2. Summary
• Recreation of Asch’s Conformity Experiment
at Hope College
• Unanimous confederates state incorrect
answers
• Subject is either conformist or nonconformist
to their point of views
• Conformity Questionnaire
• Levels based on amounts of people
pressuring to conform
3.
4. Purpose
• Test the effects of social influences on
a person, and the respective person’s
gender on conformity.
• Conformity is modification in behavior
that happens as result of real or
perceived pressure from a group.
• Social influence is the impact that
others have on a person.
5. Literature Review
Asch, (1955) Opinions and Social Pressure : Psychology lab of
famous study on conformity. Our study is loosely based off of
Asch’s experiment.
Latane, (1981) The Psychology of Social Impact : Outlines Social
Impact Theory. Uses equation I=F(SIN) do describe social
impact forces. As numbers increase, impact forces
exponentially increase.
Myers, (2009) Social Psychology : Conformity increases with
number but there are decreasing returns after five people.
Informational influence happens when people go along with
a group in order to be correct. Normative influence occurs
when people go along with group in order to fit in.
Cacioppo, Petty (1980) Sex Differences in Influenceability:
Towards Specifying the Underlying Processes : Women are
more susceptible to social influence than men are.
6. Research Question #1
• How much does a person think he or she
will conform depending on amount of
confederates exerting pressure?
• Hypothesis: A person thinks that a larger
amount of confederates present exert a
greater amount of influence (in terms of
conformity).
• ANOVA
7. Research Question #2
• Are people more likely to conform in
small or large groups?
• Hypothesis: People are more likely to
conform in large groups.
• Chi-Square
8. Research Question #3
• Does conformity vary with between gender?
• Hypothesis: There is a difference in levels of
conformity between gender.
• Chi-Square
10. Participants
• Wyckoff, Scott, and Phelps Halls
• Convenience Sample
• Confederates are asked previously
• Exclude Psychology majors and minors
• All subjects are subjected to control
and manipulated variable
11. Setting
• Wyckoff, Scott, and Phelps Halls
• Dorm room
• Chairs are set up in semicircle
• 10 pm start
12. Materials
• Agreement survey: determines
gender, agreement, and name- these
were thrown out in order to ensure
anonymity
• Pictures of circles: 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B
(circles are of obvious size difference)
13. Variables
• Gender: dichotomous and qualitative
• Confederates: qualitative and
continuous (also divided into control
and manipulated levels)
• Incorrect answers: qualitative and
continuous
14. Procedure
• Recruit and instruct confederates and
prepare material and setting
• Recruit subjects
• Instructions for subjects
• Round 1: Control (no conformity
affects)
• Round 2: Manipulated (test conformity
affects)
15. Chi-Square
• Experiment
• Population: Wyckoff, Scott, Phelps Hall
• Sample: Residents
• N = 46
• Ho: There is no relationship between
where a the number of confederates and
incorrect answers.
• Ha: There is a relationship between the
number of confederates and incorrect
answers.
16. How does the number of social
influences affect conformity?
IV: Number of Confederates (3 or 7)
DV: Incorrect Answers (Correct(0) or Incorrect(1))
Real Conclusion: The Null is plausible (p-value=.475).
The number of social influences does not have an
Influence on incorrect answers.
17. Fathom
• Failed Assumption: less than 5 in 2 cells
Test of Collection 1 Goodness of Fit
Attribute: (categorical): Incorrect Function Plot
Test of Collection 1
Count 0
0.35
0 30 0.30
Incorrect
1 10
0.25
Column Summary 40
0.20
Ho: Categories of Incorrect are equally likely
Number of categories: 2 0.15
Chi-square: 9.478
0.10
DF: 1
P-value: 0.0021
0 0.05
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
chi-square
y = chiSquareDensity ( ,df )
x
19. Chi-Square
• Experiment
• Population: Phelps and Scott Halls
• Sample: Residents
• N = 31
H0: There is no relationship between gender
and incorrect answers.
HA: There is relationship between gender
and incorrect answers.
20. How does the number of social
influences affect conformity?
IV: Gender (Male or Female)
DV: Incorrect Answers (Correct(0) or Incorrect(1))
Real Conclusion: The Null is plausible (p-value=.458).
Gender does not have an influence on incorrect
answers.
21. Fathom
• Failed assumption: less than 5 in 1 cell
Test of Collection 2 Goodness of Fit Test of Collection 2 Function Plot
Attribute: (categorical): Incorrect 0
0.35
Count 0.30
C 23 0.25
Incorrect
I 8 0.20
Column Summary 31 0.15
Ho: Categories of Incorrect are equally likely
Number of categories: 2 0.10
Chi-square: 7.258 0.05
DF: 1
P-value: 0.0071
0 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
chi-square
y = chiSquareDensity ( , )
x df
22. Are male or females more
likely to conform?
No
24. Participants
• Wyckoff, Scott, and Phelps Halls
• Random Sample
• People in the hallways or with open
rooms are asked if they would take the
survey
25. Materials
• Conformity Survey
• Four Levels: 1, 3, 7, or 15 social
influences
• Questions are based off of conformity
scenario with friends from college
• Questions are on scale of how likely a
person is to conform from 1 (very
unlikely) through 5 (very likely)
27. Procedure
• Ask students if they would fill out the
survey
• Read introduction script
• Allow them to fill out survey
• When they complete the survey, read
them the debriefing script
28. ANOVA
• Survey
• Population: Wyckoff, Scott, Phelps Halls
• Sample: Residents
• N=18
• Ho: There is no significant mean difference in
conformity among those with numbers of
social influences. µ1=µ3=µ7=µ15
• Ha: µ1 ≠ µ3; µ1 ≠ µ7; µ1 ≠ µ15; µ3 ≠ µ7; µ3 ≠ µ
15; µ7 ≠ µ15
29. Does a Greater Number of
Influences Make One More Likely to
Conform? IV: Influences (7 group, 3
group, 7 control group, 3
control group)
DV: Incorrect Answers
P
O
o
Conclusion: The
r null is rejected in favor of the alternative
(p-value=.000).
p There is a difference in the likelihood of
o
conformity when there are different numbers of influences.
32. Bias Reduction for Experiment
• Shield subjects from true nature of
experiment
• Confidentiality for three days
• Room obscurity/similarity
• Confederates sign permission slips as well
• Psych majors and minors are excluded
• Use of scripts
• Confederates confidentiality
33. Lurking Variables in Experiment
• Lack of random sampling
• Many people knew of Asch’s experiment
before our study
• Sample is only made up of three dorms
• Gender of confederates probably played a
role in conformity between gender
• ELIMINATED: cases with errors (i.e. answered
before confederates, etc).
34. Bias Reduction in Survey
• People are not informed of topic
before completing
• Scenarios are similar
• Use of scripts
35. Lurking Variables in Survey
• Lack of random sampling
• There may be underlying preference
for certain scenarios even without
number of social influences
• Sample is only made up of three dorms
36. Conclusions for Hope
College
There is no significant difference in social conformity
between gender among Hope students.
There is no significant difference in conformity
regarding number of social influences in real life
situations.
Hope students perceive that the presence of 7 social
influences is the optimal number (of the four
choices) of social influences for a high likelihood of
conformity.
All of this can only be attributed to Hope College.
38. What is True About Conformity?
• It exists.
• The number of influences does determine
the amount of conformity as found in other
experiments (our experiment did not back
this up however).
• Gender of social influences may play a role
on subjects depending subjects’ gender
(females influence females more and visa
versa).
• There are various types of conformity.
39. Is Conformity All Bad or Is it
Sometimes Good?
• Conformity is necessary for society to
run smoothly.
• Conformity can be negative or
positive depending on the result and
intention.
40. References
Latane, B. (1981). The Psychology of Social Impact.
American Psychologist, 36, 343-356.
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and Social
Pressure. Scientific American, 31-35.
Myers, D. G. (2009). Social Psychology (10th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 211, 215-216.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1980). Sex Differences in
Influenceability: Toward Specifying the Underlying
Processes. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 6(4), 651-656.
