Of Child And Family Studies, 21(3), 520-529.

Crano D.William, Effects of Sex, Response Order, and Expertise in Conformity: A Dispositional Approach, Sociometry, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 239-252

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review Of Psychology,55(1), 591-621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015:

Costanzo, P. R & Shaw, M. E. (1966) Conformity As A Function of Age Level. Child Development 37(4), pg. 967-975. Retrieved on 10/9/12 from JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/1126618

C.G. Jung (1928). Psychological Types. Contributions to Analytical Psychology, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1928. pp 295-312 (Chap. 4)

References continuedDeutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629-636. Retrieved on 10/10/12 on doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046408:

Huck, S. W. and Bowers, N. D. (1972), Item Difficulty Level and Sequence Effects in Multiple-Choice Achievement Tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 9: 105–111. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1972.tb00765.x

I.N. Engleberg & D.R. Wynn, (2010). 'Group Diversity'. In: C. Bellanton, M. Lentz, J. Zalesky (ed), Working in Groups. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. pp.82-85.

Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory, Myers-Briggs Foundation.  Retrieved on 10/10/12 from www.myers-briggs.org

Sherif Muzafer, Sociometry, Vol. 1, No. 1/2 (Jul. - Oct., 1937), pp. 90-98 Tapscott, Don (2008). Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World. McGraw Hill Professional.

Zikmund G. William, Sciglimpaglia Donald, Lundstrom J. William, and Cowell G. Ronald (1984) ,"The Effects of Gender and Product Stereotyping on Conformity Judgements: an Experiment", Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 11, eds. Thomas C. Kinnear,Advances in Consumer Research Volume 11: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 265-269.

Questions?