The Effect of Conformity on Estimating the Number of Sweets in a Jar

Abstract:

The research was designed to test the claim by Jenness that conformity
levels increase in an ambiguous situation. The method was a Laboratory
experiment and the design was an independent measures design and the
participants were an opportunity sample of fourteen Sixth Formers
(16-17 years old). Participants in the control condition had to
individually guess the number of sweets in a jar. The average score
was relayed to the group and they were then, as the experimental
condition, asked to re-guess the number. The one tailed hypothesis was
that estimates in the experimental condition would produce estimates
closer to the group estimate.

The findings were that conformity exists in an ambiguous situation.

The data was put to the paired t test because the data was interval
and from repeated groups. The results were significant at the 0.05
level. One can conclude that ambiguity induces conformity and so the
one tailed hypothesis was accepted.

Introduction:

Much work has been undertaken in the field of conformity.

Psychologists such as Asch, Sheriff, Crutchfield and Jenness have all
conducted valuable studies which can be used as a basis for conformity
research.

Asch investigated if people yield to group pressure when the answer is

obvious. He gave participants a simple perceptual task of matching one
line with another. There was the sample line and three possible
matches. It was very obvious which line matched the sample. He then
set up the situation with confederates who on some occasions argued a
blatantly wrong answer. 32% conformed with the confederates. Asch also
found that the level of conformity was higher when the confederates
weren't too rigid. He therefore declared that a more fluid influence
is more likely to induce conformity.Ref1

Sheriff used a visual illusion, (the autokinetic effect) where a spot

seen in an otherwise dark room appears to move when in fact, it is
stationary. He then told subjects to state the direction and speed of
the "moving light". 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.

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. As all participants were in
individual 'booths', they could not discuss their answer. In fact, the
answers were wrong on approximately half the trials. He found that
invariably group answers were more extreme than individuals.

All of the above studies suggest that conformity exists due to

informational social influence. This is when an individual looks to
others to make decisions about how to behave. Someone may yield to
group pressure because others are thought to possess more knowledge.
Sometimes this conformity may be to experts, to the influence or image
of an idol or in the cases of the psychological studies, to the way
others or a group are behaving.

Jenness showed participants a jar filled with a large number of beans

and asked the participants to estimate the number present in the jar
when in fact it was very difficult. A group estimate was calculated
from the individual answers and relayed to the group. This was then
discussed. The participant's were then asked to re-view the jar and
amend their answers if they believed it appropriate. Estimates were
collected again and a second average was calculated. Jenness found
that the experimental estimates converged closer to the group estimate
showing that conformity exists in ambiguous situations. Ref3

Aims and Hypotheses

The aim of this experiment was to replicate Jenness and so see if

conformity still occurs to that level today. The alternative
hypothesis therefore formed was that estimates in the experimental
condition would produce estimates closer to the group estimate due to
ambiguity. Furthermore, it was expected that a higher level of
conformity would occur in an ambiguous situation because of
informational social influence. This is a one-tailed hypothesis.

A directional hypothesis was selected because based on background

knowledge of Jenness -as a result of conformity- the estimates in the
experimental condition will converge towards the group estimate.

The null hypothesis was that any relationship between an ambiguous

situation and participant's estimates converging towards the group
estimate is solely due to chance.

The research method selected was a laboratory experiment with a

repeated measures design. A lab experiment is where an independent
variable is manipulated while others controlled, to see effects on a
dependent variable.

The advantages of a lab experiment are as follows. It produces results

with high experimental validity- therefore, it is easy to gain the
same results if replicated. This is to do with the fact that all
variables can be strictly controlled and therefore it is easier to
comment on cause and effect. It enables the use of complex equipment
and is often cheaper and less time-consuming than other methods.
However, Lab experiments lack ecological validity-this means that it
is not true to life as it excludes variables. They are prone to demand
characteristics - participants aware of experiment, may change
behaviour and due to it being an artificial environment there is low
realism.

A repeated measures design is where the same group of people are

tested in different conditions; the same people are used repeatedly.
Advantages include that they avoid the problem of participant
variables and fewer people are needed in the experiment. However,
order effects are more likely to occur.

The study also used a single-blind design: Participants did not know
which condition (experimental or control) they were in. There is some
deception in many psychological studies to stop participants guessing
the aims and changing their behaviour.

Method:
The chosen research method for this research was a laboratory
experiment. It was conducted in a school classroom where many
confounding variables could also be controlled. It used a repeated
measures design using an opportunity sample of fourteen 16-17 year
olds from school, participating in both the control and experimental
conditions, so that each participant had to do exactly the same task.

A laboratory experiment meant that even the room had to be considered.

To eliminate confounding variables, a room with adequate lighting and
moderate temperature was to be selected. The room was free from loud
noise, which could stop concentration.

All participants were firstly shown the jar filled with roughly 1000
sweets. They were briefly shown as a group and then were only allowed
to hold the jar for 3 seconds before submitting their individual
estimate on a piece of paper. No discussion or talking was allowed.

After collecting the participants' estimates, all figures were written

in full view of the entire group and an average calculated which was
relayed to the group as a whole.

To test the experimental hypothesis, the group were then allowed to

hold the jar again for a further 3 seconds and asked again to write
down their estimate.

The results were collected and another average score was calculated
and relayed to the group.

The first set of results were the control set and the second set were
the experimental set. This was because the first set shows
individuality and the second set shows conformity if the independent
T-test is positive.

The IV was ambiguity and the DV was the participant's estimates

The group were addressed with a set of standardised instructions (see

appendix 1):

To make sure that this was a true experiment, all of the variables
must be controlled to gain accurate, unbiased results.
Some examples of variables faced, the problems linked and some
solutions are as follows.

The longer the participant looks at the jar, the more accurate their
estimates could be. To combat this, each participant was allowed to
view the jar for the same set amount of time (3 seconds).

As some people can easily guess numbers, the solution was made to use
participants of matched ability, for example those in the same class.

Triviality could cause some participants not to take give true

estimates. To combat this, participants were told that the study was
for coursework and should be taken seriously.

Due to Demand Characteristics, participants may have tried to help the

experiment by acting in the way that they believe the experimenter
wants them to. The experimenter could therefore use deception. In this
case, participants were told that it was a study on "Spacial
Awareness". However, this is an ethical issue which must also be dealt
with.

Time of day is also an important factor to consider, as at the end of

the day people can get more easily distracted than in the mornings due
to fatigue. To reduce the problems linked with this, the experiment
would be done at the same time of day if it were to be repeated.

If the participant has background knowledge of the subject, for

example studied Jenness, they might know the study so could cause
biased results. Therefore, to combat this, Psychology students were
not used in this study.

Noise can distract the participants and so cause guesses to be

inaccurate, to combat this, all outside noises were kept to a minimum.
If the study were to be repeated, the same room would be used and
therefore same noise level.

Finally, it must be clear that all participants understand the

procedure, as with a lack of understanding, the participant's estimate
could be inaccurate. As a result, Standardised instructions were used
in this study.

Ethical Issues
By debriefing, the issue of confidentiality, deception and informed
consent were addressed and if the participant, decided that they were
uncomfortable with the outcome of their taking part, their results
were removed. In fact, no one took advantage of this offer. (See
appendix 2)

The volunteers were told of their right to withdraw from the

experiments at any time. This was to hopefully prevent any
psychological harm linked to the experiment

The data then was tested using the paired t test and the significance
level tested to the 0.05 level.

Results:

The data was collected by asking the participants to write their

answers on a piece of paper. These were then collected and the average
was relayed to the group. (See appendix 3)

It was Interval data because it was data with equal units of

measurement throughout the scale but without a true zero.

The mean was chosen as the measure of central tendency. This is done
by dividing the total of participants scores by the number of
participants.

The advantage of using the mean is that it is a sensitive measure of

central tendency, however, if there are one or more extreme scores,
the mean can be changed dramatically and therefore be misleading in a
study. To combat this, often the most extreme scores at each side are
neglected and the mean is then calculated.

A repeated measures design was used so that the participants aren't

exposed to practice effects, which could make the study biased.
However, this can mean that the group are all of the same ability so
the study does not have external validity.

The Independent t test was used because it analyses agroup of results

to determine if a significance difference exists between the means of
two sets of data. If a difference is detected, it means that there is
either positive or negative conformity. A score of 0 means that there
is no conformity whatsoever. The results are as follows:

13 degrees of freedom had a 1.1771 level of significance and T had a

value of 1.177.

The data was tested at the 0.05 level (see appendix 4)

This shows that conformity to the majority was not high, but still
existed in the experiment this therefore means that the original
hypothesis is maintained and the Null Hypothesis is rejected

Another point to mention is that even though the level of conformity

to the norm was low, every participant changed his or her guess.

Discussion:

Explanation of Findings

The research was designed to test the claim by Jenness that conformity
levels increase in an ambiguous situation. The one tailed hypothesis
was that estimates in the experimental condition would produce
estimates closer to the group estimate. The null hypothesis was that
any relationship between an ambiguous situation and participant's
estimates converging towards the group estimate is solely due to
chance.

The findings were that conformity does indeed exist in an ambiguous

situation and therefore the experimental hypothesis was accepted and
the null hypothesis rejected.

The results gained in this experiment are not as conclusive as those

found by Jenness, however, factors such as the era in which he
performed the study could provide a partial explanation. During the
1930's, people were encouraged to conform, whereas nowadays,
individualism is embraced. This could therefore easily affect the
participant's behaviour and could not be controlled by the
experimenter.

Although the t-test did not prove to be as definite as the findings of

Jenness, it is interesting to note that all participants except for
one changed their estimate. (See appendix 5)
Relating the study to Jenness

Although a level of conformity existed the study, it was nowhere near

the level experienced by Jenness in 1932. He found there was a large
shift from the student's original estimate, towards the group estimate
on their second individual guess. This study was seemingly quite
decisive, but because Jenness instructed the students to make a group
estimate, obedience could have been a factor in the students 'new'
estimates. The study can also be linked to Crutchfield in that the
group estimates were different to individual estimates. This study is
linked again to Jenness and Crutchfield in that people are conforming
due to Informational Social Influence- this is because as a result of
the ambiguity in the situation, participants may feel that the group
are more knowledgeable in this area so conform as they themselves have
no fixed idea.Ref4

Limitations and Modifications

It could be said that the experiment lacked external validity as it

used a group of 16 year olds from privileged backgrounds. It therefore
is not representative of all 16 year olds and certainly not of the
whole population. As the task was fairly trivial, perhaps the
participants did not pay full attention to it. Another problem faced
was that it was difficult to control the length of time in which a
participant held the jar.

By using the set of standardised instructions before conducting the

study, issues such as right to withdraw and informed consent have been
eliminated. However, by hiding the true reasoning behind the study,
this is deception which could possibly lead to psychological harm,
which should be avoided wherever possible. However, it hopefully
eliminates demand characteristics. Background knowledge could have
produced biased results, therefore Psychology Students were not used
as participants to reduce this problem.

Implications and Suggestions for Further Research

If the study was to be repeated, a bigger group of participants could

be used to give a more accurate average, and to improve further,
different groups of participants could be selected. For example,
testing different age groups, e.g, 16 year olds as in the study,
middle-aged men and women, and possibly even the elderly. This could
also be used to test whether conformity in an ambiguous situation was
more common in men or women of each age group. This would create a
more detailed picture of conformity.

To rectify the idea that the study did not relate to all of the
population, it could be replicated in different situations using
different age groups.

To make it less trivial, the jar could be filled with money and it
could be turned into a game for example, whoever guesses the closest
would win the jar. Finally, during the task, there could have been a
fixed set of verbal prompts to prevent the participants from being
distracted. This could also help with reiterating that fact that each
participant had to hold the jar for 3 seconds.

Another idea for the study could be that it could be tested whether or
not conformity to the minority existed in an ambiguous situation by
trying to get the participants to guess far higher the second time
with the use of verbal prompts from the investigator.

References:

1. Asch, S.E. (1951) Effects of group pressure on the modification

and distortion of judgements. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.) Groups
leadership and men. Pittsburg, PA: Carnegie

Asch, S.E. (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American,

193, 31-35

Asch, S.E. (1956) Studies of independence and conformity: A minority

of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70
(Whole no. 416)

2. Sheriff, M (1966) Group conflict and co-operation: their social

psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul

Sherrif, M (1935). A study of some factors in perception. Archives of

Psychology, 27, 187

3. Jenness, A (1932). The role of discussion in changing opinion

regarding matter of fact. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 27, 279-296
Appendix:

Appendix 1

Standardised instructions

I am a student in the Sixth Form and would like to conduct a study on

Spatial Awareness. I would just like to make it clear that you have
the right to leave at any time if you so wish. Firstly, I am going to
pass a jar full of sweets around the room. Can I ask you to only look
at them for a few seconds? I am then going to ask you to write your
estimates on a piece of paper. We will then discuss the results. May I
just ask if anyone has any problems with consenting to this study?"

Appendix 2

Debriefing

"Thank you for your co operation with the experiment. To gain more
accurate results, the true reasoning behind the study was hidden from
you. It was actually a study to see whether you would change your
estimates because it is an ambiguous situation. The level of
conformity present in these results is perfectly normal so please do
not feel embarrassed of yourself. Please tell me if you would not like
your results to be published."

Appendix 3

Raw Data

Participant no

First guess

Second guess

562
431

870

400

500

853

560

1543

530

874

372

570

597

401

222
420

530

390

10

400

400

11

186

716

12

278

530

13

600

365

14

500

450

Average

479
595

Appendix 4

t-test (Paired samples)

t= 1.1771 with 13 degrees of freedom

Control Group Experimental Group

Mean 479.1 595.9
Variance 31613 103827
No of participants 14 14

Appendix 5

[IMAGE]