Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Age, Sex, And Task Difficulty As Predictors Of Social Conformity: A Search For General Tendencies Of Conformity Behavior
(USC Thesis Other)
Age, Sex, And Task Difficulty As Predictors Of Social Conformity: A Search For General Tendencies Of Conformity Behavior
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
AGE, SEX, AND TASK DIFFICULTY AS PREDICTORS OF
SOCIAL CONFORMITY: A SEARCH FOR GENERAL
TENDENCIES OF CONFORMITY BEHAVIOR
Ronald Lawrence Klein
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Psychology)
August 1971
72-6077
KLEIN, Ronald Lawrence, 1946-
AGE, SEX, AND TASK DIFFICULTY AS PREDICTORS OF
SOCIAL CONFORMITY: A SEARCH FOR GENERAL
TENDENCIES OF CONFORMITY BEHAVIOR.
University of Southern California, Ph.D.,
1971
Psychology, general
University Microfilms, A XERQXCompany, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Copyright by
RONALD LAWRENCE KLEIN
1971
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N C A L IFO R N IA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, w ritten by
.........
under the direction of h .. D i ss er t a ti o n C om
mittee, and a p p ro ved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by T he G radu
ate School, in partial fulfillm ent of require
ments of the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Date... September. 1971...
1SERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairman
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to the mem
bers of my dissertation committee, Dr, James Birren,
Dr, Norman Cliff and Dr, Vern Bengtson for their valuable
assistance in the preparation of this dissertation and for
their advice and guidance during my academic career at the
University of Southern California.
I am especially indebted to Dr. James Birren, under
whom this investigation was begun. He provided that
indefinable support indispensable at the outset of one's
research endeavors.
I also wish to thank Dr. Jacek Szafran, who along
with Dr. Birren, has influenced my thinking, research
interest and the carrying through of the present undertak
ing.
I wish to extend my gratitude to Dr. Nick Pappas,
and to my cousin, Gary Klein, for assisting in the prepara
tion of some of the stimulus material.
To Dean Leroy Hixson and Mr. Joseph Gunn, of the
Institute of Lifetime Learning, a special thanks for allow
ing me to use their facilities and for providing subjects.
This research was conducted while I was a N.I.C.H.D.
(HD 00157-0*0 trainee in Psychology at the Gerontology
Center of the University of Southern California. I would
like to extend my appreciation to the Gerontology Center
and its personnel, especially Mrs. Eleanor James,
Miss Gloria Haether, and Mrs. Eileen Salter, for the excep
tional support and services provided.
I would also like to acknowledge the National
Science Foundation who awarded me a grant to support my
dissertation research.
My veiy special appreciation goes to my wife for her
assistance through editorial criticism and especially for
her understanding and patience during my graduate career.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents,
Mr, and Mrs. Alex Klein, for their encouragement, under
standing and assistance throughout my graduate training
and life.
ii
TABLE OP CONTENTS
!LIST OP TABLES ..............................
: LIST OF FIGURES...........................
|DISSERTATION ABSTRACT ......................
i Chapter
! I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION................
j Movement vs. Congruence Conformity
j Normative vs. Informational
! Social Influence............ . .
j Desirability vs. Undesirability
of Conformity .... ........
| Historical Landmarks in the Area
of Social Conformity ..........
The Present Investigation ....
The Generality of Conformity
Behavior ......................
! Age and Conformity ..............
i Sex and Conformity ..............
Task Difficulty and Conformity . .
Nature of the Experimental Task .
hypotheses ......................
Compliance vs. Private Acceptance
II. GENERAL METHOD . .........
Subjects ........................
Conformity Apparatus ............
General Procedure ..............
General Data Analysis ..........
III. EXPERIMENT I ........................
PROCEDURES ........................
Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Analysis..................
RESULTS ..........................
Page
vi
xxi
xxx
1
2
4
6
8
15
19
25
51
56
62
64
65
75
75
74-
78
83
86
87
88
91
92
(Chapter
I
| IV. EXPERIMENT II
I PROCEDURES .
Method . . . .
Data Analysis
RESULTS . .
V. EXPERIMENT III
PROCEDURES .
Method . . . .
Data Analysis
RESULTS . .
VI. EXPERIMENT IV
PROCEDURES .
Method . . . .
Data Analysis
RESULTS .
| VII. EXPERIMENT V
I PROCEDURES
Method . . . .
Data Analysis
RESULTS * . .
VIII. GENERAL RESULTS
A g e ......................
S e x ......................
Task Difficulty ..........
Nature of the Task ........
Other Significant Effects
Postexperiment Questionnaire
IX. DISCUSSION
Age .
xv
J Chapter Page
I S e x ................................ 270
Task Difficulty.................... 272
Nature of the Task.................. 273
Extremeness of the N o r m ............. 275
| General Tendency vs. Trait............ 277
| Future Research..................... 279
| Ethical Concerns .................... 284
I X. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.................. 286
i
: APPENDIX........................................ 293
I BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................... 524
LIST OP TABLES
Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for Compliance Experiment I .
Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for the Pirst Test of Private
Acceptance Experiment I ..........
Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for the Second Test of Private
Acceptance Experiment I ............
Experiment I Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) of Old and Young Subjects
(Combining the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty). P Value for Main Effect
of Age (Taken from Analysis of
Variance— Table 1) ..................
Experiment I Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Old and
Young Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). P Value
for Main Effect of Age (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 2) . . . .
Experiment I Mean Conformity Scores (2nd
Private Acceptance) of Old and Young
Subjects (Combining the Three Levels
of Task Difficulty). P Value for
Main Effect of Age (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 3) . . . .
Experiment I Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) of Male and Pemale
Subjects (Combining the Three Levels
of Task Difficulty). P Value for
Main Effect of Sex (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— -Table 1) . . .
Experiment I Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Male and
Pemale Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). P Value
for Main Effect of Sex (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 2) . . .
Table
9. Experiment I Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of Male and
Female Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). F Value
for Main Effect of Sex (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 3) ........
10. Experiment I Mean Conformity Scores
TCoinpliance) of Subjects for the
Three Levels of Task Difficulty
(Combining Age and Sex). F Value
for Main Effect of Task Difficulty
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 1) ....... ................
11. Experiment I Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Subjects
for the Three Levels of Task Difficulty
(Combining Age and Sex). F Value for
Main Effect of Task Difficulty (Taken
from Analysis of Variance— Table 2) . . .
12. Experiment I Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of Subjects
for the Three Levels of Task Difficulty
(Combining Age and Sex). F Value for
Main Effect of Task Difficulty (Taken
from Analysis of Variance— Table 3) • • •
13. Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for Compliance Experiment II . . .
14. Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for the First Test of Private
Acceptance Experiment II ..............
15. Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for the Second Test of Private
Acceptance Experiment II ..............
16. Experiment II Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) of Old and Young Subjects
(Combining the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty). F Value for Main Effect
of Age (Taken from Analysis of
Variance— Table 13) ....................
Page
102
104
105
106
116
117
118
119
vii
Table
Page
17. Experiment II Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Old and
Young Subjects (Combining tbe Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). P Value
for Main Effect of Age (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 14)........ 120
18. Experiment II Mean Conformity Scores
j (2d Private Acceptance) of Old and
Young Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). P Value
for Main Effect of Age (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 15)........ 121
19• Experiment II Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) of Male and Pemale
Subjects (Combining the Three Levels
of Task Difficulty). P Value for Main
Effect of Sex (Taken from Analysis of
Variance— Table 13).................... 123
20. Experiment II Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Male and
Pemale Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). P Value
for Main Effect of Sex (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 14)..... 124
21. Experiment II Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of Male and
Pemale Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). P Value
for Main Effect of Sex (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 15)........ 125
22. eriment II Mean Conformity Scores
Compliance) of Subjects for the
Three Levels of Task Difficulty
(Combining Age and Sex). P Value
for Main Effect of Task Difficulty
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 13) 127
viii
Table Page
23. Experiment II Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Subjects
for tbe Three Levels of Task
Difficulty (Combining Age and
Sex). P Value for Main Effect
of Task Difficulty (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 14)........ 126
24. Experiment II Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of Subjects
for the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty (Combining Age and
Sex). E Value for Main Effect
of Task Difficulty (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 15)........ 129
25* Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for Compliance Experiment III ... 141
26. Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for the Pirst Test of Private
Acceptance Experiment III...... 142
27. Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for the Second Test of
Private Acceptance Experiment III .... 143
28. Experiment III Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) of Old and Young Subjects
(Combining the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty). P Value for Main Effect
of Age (Taken from Analysis of
Variance— Table 25)............ 144
29. Experiment III Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Old and
Young Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). P Value
for Main Effect of Age (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 26)........ 145
30. Experiment III Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of Old and
Young Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). P Value
for Main Effect of Age (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 27)........ 146
ix
Table
31. Experiment III Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) of Male and Female
Subjects (Combining the Three Levels
of Task Difficulty). F Value for
Main Effect of Sex (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 25) . . . . .
32. Experiment III Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Male
and Female Subjects (Combining the
Three Levels of Task Difficulty).
F Value for Main Effect of Sex
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 26) ..............................
33. Experiment III Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of Male
and Female Subjects (Combining the
Three Levels of Task Difficulty).
F Value for Main Effect of Sex
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 27) ..............................
34. Experiment III Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) of Subjects for the
Three Levels of Task Difficulty
(Combining Age and Sex). F Value
for Main Effect of Task Difficulty
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 25) ..............................
35• Experiment III Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Subjects
for the Three Levels of Task Difficulty
(Combining Age and Sex). F Value for
Main Effect of Task Difficulty (Taken
from Analysis of Variance— Table 26) . .
36. Experiment III Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of Subjects
for the Three Levels of Task Difficulty
(Combining Age and Sex). F Value for
Main Effect of Task Difficulty (Taken
from Analysis of Variance— Table 27) . .
37• Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for Compliance Experiment IV . . .
Page
148
149
150
152
154
165
x
Table Page
58. Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for the Pirst Test of Private
Acceptance Experiment IV ............. 166
59. Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for the Second Test of
Private Acceptance Experiment IV ... . 167
4-0. Experiment XV Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) of Old and Young Subjects
(Combining the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty). P Value for Main Effect
of Age (Taken from Analysis of
Variance— Table 37)....................... 168
4-1. Experiment IV Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Old and
Young Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). P Value
for Main Effect of Age (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 38)........ 169
4-2. Experiment IV Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of Old and
Young Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). P Value
for Main Effect of Age (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 39) ..... 170
4-3. Experiment IV Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) of Male and Pemale
Subjects (Combining the Three Levels
of Task Difficulty). P Value for
Main Effect of Sex (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 37)........ 173
44. Experiment IV Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Male
and Pemale Subjects (Combining the
Three Levels of Task Difficulty).
P Value for Main Effect of Sex
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 38).............................. 174
xi
Table
4-5-
4-6.
4-7.
4-8.
4-9.
50.
51.
52.
Page
Experiment IV Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of Male and
Pemale Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). F Value
for Main Effect of Sex (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 59) • • • * • 175
Experiment IV Mean Conformity Scores
((Compliance) of Subjects for the
Three Levels of Task Difficulty
(Combining Age and Sex). P Value
for Main Effect of Task Difficulty
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 37).............................. 176
Experiment IV Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Subjects
for the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty (Combining Age and Sex).
P Value for Main Effect of Task
Difficulty (Taken from Analysis
of Variance— Table 3 8 ) ................ 177
Experiment IV Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of Subject
for the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty (Combining Age and Sex).
F Value for Main Effect of Task
Difficulty (Taken from Analysis of
Variance— Table 39).................... 178
Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for Compliance Experiment V . . . . 190
Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for the First Test of Private
Acceptance Experiment V ................ 191
Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for the Second Test of Private
Acceptance Experiment V ................ 191
Experiment V Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) of Old and Young
Subjects (Combining the Three Levels
of Task Difficulty). F Value for
Main Effect of Age (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 49)........ 195
X I 1
Table Page
53. Experiment V Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Old and
Young Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). P Value
for Main Effect of Age (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 50)........ 194
54. Experiment V Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of Old and
Young Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). F Value
for Main Effect of Age (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 51)....... 195
55* Experiment V Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) of Male and Female
Subjects (Combining the Three Levels
of Task Difficulty). F Value for
Main Effect of Sex (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 49)....... 197
56. Experiment V Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of Male
and Female Subjects (Combining the
Three Levels of Task Difficulty).
F Value for Main Effect of Sex
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 50).............................. 198
57* Experiment V Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of Male and
Female Subjects (Combining the Three
Levels of Task Difficulty). F Value
for Main Effect of Sex (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 51) .... 199
58. Experiment V Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) of Subjects for the
Three Levels of Task Difficulty
(Combining Age and Sex). F Value
for Main Effect of Task Difficulty
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 49).............................. 201
xiii
Table
59.
60.
!
I
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Experiment V Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) of
Subjects for the Three Levels of
Task Difficulty (Combining Age and
Sex). F Value for Main Effect of
Task Difficulty (Taken from Analysis
of Variance— Table 50) ................
Experiment V Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) of
Subjects for the Three Levels of
Task Difficulty (Combining Age and
Sex). P Value for Main Effect of
Task Difficulty (Taken from Analysis
of Variance— Table 51) .... ........
Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for Compliance Combined
Analysis ..............................
Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for the Pirst Test of Private
Acceptance Combined Analysis ..........
Complete Analysis of Variance Summary
Table for the Second Test of Private
Acceptance Combined Analysis ..........
Mean Conformity Scores (Compliance)
of Old and Young Subjects (Averaged
over the Pive Experimental Tasks).
P Value for Main Effect of Age
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 61)..............................
Mean Conformity Scores (1st Private
Acceptance) of Old and Young Subjects
(Averaged over the Five Experimental
Tasks). P Value for Main Effect of
Age (Taken from Analysis of
Variance— Table 62) ....................
Mean Conformity Scores (2d Private
Acceptance) of Old and Young Subjects
(Averaged over the Pive Experimental
Tasks). F Value for Main Effect of
Age (Taken from Analysis of
Variance— Table 63) ....................
Page
202
203
20?
208
209
211
212
213
xiv
Table Page
67. Mean Conformity Scores (Compliance) of
Young and Old Subjects for Each of the
Pive Experiments. P Values for Main
Effect of Age (Taken from Separate
Analysis of Variance Analyses) ........ 214
68. Mean Conformity Scores (1st Private
Acceptance) of Young and Old Subjects
for Each of the Five Experiments.
P Values for Main Effect of Age
(Taken from Separate Analysis of
Variance Analyses) .............. ... 215
69. Mean Conformity Scores (2d Private
Acceptance) of Young and Old Subjects
for Each of the Pive Experiments.
P Values for Main Effect of Age
(Taken from Separate Analysis of
Variance Analyses) .................... 216
70. Mean Conformity Scores (Compliance)
of Male and Female Subjects (Averaged
Over the Pive Experimental Tasks).
P Value for Main Effect of Sex
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 61).............................. 220
71. Mean Conformity Scores (1st Private
Acceptance) of Male and Pemale
Subjects (Averaged Over the Pive
Experimental Tasks). F Value for
Main Effect of Sex (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 62)........ 221
72. Mean Conformity Scores (2d Private
Acceptance) of Male and Pemale
Subjects (Averaged Over the Pive
Experimental Tasks). F Value for
Main Effect of Sex (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 65) ........
73. Mean Conformity Scores (Compliance)
of Male and Pemale Subjects for
Each of the Pive Experiments.
P Values for Main Effect of Sex
(Taken from Separate Analysis of
Variance Analyses) .................... 225
xv
Table
Page
74-. Mean Conformity Scores (1st Private
Acceptance) of Male and Pemale
Subjects for Each of the Pive
Experiments. P Values for Main
Effect of Sex (Taken from Separate
Analysis of Variance Analyses)........ 224-
75* Mean Conformity Scores (2d Private
Acceptance) of Male and Pemale
Subjects for Each of the Pive
Experiments. P Values for Main
Effect of Sex (Taken from Separate
Analysis of Variance Analyses) ....... 225
76. Mean Conformity Scores (Compliance)
of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty (Averaged Over the Pive
Experimental Tasks). P Value for
Main Effect of Task Difficulty
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 61).............................. 228
77. Mean Conformity Scores (1st Private
Acceptance) of the Three Levels of
Task Difficulty (Averaged Over the
Pive Experimental Tasks). P Value
for Main Effect of Task Difficulty
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 62).............................. 229
78. Mean Conformity Scores (2d Private
Acceptance) of the Three Levels of
Task Difficulty (Averaged Over the
Pive Experimental Tasks). P Value
for Main Effect of Task Difficulty
(Taken from Analysis of Variance—
Table 65).............................. 230
79. Comparison between Levels of Task
Difficulty on the Combined Data
of the Pive Experiments................ 232
80. Mean Conformity Scores (Compliance)
of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty for Each of the Five
Experiments. P Values for Main
Effect of Task Difficulty (Taken
from Separate Analysis of Variance
Analyses).............................. 234-
xvi
Table
81. Mean Conformity Scores (1st Private
Acceptance) of the Three Levels of
Task Difficulty for Each of the Five
Experiments. F Values for Main
Effect of Task Difficulty (Taken
from the Separate Analysis of
Variance Analyses) ....................
82. Mean Conformity Scores (2d Private
Acceptance) of the Three Levels of
Task Difficulty for Each of the Five
Experiments. F Values for Main
Effect of Task Difficulty (Taken
from the Separate Analysis of
Variance Analyses) ....................
83. Summary Table of the Comparisons
between the Levels of Task Difficulty
Made in Experiments I— V ..............
84. Mean Conformity Scores (Compliance)
of the Five Experimental Tasks
(Averaged over Age, Sex and Task
Difficulty). F Value for Main Effect
of Experimental Task (Taken from
Analysis of Variance— Table 61) ........
85. Mean Conformity Scores (1st Private
Acceptance) of the Five Experimental
Tasks (Averaged over Age, Sex and
Task Difficulty). F Value for Main
Effect of Experimental Task (Taken
from Analysis of Variance— Table 62) . .
86. Mean Conformity Scores (2d Private
Acceptance) of the Five Experimental
Tasks (Averaged over Age, Sex and
Task Difficulty). F Value for Main
Effect of Experimental Task (Taken
from Analysis of Variance— Table 63) . .
87* Comparisons between Experimental
Tasks ..................................
88. Eesponses Given in the Post experiment
Questionnaire Data Combined from the
Five Experiments ......................
Page
236
237
239
241
242
243
246
250
jxyii.
Table
Page
89- Conditions of Visual Perceptual
Judgment Task— Experiment I ............ 298
90. Conditions of the Auditory
Judgment Task— Experiment I I .......... 300
91. Conditions of the Auditory
Detection Task— Experiment I I I ........ 301
92. Conditions of the Problem Solving
Task (for the Young Subjects)
— Experiment I V ........................ 302
93* Conditions of the Problem Solving
Task (for the Old Subjects)
— Experiment IV... .................. 303
94. Conditions of the Social Attitude
Task (for the Young Subjects)
— Experiment V ........................ 307
95• Conditions of the Social Attitude
Task (for the Old Subjects)
— Experiment V ................
96. Experiment I Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) for the Young, Old,
Male, and Female Subjects at Each
of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty. (Scores at Each Level
of Difficulty Could Eange from
0 to 8.) .... ..............
97. Experiment I Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) for the
Young, Old, Male and Female Subjects
at Each of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty. (Scores at Each Level
of Difficulty Could Eange from
0 to 8 . ) .............................. 310
98. Experiment I Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) for the
Young, Old, Male and Female Subjects
at Each of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty. (Scores at Each Level
of Difficulty Could Eange from
0 to 8 . ) ....................... 311
308
309
xviii
Table
99-
100.
101.
102.
105.
104.
Page
Experiment II Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) for the Young, Old,
Male and Pemale Subjects at Each
of the Three Levels of Task Difficulty.
(Scores at Each Level of Difficulty
Could Eange from 0 to 8.).............. 512
Experiment II Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) for the
Young, Old, Male and Pemale Subjects
at Each of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty. (Scores at Each Level
of Difficulty Could Eange from
0 to 8 . ) .............................. 513
Experiment II Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) for the
Young, Old, Male and Pemale Subjects
at Each of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty. (Scores at Each Level
of Difficulty Could Eange from
0 to 8 . ) .............................. 514-
Experiment III Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) for the Young, Old,
Male and Pemale Subjects at Each
of the Three Levels of Task Difficulty.
(Scores at Each Level of Difficulty
Could Eange from 0 to 8.).............. 515
Experiment III Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) for the
Young, Old, Male and Pemale Subjects
at Each of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty. (Scores at Each Level of
Difficulty Could Eange from 0 to 8.) . . 516
Experiment III Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) for the
Young, Old, Male and Pemale Subjects
at Each of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty. (Scores at Each Level
of Difficulty Could Eange from
0 to 8.) 517
xix
Table Page
105-
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
Experiment IV Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) for the Young, Old,
Male and Female Subjects at Each of
the Three Levels of Task Difficulty.
(Scores at Each Level of Difficulty
Could Eange from 0 to 8.)............. 318
Experiment IV Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) for the
Young, Old, Male and Female Subjects
at Each of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty. (Scores at Each Level
of Difficulty Could Eange from
0 to 8 . ) .............................. 319
Experiment IV Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) for the
Young, Old, Male and Female Subjects
at Each of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty. (Scores at Each Level
of Difficulty Could Eange from
0 to 8 . ) .............................. 320
Experiment V Mean Conformity Scores
(Compliance) for the Young, Old,
Male and Female Subjects at Each
of the Three Levels of Task Difficulty.
(Scores at Each Level of Difficulty
Could Eange from 0 to 8.).............. 321
Experiment V Mean Conformity Scores
(1st Private Acceptance) for the
Young, Old, Male and Female Subjects
at Each of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty. (Scores at Each Level
of Difficulty Could Eange from
0 to 8 . ) .............................. 322
Experiment V Mean Conformity Scores
(2d Private Acceptance) for the
Young, Old, Male and Female Subjects
at Each of the Three Levels of Task
Difficulty. (Scores at Each Level
of Difficulty Could Eange from
0 to 8 . ) .............................. 323
xx
LIST OP PIGUEES
Pigure
1.
2.
3.
4-.
5.
6.
Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of young and old subjects (combining
the three levels of task difficulty)
for Experiment I. Eange of scores
also indicated.........................
Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of young and old subjects
(combining the three levels of
task difficulty) for Experiment I.
Eange of scores also indicated.........
Mean conformity scores (2nd private
acceptance) of young and old subjects
(combining the three levels of task
difficulty) for Experiment I. Eange
of scores also indicated...............
Mean conformity scores (compliance) of
male and female subjects (combining
the three levels of task difficulty)
for Experiment I. Eange of scores
also indicated.........................
Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment I.
Eange of scores also indicated.........
Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment I.
Eange of scores also indicated.........
Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of subjects for the three levels
of task difficulty (combining age
and sex) for Experiment I. Eange
of scores also indicated...............
xxi
Page
96
97
98
100
101
102
104-
j Figure Page
! 8. Mean conformity scores (1st private
! acceptance) of subjects for the
three levels of task difficulty
I (combining age and sex) for
j Experiment I. Eange of scores
also indicated......................... 105
9* Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of subjects for the
three levels of task difficulty
(combining age and sex) for
Experiment I. Eange of scores
also indicated......................... 106
10. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of young and old subjects !
(combining the three levels of i
task difficulty) for Experiment II. |
Eange of scores also.indicated......... 119 !
11. Mean conformity scores (1st private j
acceptance) of young and old subjects j
(combining the three levels of task j
difficulty) for Experiment II. j
Eange of scores also.indicated........ 120 j
12. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of young and old subjects
(combining the three levels of task
difficulty) for Experiment II.
Eange of scores also indicated......... 121
13. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of male and female subjects
(combining the three levels of
task difficulty) for Experiment II.
Eange of scores also indicated......... 123
14. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects (combining the three
levels of task difficulty) for
Experiment II. Eange of scores
also indicated.............. 124
15. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment II.
Eange of scores also indicated......... 125
xxii
i
j Figure Page
! 16. Mean conformity scores (compliance
< of subjects for tbe three levels
of task difficulty (combining age
and sex) for Experiment II. Eange
of scores also indicated............... 127
!
17. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of subjects for the
three levels of task difficulty
(combining age and sex) for
Experiment II. Eange of scores
also indicated......................... 128
18. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of subjects for the three
levels of task difficulty (combining
age and sex) for Experiment II. j
Eange of scores also indicated........ 129 j
19. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of young and old subjects (combining
the three levels of task difficulty) !
for Experiment III. Eange of scores j
also indicated......................... 144 j
20. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of young and old subjects
(combining the three levels of task
difficulty) for Experiment III.
Eange of scores also indicated......... 145
21. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of young and old subjects
(combining the three levels of task
difficulty) for Experiment III.
Eange of scores also indicated......... 146
22. Mean conformity scores (compliance) of
male and female subjects (combining
the three levels of task difficulty)
for Experiment III. Eange of scores
also indicated......................... 148
25. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of male and female subjects
(combining the three levels of task
difficulty) for Experiment III.
Eange of scores also indicated......... 149
x x m
Figure Page
24. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty; for Experiment III.
Range of scores also indicated............ 150
25. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of subjects for the three levels
of task difficulty (combining
age and sex) for Experiment III.
Range of scores also indicated............ 152
26. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of subjects for the
three levels of task difficulty
(combining age and sex) for
Experiment III. Range of scores
also indicated......................... 155
27. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of subjects for the three
levels of task difficulty (combining
age and sex) for Experiment III.
Range of scores also indicated........ 154
28. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of young and old subjects (combining
the three levels of task difficulty)
for Experiment IV. Range of scores
also indicated......................... 168
29. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of young and old
subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment IV.
Range of scores also indicated......... 169
30. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of young and old
subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment IV.
Range of scores also indicated......... 170
31. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of male and female subjects
(combining the three levels of
task difficulty) for Experiment IV.
Range of scores also indicated......... 173
xxiv
Figure Page
32. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment IV.
Range of scores also indicated......... 174
33. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment IV.
Range of scores also indicated......... 175
34. Mean conformity scores (compliance) of
subjects for the three levels of
task difficulty (combining age and
sex) for Experiment IV. Range of
scores also indicated.................. 176
35* Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of subjects for the
three levels of task difficulty
(combining age and sex) for
Experiment IV. Range of scores
also indicated......................... 177
36. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of subjects for the
three levels of task difficulty
(combining age and sex) for
Experiment IV. Range of scores
also indicated......................... 178
37- Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of young and old subjects (combining
the three levels of task difficulty)
for Experiment V. Range of scores
also indicated......................... 193
38. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of young and old subjects
(combining the three levels of task
difficulty) for Experiment V.
Range of scores also indicated......... 194
39. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of young and old subjects
(combining the three levels of task
difficulty) for Experiment V.
Range of scores also indicated......... 195
xxv
Figure
4-0. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of male and female subjects (combining
the three levels of task difficulty)
for Experiment V. Bange of scores
also indicated.......................
41. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment V.
Bange of scores also indicated. . .
42. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment V.
Bange of scores also indicated. . .
43. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of subjects for the three levels
of task difficulty (combining age
and sex;) for Experiment V. Bange of
scores also indicated..............
44. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of subjects for the
three levels of task difficulty
(combining age and sex) for
Experiment V. Bange of scores
also indicated...................
45. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of subjects for the
three levels of task difficulty
(combining age and sex) for
Experiment Y. Bange of scores
also indicated.................
46. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of young and old subjects (averaged
over the five experimental tasks).
Bange of scores also indicated. . . .
47. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of young and old subjects
(averaged over the five experimental
tasks). Bange of scores also
indicated............................
Page
197
198
!
i
i
i
199 i
i
201
202
203
211
212
xxvi
I Figure Page
i
j 4-8. Mean conformity scores (2d private
j acceptance) of young and old
subjects (averaged over the five
j experimental tasks). Range of
1 scores also indicated.................. 213
! 4-9. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
j of young and old subjects for
j each of the five experiments........... 214-
I 50. Mean conformity scores (1st private
| acceptance) of young and old
j subjects for each of the five
! experiments............................ 214-
51. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of young and old
subjects for each of the five
experiments............................ 215
52. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of male and female subjects (averaged
over the five experimental tasks).
Range of scores also indicated......... 220
53. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects (averaged over the five
experimental tasks). Range of
scores also indicated.................. 221
54-. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects (averaged over the five
experimental tasks). Range of
scores also indicated..................
55. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of male and female subjects for
each of the five experiments.......... 223
56. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects for each of the five
experiments............................ 224-
57. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of male and female
subjects for each of the five
experiments............................ 225
xxvii
Figure Page
58. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of the three levels of task difficulty
(averaged over the five experimental
tasks). Range of scores also
indicated................................ 228
59* Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of the three levels of
task difficulty (averaged over the
five experimental tasks). Eange of
scores also indicated..................... 229
60. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of the three levels of
task difficulty (averaged over the
five experimental tasks). Range of
scores also indicated.................. 230
61. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of the three levels of task
difficulty for each of the
five experiments. .................... 234-
62. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of the three levels of
task difficulty for each of the
five experiments....................... 236
63- Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of the three levels of
task difficulty for each of the
five experiments.............. 237
64-. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of the five experimental tasks
(averaged over age, sex, and
task difficulty). Range of scores
also..indicated....................... 24-1
65* Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of the five experimental
tasks (averaged over age, sex, and
task difficulty). Range of scores
also..indicated....................... 24-2
66. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of the five experimental
tasks (averaged over age, sex, and
task difficulty). Range of scores
also indicated....................... 24-3
__________ xxviii_____________________
Figure Page
67. Equipment Set-Up Used in Making
Auditory Stimulus— Experiment III .... 299
xxix
DISSERTATION ABSTRACT
AGE, SEX, AND TASK DIPPICULTY AS PREDICTORS OP
SOCIAL CONPORMITY: A SEARCH POR GENERAL
TENDENCIES OP CONPORMITY BEHAVIOR
Many studies within the past several decades have
considered various aspects of social conformity* However,
there has been a dearth of research dealing specifically
with age differences in social conformity. The relation
ship between age and conformity is an important social
issue that deserves empirical investigation. One recent
investigation indicated that older individuals were more
conforming than younger individuals on a task of visual
perceptual judgment. The present investigation was pri
marily concerned with determining if there is a "general
tendency" for older individuals to be more conforming than
younger individuals regardless of the experimental task.
As a secondary concern, this investigation attempted to
determine if the degree of expressed conformity varies due
to the nature of the experimental task. In order to answer
these questions, five different conformity experiments were
conducted on a variety of experimental tasks.
Sixty young subjects (Ss) (17-2N-) were compared to
sixty old Ss (60-81) regarding susceptibility to social
xxx
influence. There were -twenty-four Ss in each of the five
conformity experiments. The Ss in each of the experiments
were subjected to contrived group pressures toward erro
neous judgments or opinions. Experiments I through V were
all concerned with age, sex and task difficulty as predic
tors of social conformity. The following represent the
five conformity experiments and the task performed in each:
Experiment (I) Visual perceptual judgment task— S's task
was to judge which of two circular discs was largest;
Experiment (II) Auditory perceptual judgment task— S's
task was to judge the number of metronome clicks heard;
Experiment (III) Auditory signal detection task— S's task
was to report whether he heard a pure tone plus noise or
noise alone in his right ear, while sometimes receiving
information in his left ear; Experiment (IV) Problem solv
ing task— S's task was to solve one-operation arithmetic
problems; Experiment (V) Social attitudes task— S's task
was to rate statements on nationalism as to whether he
agreed or disagreed with them.
The five experiments followed an identical research
design, which provided measures of both compliance and pri
vate acceptance as two distinct measures of social conform
ity. The Ss were first tested alone, then in the conform
ity situation, and then again alone. The Ss were retested
alone one week later.
xxxi
Analysis of variance of the frequency of conformity
revealed the following primaiy results: (a) Old Ss con
formed significantly more often than young Ss— Experiment I
and III (compliance), Experiment IV and V (compliance and
private acceptance); (b) there was not a significant sex
difference in conformity in any of the five experiments;
(c) conformity occurred significantly more frequently as
the difficulty of the experimental task increased— Experi
ments I, II, III, IV and V (compliance and private accep
tance); (d) older Ss were found to conform significantly
more often than younger Ss when the data from the five
experiments were combined (compliance and private accep
tance); (e) there was not a significant sex difference in
conformity based on the combined data; (f) conformity was
found to occur significantly more often as task difficulty
increased when the data of the five experiments were com
bined (compliance and private acceptance); (g) conformity
occurred more frequently as the nature of the task pro
ceeded from an objective frame of reference to a social
frame of reference (i.e., conformity increased from
Experiment I through Experiment V, compliance and private
acceptance).
This investigation demonstrated that old individuals
conformed more often than young individuals on a variety of
experimental tasks. Therefore, the results of this
xxxii
investigation lend support to the position that there is a
"general tendency" for older individuals to toe more con
forming than younger individuals regardless of the experi
mental task.
xxxiii
CHAPTER I
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The present investigation focused on determining if
conformity behavior is task specific. That is, the present
investigation attempted to ascertain whether the greater
degree of conformity expressed by older subjects in a
visual perceptual judgment situation (Klein 1970) is unique
to that situation, or whether there is a general tendency
for the older person to be more conforming regardless of
the experimental task.
It was also the purpose of this study to investigate
sex differences in conformity behavior on various experi
mental tasks and to investigate variation in conformity
behavior due to ambiguity of the stimulus on various
e^erimental tasks.
The major hypothesis of this investigation is that
older subjects will be more conforming than younger sub
jects on the various experimental tasks employed. This
investigation was designed to answer the questions raised
above by conducting a series of conformity experiments on a
variety of tasks.
1
2
Movement vs. Congruence Conformity
Conformity is a social phenomenon that lends itself
to many definitions. Contemporary treatments of social
conformity, however, often neglect to consider the type of
distinction illustrated in Beloff's (1958) contradistinc
tion of "conventionality" and "acquiescence" as modes of
social response. Acquiescence is operationally defined as
high "agreement" between an individual’s response and the
mean or modal response of his group or class. Conven
tionality is operationally defined as the amount of "shift"
from private to public opinion. This distinction between
the two basic descriptive criteria of conformity have been
formally analyzed by Willis (196*0 and labeled "congru
ence" and "movement." In descriptive terms, the congruence
criterion requires that conformity be measured on the basis
of the extent of agreement between a given response and the
normative ideal. The criterion of movement measures con
formity on the basis of a change in response resulting in
a greater or lesser degree of congruence (Hollander &
Willis 1967).
Congruence conformity and movement conformity both
entail an acceptance of influence which demonstrates
"dependence" on opinions and attitudes of other persons.
However, in the case of congruence, this dependence has
origins in a past influence (which have some continuity in
3
the present such as art preference and aversions). In the
case of movement, the individual responds to a present
influence by changing his behavior to coincide with new
demands; such as complying with the political opinions of
others.
If these two aspects of conformity are mixed, or if
there is a failure to recognize one or the other, confusion
will be encountered when attempting to understand the
operations of conformity. Therefore, for purposes of
understanding, it is essential to maintain a rigorous
differentiation between these aspects of conformity.
Experimentation in the laboratory has directed a
great deal of scrutiny toward "movement conformity." This
tendency to be swayed by outside influence is the concern
of the present investigation. This tendency is well illus
trated in the pioneering studies of Sherif (1935) and Asch
(1951 )• Numerous studies have subsequently varied the
Sherif and Asch procedure, utilizing a range of stimuli,
demonstrating repeatedly that knowledge of the reactions
and responses of others can influence behavior in the
direction of conformity. Susceptibility exerted in this
manner is not peculiar to any specific type of task, but is
found for a wide variety of tasks including violation of
prohibitions and acceptance of requests (Barch, Trumbo &
Nangle 1957; Blake, Berkowitz, Bellamy, & Mouton 1956;
b
Blake, Helson & Mouton 1956; Freed et al. 1955; Freeman &
Fraser 1966; Grosser, Polansky & Lippitt 1951; Rosenbaum
1956; Schacter & Hall 1952; Shariksmith 1967)> the expres
sion of attitudes and opinions (Converse & Campbell 1968;
Hunker 1938; Gordon 1952; Helson, Blake, Mouton & Olmstead
1956; Horwitz, Piana, Goldman & lee 1955; Kiesler, Zanna &
DeSalvo 1966), and reactions to perceptual judgmental and
factual materials (Asch 1951; Blake, & Brehm 195b; Clark
1916; Endler I960; KLein 1970; McConnell & Blake 1953;
Musterberg 1950; Olmstead & Blake 1955; Schonbar 19^5;
Sherif 1935).
Normative vs. Informational
Social Influence
In line with the distinction between congruence and
movement conformity, the distinction between two types of
social influence also must be made. Research on conform
ity behavior implies that the influence of social pressure
falls into two general categories. One of the most pro
lific differentiations between these two motivational
bases underlying conformity behavior is that proposed by
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) in distinguishing between "norma
tive" and "informational" forms of social influence.
Analogous discussions of similar differentiations are
Asch*s (1956) distinction between yielding at the "action
level" and at the "judgment level," Thibaut and
5
Strickland’s (1956) consideration of "group" and "task"
set and in Mchavid’s "message-oriented" and "source-
oriented" distinction. Indirectly, but along the same
lines, Riopelle (i960) and McDavid (1962, 196*0 have com
pared "observational learning" to "blind imitation."
Under the conditions of "normative social influ
ence," in an attempt to live up to the expectation of
others, an individuals response to group pressure is
assumed to ensure continuation in the group, contribute to
its code and norms, and enhance its cohesive qualities
(hiVesta 1959).
The second pressure influence, "informational social
influence," is the concern of the present investigation.
Under conditions of this variable, group membership is
relatively unimportant and group influences are only
inconspicuously or indirectly created. Therefore, conform
ity results, due to the individuals need to gain correct
information about reality and to validate his opinions and
make sure they are consistent with the opinions of others.
He, therefore, resorts to the judgments of the other group
members (to use Thibaut and Strickland’s phrase) "as media
tors of fact." (DiVesta 1959.)
The following is a "typical definition of social
conformity: Conformity is defined as some behavioral or
attitudinal change that occurs as the result of some real
6
or imagined social influence (see Berg & Bass; Brown 1965;
Homans 1961; Krech, Crutchfield & Ballachey 1962; Secord &
Backman 196^; Walker & Heyns 1962 for similar 1 1 textbook"1
definitions). The operational criterion of conformity
underlying most empirical research in this area, including
the present study, is 11. . . the public and/or private
agreement of an individual with the opinion or judgment of
others which he had not held before it was presented to
him." (Sampson 196^.) The existence of this tendency is a
basis of all human society and accounts for a major part of
human conduct. Our aim as psychologists is, in part, the
understanding and explanation of behavior. It seems only
reasonable, therefore, that research should attempt to
elucidate that aspect of behavior which is referred to as
conformity. As Hollander (196^) says in reference to the
necessity of research in the area of conformity, "...
among those phenomena lying within the scope of social
research, none occupies a more central place than conform
ity."
Desirability vs. Undesirability
of Conformity
Judgments concerning the personal or social advan
tages or disadvantages of conformity cannot be made easily,
since it is apparent that it must have complex origins and
ramifications. Independence of expression fulfills a
7
significant social function which is illustrated by genera
tions of new thoughts and discoveries. Gardner (1963)
points out that repressing independence and individuality
is apt to result in social decay because, "... the
capacity of society for continuous renewal depends ulti
mately upon the individual." (Hollander 1967.) Neverthe
less, Reisman (1950) has brought it to our attention the
view that we are becoming excessively "other-directed."
Whyte (1956) informs us that our Protestant Ethic is being
replaced by a Social Ethic; as he phrases it, which dic
tates that "being a good team player" ia the highest good.
Packard (1959) documents the attempts of each social class
of our society to imitate the behavior, and even the
thoughts, of those individuals of a higher social stratum.
This account of social critics illustrating the same
general point could easily be lengthened, but perhaps
sufficient examples have been mentioned to document the
present concern over the professed decline of individual
ism.
On the other hand, if conformity is viewed as the
adherence to social expectancies, it becomes evident that
for society to function in an organized fashion, conform
ity has to exist. Nevertheless, a frequent criticism of
our society today is that we live in an "age of conformity.'
When used in this manner, "conformity" is seen as something
8
which undercuts individuality. However, it is unavailing
to condemn any behavior automatically because it demon
strates conformity. Society would be in a chaotic state
if we lacked accepted rules of behavior. It is often con
formity that makes it possible for us to adapt to our
environment. (Klein 1970.)
Perhaps we are not living in an "age of conformity."
Conceivably, we do not cohere to norm and role expectation
more closely than individuals of previous times, but we
definitely have become more aware and concerned about such
matters in recent years. As this concern has developed, a
concomitant effort by behavioral and social scientists has
grown to understand the principles underlying social con
formity. Although men of all ages have directed attention
to such issues, it is only recently that any measure of
systematic investigation has been accomplished. Perhaps
it would be of value to trace some landmarks of significant
relevance to the area of social conformity. In this way
it will become apparent how some of the procedures of the
present investigation were derived, and the reasons for
conducting the present investigation will also become more
clear.
Historical Landmarks in the Area
of Social Conformity
In 1890 Iarde*s book, laws of Imitation, was
9
published. He professed that imitation was the primary
factor accounting for group behavior. Tarde believed that
the principle of imitation, by itself, was adequate in
explaining group behavior. He went so far as to declare,
"Society is imitation."
LeBon's book, The Crowd, appeared in 1895. He
utilized the principle of suggestion and, therefore,
undoubtedly was influenced by Charcot's work in the area
of abnormal psychology. LeBon focused his concern on
individual changes in behavior when in a crowd situation.
He was interested in defining the nature of the "crowd
man." LeBon felt that members of a crowd resembled hypno
tized individuals and that crowd behavior necessarily
occurred on the level of the least intelligent members.
According to LeBon, the gathering together of Individuals
is all that is required to compose a crowd. At this point
the purported "Law of Mental Unity" automatically goes into
effect, resulting in the individual's loss of his individ
uality, He becomes a "mechanical man" which immediately
transforms suggested ideas into action. (Asch 1952.)
There were obvious drawbacks in both Tarde's and
LeBon's explanation of group behavior. Neither employed
experimental techniques or carefully gathered empirical
data. They both tried to account for social phenomena
with oversimplified explanations and neglected to delineate
10
the underlying processes.
In 1908 Ross’ book, Social Psychology, was published.
He also tried to account for group behavior in terms of an
all-encompassing principle. His principle appeared to be a
combination of Tarde*s and LeBon’s principles. Ross, how
ever, did not distinguish between imitation or suggestion.
He also followed the Tarde-LeBon tradition and failed to
utilize experimental approaches or empirical data. His
evidence was primarily anecdotal. He also supported
LeBon’s "Doctrine of Group Mind" which maintained that the
laws of individual psychology are not adequate to explain
group behavior.
In 1916 Floyd Allport was initiating his research.
His concern was to study the effect of the presence of
others on individual performance. Allport, however, broke
away from the Tarde-LeBon-Ross tradition. He employed an
entirely different conceptual design, namely, a type of
behaviorism. He also conducted a variety of experimental
investigations in group psychology. Allport maintained,
in opposition to the "Doctrine of Group Mind," that group
concepts are unnecessary for explaining behavior in groups.
Allport wrote, "There is no psychology of groups which is
not essentially and entirely a psychology of individuals."
In Allport’s experiments, his subjects were required to do
a number of tasks, including: crossing out vowels in news
11
articles, free associating, multiplying numbers and judging
the weights of objects. The tasks were performed under
three conditions: while entirely alone, while alone but
aware that others were working elsewhere simultaneously,
and while together with others at the same place. It was
found that the subject’s orientation was different when in
the presence of others. In the group situation, there was
a greater concern for what others thought. For example,
weight judgments were more moderate. Kiesler (1969) has
said, in reference to Allport’s work, "The heuristic value
of Allport’s work lies in demonstrating that the mere
presence of others can be psychologically important."
The work of Allport led the way for future experi
mental investigation of the area of social conformity. For
example, Jenness (1932) conducted experiments on the effect
of group discussion on judgments. The subjects in these
experiments were asked to judge the number of beans in a
bottle. The subjects then discussed the judgments to
arrive at a single judgment, after which each made a second
set of individual judgments. The results continually indi
cated convergence, that is, movement toward a group
standard. This research was one of the first direct
attempts to investigate convergence of judgment about a
group norm, although Allport and others had previously
addressed themselves to similar issues.
12
In 1935 Muzafer Sherif contributed significantly to
the area of social conformity when he published the first
of his autokinetic experiments. Sherif (1935) approached
the issue of conformity in terms of "social norms." In the
autokinetic situation, a point of light is projected in a
completely dark room. This point of light appears to move.
Hence, the name autokinetic, meaning self-moving. It has
been demonstrated that the degree of movement reported by
subjects varies among individuals. Initially, each of
Sherif*s subjects were, tested in a darkened room alone.
Bach subject, for several trials, was required to look at
the point of light and report the direction and degree of
movement (in inches). Following this procedure, each sub
ject was returned to the room, however, this time in the
company of other subjects. They reported their judgments
aloud as they watched the point of light and in a short
time they converged toward a group standard of apparent
movement. Sherif tested his subjects again alone after
they had made the judgments in the presence of others. It
was found that the subjects retained the group norm rather
than their own standard as a basis for judging the extent
of apparent movement. Sherif*s work demonstrated the pro
found influence other people can have on the perceptions
of an individual. Since Sherif*s pioneering work, con
formity to group norms and intra-group Influence have
13
become focal issues in the area of social psychology.
Hollander (1967) has said, in reference to the Sherif
study, "This experiment did much to encourage further
experimentation on the psychological aspects of group
phenomenon. It also showed the harmonious way in which
group concepts, like social norms, could be subjected to
psychological analysis." (Klein 1970.)
Leon Festinger, trained in the tradition of Lewinian
group dynamics, has proved to be one of the most prominent
researchers in the field of social psychology. Festinger
focused on analyzing pressures toward conformity.
Festinger (1950) proposed two major sources of pressure
toward conformity. He labeled the first source "social
reality." By this he meant that a belief is perceived as
being "valid" or "proper" to the degree to which it is
attached to a group of individuals with similar beliefs.
Consequently, members of a group are motivated to "comply"
with those beliefs of the group. The second source of
pressure toward uniformity occurs because conformity con
veniences the attainment of "group goals." Festinger
(1953) has also dealt specifically with compliant behavior.
He has also forwarded a theory of "social comparison" which
describes the individual as relying on the group for evalua
tion of abilities as well as beliefs.
The final historical landmark that shall be
Ik
discussed is the work of Solomon Asch (1951)* This was an
extension of Sherif s earlier work. In Asch’s experiments,
a group of individuals (typically eight), are seated in a
room next to one another. Before them they are shown a
standard line and a set of two or three unequal comparison
lines. The subjects are required to select from the com
parison lines that one which is equal in length to the
standard line. The comparison lines are labeled and the
subjects are instructed to make their judgments aloud. Of
the eight individuals tested simultaneously, only one is an
actual subject the rest are confederates of the experi
menter. The confederates had met before the actual experi
ment and had received instructions that on certain trials
they were to respond unanimously with wrong judgments.
This procedure confronted the subject with a unanimous
contradiction of his own perception on these trials. The
results indicated that the subjects made a distinct move
ment toward the group’s distortion of accuracy. Overall,
approximately 33 percent of the judgments of the subjects
were in the pro-majority, or incorrect direction.
Hollander (1967)» commenting on Asch’s work, states that
"laboratory experimentation of this kind supports the
hypothesis that our reports of what we perceive are sus
ceptible to the influence of others. • • ." (Klein 1970.)
The studies mentioned above have been considered the
15
landmarks in the area of social conformity. There have
been vast numbers of studies not mentioned here that have
also contributed greatly to the area. Nevertheless, this
review generally brings one to the present state in the
area of social conformity research.
The Present Investigation
There are over twenty million people above the age
of sixty-five in America. It is interesting, and of con
cern, that although they represent a potentially strong
political force, they have appeared to fail to demand
those things which they affirm they desire and need and
those economic and social rights which they deserve.
Inferring from the hypotheses of several investigators,
this phenomena may be due to a disengagement, a decline or
withdrawal from participation in community and social
activities by the older individual (Cumming & Henry 1961;
Foskett 1955; Henry & Cumming 1959; Mayo 1950; Tallent &
Lucas 1956; Wagner I960; Zborowski 1962).
It has also been hypothesized that the older
individuals failure to strive for rights and fulfillment
of needs is due to a change in social role, a lack of the
necessary energy level, a lack of social status or a lack
of opportunity (Spangler & Thomas 1962). However, the
question arises as to whether these qualities attributed to
older individuals can completely account for their failure
16
to strive for rights and fulfillment of needs. Perhaps it
is the tendency of older individuals to he confonning that
causes their acceptance of our current middle-age, and,
even more so, youth-oriented society. (Klein 1970.)
It was the type of theorizing stated above, that led
the writer to conduct an experiment (Klein 1970) in order
to obtain a partial answer to the question of age differ
ences in social conformity. This experiment was directed
at determining if age, sex and task difficulty acted as
determinants of social conformity in a laboratory visual
perceptual judgment situation. The subjects were required
to judge which of two stimuli (circular discs) was greater
in size. Employing a modified Crutchfield (1955) apparatus,
young and old subjects were subjected to contrived group
pressures toward erroneous perceptual judgments. An
analysis of the data indicated that older subjects con
formed significantly more often than younger subjects.
The following question arose, leading to the present
investigation: Was the greater degree of conformity shown
by the older subjects, in the above mentioned experiment, a
tendency peculiar to that experimental task or is there a
general tendency for the older person to be more conforming
regardless of the task?
The issue of "task specific" behavior, in reference
to the older individual, has been considered in a recent
17
investigation by Birren (1970). This experiment considered
the hypothesis of cautiousness in elderly subjects. The
subjects were required to sort decks of cards according to
the side of the card on which the smaller of two circles
appeared. The cautiousness hypothesis leads to the expec
tation of a marked slowing in judgment time by the older
individual when sorting decks of maximum ambiguity (that
is, when there is no difference between the size of the
circles). It was found that even under tasks of maximum
ambiguity the older subjects did not increase their judg
ment times significantly. Birren, in interpreting the
results, alluded to the simplicity of the task and pointed
out that, perhaps, on more complex tasks this result would
not have been observed. That is, perhaps cautious behavior
is "task specific." This study demonstrates the need to be
concerned with the issue of experimental findings being
"task specific." For example, it would be unwise, based on
the Klein (1970) study mentioned above, to make the general
statement that "older individuals are more conforming than
younger individuals." Therefore, the present investigation
was conducted in order to determine if support could be
given to the validity of such a statement. KLesler (1969)
has stated, "We need more studies testing the ’limits' of
hypotheses— that is, testing logical extensions of hypothe
ses and possible limitations of hypotheses." Even more
18
specifically, Graham (1962) has stated, "It would he very
interesting if one could conduct experiments on conforming
in a number of different situations ..."
In a social conformity situation, which is the
setting for this experiment, the subject is confronted
with an apparent disagreement between his own judgments or
opinions and a unanimous contradictory consensus of the
other subjects. What does the subject do under these cir
cumstances? Does he depend on the evidence of his own
senses and opinions and respond independently, or does he
yield to the judgment or opinions of the group?
The present investigation was concerned with deter
mining if age, sex, and task difficulty act as determinants
of conforming behavior in a series of laboratozy experi
ments. These conformity experiments covered a variety of
different tasks including: a modified replication of
Klein’s (1970) study; an auditozy perceptual judgment
study; an auditozy signal detection study; a study on
problem solving; and a study on social attitudes.
The primazy focus of this investigation was to
determine if older individuals are more conforming than
younger individuals on each of these tasks. A secondazy
concern of the present investigation was to ascertain
differences in conformity due to the nature of the experi
mental task.
19
Presented immediately "below is a review of some of
the literature which reflects on the issue of generality of
conformity behavior. Studies both supporting and refuting
the idea of conformity as a general tendency is presented.
Following this section, a review of the literature is pre
sented discussing each of the independent variables of the
investigation as they relate to conformity. A section is
also presented on the nature of the experimental task.
Phis literature review illustrates why the particular
hypotheses tested in this investigation were formulated.
The generality of Conformity Behavior
The contention in the first portion of this section
is that the data indicate that susceptibility to social
influence is a general tendency. The second portion of
this section presents the opposite view and illustrates
findings that do not support a generality of conformity
across a variety of tasks.
There have been a number of investigators who have
demonstrated that conformity in one situation tends to be
correlated with conformity in other situations. Harper and
Tuddenham (19$+) have shown that conformity to acquaint
ances is similar to conformity to strangers. Sears (1963)
has reported a generality of various forms of dependency in
children. Asch (1956) found that college students tend to
obtain the same conformity scores early and late in the
20
task. In an experiment by Blake, He Ison and Mouton (1956),
three different tasks were employed: reporting the number
of metonome clicks heard, expressing attitudes to state
ments and solving arithmetic problems. The results indi
cated a high degree of individual consistency in conforming
within tasks and a considerable amount of consistency
between tasks. Nakamura (1958) found the reliability of
"objective conformity" (perceptual) items high (.87 for
men, .80 for women). Vaughn (196*0 found some consistency
in conformity or nonconformity for 20 percent of his sub
jects studied across four situations. Frye and Bass (1958)
and Beloff (1958) found a close relationship between face-
to-face "acquiescence" and general "conformity" to social
norms. Tuddenham (1957) obtained highly consistent
individual differences across 71 * trials concerning judging
visual targets, information, and opinion. MacBride (1958),
using the same measuring procedures as Tuddenham, found a
high degree of individual consistency in conforming even
after he had raised or lowered the self-confidence of his
subjects. Abelson and Lesser (1959) found that children
who conformed to teachers’ assignments were also likely to
conform (as measured projectively) to the judgments of
their mothers. Correlation between the two scores in some
classes was as high as .90.
Ferguson (19***+) has reported that there is
21
generality of conformity within the area of attitude judg
ments. Responses were obtained for three different atti
tude scales (Religionism, Humanitarianism, and Nationalism).
It was found that individual shifts from initial judgments
toward an assumed majority position showed consistency for
all three measures. Ferguson stated, in discussing his
results, "It is thus apparent that suggestibility to group
opinion is not specific to the attitude variables in ques
tion, and may to some extent, therefore, be considered as
a general personality trait." However, this study dealt
with attitudes only; it did not offer a basis for assessing
the generality of conformity with other types of tasks.
Crutchfield (1955)* using a batteiy of 21 items including
tasks on perceptual judgments as well as attitudes,
reported a significant degree of generality of conformity
as determined by split-half correlations,
Rosner (1957) raised the question as to whether the
individual consistencies in yielding or not yielding were
specific to the judgment of lines or whether they extended
beyond this typ® of situation. In this investigation the
tasks included three memoiy tasks (nonsense words, nonsense
figures, and a simple paragraph), a questionnaire and the
line judgments used by Asch (1951)* It was found that
response to group pressure was significantly consistent
between tasks at a single sitting. The subjects who were
22
high conformers on one task tended to be high conformers on
the other tasks. Likewise, low conformers on one task were
found to be low conformers on the other tasks. Phi coeffi
cients ranging from .33 to .5^ were obtained between pairs
of tasks with respect to high and low yielders.
Back and Davis (1965) investigated consistency of
individual behavior to group pressure in three different
situations— a perceptual judgment task, self-reported
acceptance of peer group norms, and self-reported accep
tance of authority pressures. The data confirmed the
authors* expectations that conforming to group pressure
would show a small but reliable consistency from situation
to situation.
Milgram (1961) has demonstrated consistent differ
ences between two countries in amount of movement conform
ity. Norwegian university students were found to be more
conforming than French university students across five
situations related to the Crutchfield (1955) procedure.
Regarding these results, Milgram stated, "No matter how the
data are examined they point to greater independence among
the French than among the Norwegians." He related this
difference in independence to variations between the two
national cultures.
There is an abundance of data indicating that per-
suasibility on one issue is positively related to persuasi-
bility by other messages on other issues. Since
23
persuasibility studies also demonstrate susceptibility to
social influence, an example seems appropriate. It will be
sufficient to present one study in order to exemplify the
extent of the relationship.
Janis and Field (1959) presented a set of ten per
suasive messages to about 185 high school students. Each
message was supposedly from a different newspaper reporter,
and they included a variety of topics (each with a pro and
con form). The subject's persuasibility for each message
was scored 'O' or '1' on the basis of a median split with
respect to amount of change. Tetrachoric correlations were
computed between the impacts of each pair of messages
resulting in *+5 correlations. Of the k-5 correlations, only
six proved to be negative. Of the 39 positive correlations,
25 were significant at the .05 level. Therefore, this
study, demonstrating a predominance of significant positive
correlations, suggests an underlying general factor of
susceptibility to social influence.
It should be realized, however, that correlation
does not indicate identity. Rarely do the correlations in
the studies mentioned above account for even as much as 50
percent covariance between tests. The lowness of the
typical correlations partially reflect the unreliability of
the tests. It also suggests that scores on conformity
tests reflect reliable variance other than on a common
_2 _
conformity factor. Ferguson's (19^) study mentioned above
does reveal an approximation to a unitary factor solution,
but veritably on the average his correlations were quite
low.
There have been a number of investigators who have
argued, for the specificity of conformity. For example, in
discussing personality and conformity, Hollander and. Willis
(1967) state, "• . . it is increasingly clear that the
search for sovereign attributes of a conforming personality
have not been especially fruitful." They go on to say,
"True, for any particular situation individual differences
are invariably observed, and these are often substantial,
but it is also true that conformity in one situation is not
generally a very reliable predictor of conformity in other
situations." Linton (1955) employed three different tasks
to study the specificity of conformity behavior. The tasks
included an autokinetic situation with one confederate, a
syllogism test concerned with the effects of the content
of the syllogisms in relation to the subject's attitudes .
on relevant issues, and an attitude change test concerned
with matters of "low personal significance." The data
indicated that the tests were not significantly intercorre
lated.
Goldberg (195*+) utilized a task where his subjects
had to judge intelligence from pictures before and after
25
contrived group norms were supplied. The data indicated
that susceptibility to influence was highly specific to
each picture. Goldberg said in summary, "Intercorrelations
between conformity under all experimental conditions were
low. Conformity was not generalized but appeared to be
highly situational. This was considered as evidence
against the existence of any general personality character
istic of suggestibility or conformity."
The findings presented above do not clearly indicate
the generality or specificily of conformity behavior. It
must be remembered, however, that none of these studies
nor any others in the area of social conformity, considered
the generality of conformity for different age groups. The
following section discusses conformity in reference to age.
Evidence is presented to indicate why it is a hypothesis of
this investigation that older individuals will be more con
forming than younger individuals on various experimental
tasks.
Age and Conformity
Since the pioneering work of Sherif in 1935> numer
ous studies have been conducted in the area of social con
formity. Although these studies are different in many
respects, they generally all have one thing in common— they
fail to investigate possible age differences or age changes
in conformity behavior.
_g.
One of the two studies that has concerned itself
with age and conformity is a recent investigation by Kahana
and Coe (I969). Individual and situational determinants of
conforming behavior were investigated in a home for the
aged. The residents were rated by staff members on the
degree to which they conformed to the rules and expecta
tions of the home. Data obtained through interviews indi
cated that both situational and individual factors had a
significant role in affecting conformity behavior. Inte
gration in the informal organization of the home and
adjustment were individual factors that were most signifi
cantly related to conformity, Saliency of the rule for
both the home and the individual, among the situational
factors, appeared to be important dimensions of conformity.
Although the study of Kahana and Coe did not take an
experimental approach in investigating age and conformity,
it did indicate that older individuals are subject to
social norms and standards. However, the question about
the disparity of conformity between older and younger
individuals, which is the primary question, still remained
unanswered. (Klein 1970.)
In reference to age, it has consistently been found
that younger individuals are more reactive and susceptible
to social influence than are older individuals (Abelson &
Lesser 1959» Berenda 1950; Danker 1938; Luchins & Luchins
27
1955). However, these studies investigated age differences
in conformity behavior between young and old children; or
they compared young children with college age individuals.
The question as to whether this finding would be consistent
throughout the adult age span led to Klein’s (1970) inves
tigation .
The study by Klein (1970) is the most recent inves
tigation of age differences in social conformity. As dis
cussed earlier this investigation was concerned with age,
sex and task difficulty as predictors of social conformity.
Subjects ranging in age from 16 to 21 were compared with an
older group (60 - 86 years) on susceptibility to informa
tional social influence upon visual perceptual judgments.
A series of visual perceptual judgments were presented on
slides to the subjects. The task was to judge which of
two paired stimuli (circular discs) presented on each
slide was greater in size. Employing a modified
Crutchfield apparatus, the subjects were subjected to con
trived group pressures directed toward erroneous perceptual
judgments. The data indicated the following: (1) older
subjects conformed significantly more often than younger
subjects; (2) there was not a significant difference
between males and females in conformity behavior; (3) con
formity occurred more frequently as the stimulus ambiguity
of the perceptual task increased; and (*0 conformity scores
28
increased more in older subjects as stimulus ambiguity
increased. These results clearly indicated that older
individuals were more conforming. However, the question
arises, which is the concern of the present investigation,
as to whether this finding is "task specific."
The major hypothesis of' the present investigation
(which is stated more formally later) is that older
individuals will be more conforming than younger persons
on a variety of experimental tasks in similar conformity
situations. The following discussion of the literature on
aging and conformity will attempt to illustrate the impor
tance of this hypothesis. Each study or group of studies
on the same topic is not strong enough by itself to warrant
this hypothesis, since many of the techniques employed in
these studies leave much to be desired. However, taken
together, these studies seem to warrant hypothesizing that
there is a "general tendency" for older individuals to be
more conforming than younger individuals.
Age, manifest needs and conformity.— In this section
a number of studies will be presented which demonstrate a
relationship between scoring high or low on various needs
and degree of conformi-ty. Age differences on these needs
will also be presented. When older subjects score signifi
cantly higher or lower on a need that has been shown to be
related to conformity in the same direction, support is
29
given to the view that the older subject will be more con
forming than the younger subject.
Personality inventories, in which all subjects are
asked identical questions, and the responses are objec
tively scored, have their value in providing an objective
measure of a response. The response can be related to
other variables apart from its meaning. If people who
score high on "aggression" are better lawyers, are less
likely to commit suicide, or are alcoholics, it does not
matter if we call it "aggression" or just "X"— the fact is
that it becomes a predictor of behavior (Koponen 1957) •
Results consistently show that those individuals
who are more susceptible to social influence are more
likely to be low on "need achievement" and high on "need
affiliation." Thibaut and Strickland (1956) showed that
in an Asch situation, conformity was increased by making
subjects more "interaction-oriented" by imposing a "group
set" on them rather than a "task set." A number of other
investigations have also found conformity to be greater
among interaction-oriented (need affiliation) subjects as
compared with task-oriented (need achievement) subjects.
In all of these investigations, accepting the norm, the
group decision, or the simulated influence of the group
necessitates that the subject reject the truth of what he
actually perceives or believes. In these analyses,
conformity maintains social approval at the expense of
task accomplishment. It also prevents the risk of being
ostracized or rejected by the group for failing to be in
agreement with them. Likewise, a conformer avoids the
risk of showing himself to be in error. Therefore, it is
not surprising that individuals most desirous of obtaining
or maintaining social approval conform in these situations.
Hardy's (1957) investigation showed that those sub
jects with low affiliation needs were also the subjects
who conformed least. Raven (1959) found that individuals
who do not feel rejected by others and are less concerned
about what others think of them conform less than those
that do feel such concern. Moeller and Applezweig (1957)
have shown, utilizing the Behavior Interpretation Inven
tory, that those subjects high in the need for social
approval (need affiliation) and low in the need for self
approval (need achievement) were most likely to conform in
an Asch line judging situation— compared to those low in
need for social approval and high in need for self approval.
Support of Moeller and Applezweig*s finding is offered by
Schroder and Hunt (1958) and by MeDavid (1959)*
An investigation by Tuddenham (1958) reported
correlations between the yielding-independence continuum
and various rating variables and self-report tests. The
tests included the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule,
31
the Gough California Personality Inventory, the Barron Ego
Strength and Independence of Judgment Scales, the Taylor
Manifest Anxiety Scale, and the Welsh "A" and "R" factori-
ally based scales of the MMPI. It was found that those
subjects who were high on need affiliation and low on need
achievement were those who tended to yield most often.
Krebs (1958) used a measure of Murray's need-
achievement and related it to conformity. He found, using
judgments from memory as to which of two slides had con
tained certain objects, that subjects with high-need
achievement were more independent than those scoring low
on need achievement. Samelson (1957) and Walter and Heyns
(1962) have also found that subjects scoring low on need
achievement are more likely to be susceptible to social
influence.
An investigation by Spangler and Thomas (1962)
explored the effects of age, sex and physical disability
upon manifest needs as defined by the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule. The results indicated that the need
for affiliation score tended to increase with age.
Koponen (1957) administered the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule to a nationwide sample of adults. The
sample covered urban and rural areas of 1181 counties in *+8
states. The EPPS was completed by ,031 males and ,932
females ranging in age from under 30 to over 55• Koponen
32
found that older subjects scored higher on need affiliation
and lower on need achievement.
Kuhlen and Johnson (1952) and McClelland (1953) have
demonstrated the greater importance of achievement needs in
early adult years. A study by Veroff, Atkinson, Feld and
Gurin (i960), utilizing projective pictures, showed high
points in need achievement in young adulthood and middle
age followed by a decrease in later years.
The relationships demonstrated above— individuals
scoring high on need affiliation and low on need achieve
ment are more conforming; older as compared to younger
individuals score high on need affiliation and low on need
achievement— support the hypothesis that older individuals
would conform more readily in a group situation.
A number of studies have investigated what the rela
tionship dominance, deference, submissiveness, and ascen
dance has with conformity behavior. For example, Berg and
Bass (I96I) report ascendant and dominant persons to be
more resistant to conformity pressures, whereas submissive
persons were reported to be more susceptible to social
influence.
Results consistently show, in a variety of conform
ity situations, that those who are more susceptible to con
formity pressures are more likely to be submissive (Beloff
1958; Berenda 1950; Bray 1950; Helson, Blake & Mouton 1958;
33
Helson Blaise, Mouton & Olmstead 1956; Jenness 1932; Kelman
1950).
likewise, it has been consistently reported that
those who yield to group pressure or social influence are
less dominant (Barron 1953; Bray 1950; Hoffman 1953; Kelman
1950; Tuddenham 1958).
There have been a few investigations that have
related ascendancy, dominance, deference, and submissive
ness to age. Bendig (i960) examined Guilford-Zimmerman
Temperament Schedule scores of men up to age 60. He found
that scores on ascendancy decreased with age. The studies
by Spangler and Thomas (1962) and Koponen (1957)} mentioned
above, found that older individuals score lower on the
dominance and higher on the deference scale of the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule than younger individuals.
Schaie and Strother (1968) reported results of very
intelligent older subjects age 20 to 80. In comparison
with a matched sample of graduate students in their mid
twenties the older subjects were found to score higher on
deference. These results compare favorably with the age
differences found by Gavron (1965) who compared middle-aged
people with young individuals in groups of psychiatric
patients. It was found that middle-aged patients scored
higher on deference. In a study by Neugarten and Gutman
(1958), employing the Thematic Apperception Test, older men
3\
were characterized as more submissive than younger men.
The relationships shown above— individuals scoring
high on dominance and ascendancy are less conforming, and
those scoring high on submissiveness and deference are more
conforming; older as compared to younger individuals score
low on dominance and ascendancy and high on submissiveness
and deference— support the hypothesis that older individ
uals will be more conforming than younger individuals.
Age, perception of onefs parents and conformity.—
Another line of reasoning which led to the hypothesis that
older subjects would be more conforming than younger sub
jects on various tasks, is the results of the questionnaire
of Klein’s (1970) study. It was found that the older sub
jects as compared to the younger subjects perceived their
parents as more dominating, restricting and rejecting.
Berg and Bass (1961) alude to this issue when they say,
•'Persons who conform more in a pressure situation can be
characterized as perceiving their parents as harsh, puni
tive, restricting and rejecting. ..."
Evidence from anthropological literature also sup
ports the above-mentioned relationship. For example,
societies in which conforming behavior predominates, propa
gate the tendency from generation to generation by follow
ing certain child-rearing processes. Among the Bathonga,
an extremely conformist culture, it is inconceivable for
35
children to question their elders, their chiefs or their
gods (Mead 1939)•
Champney (194-1) investigated the significance of
parental attitudes and behavior on the subsequent conform-
lity found in their children. Champney suggested that
jparents who dominate their children, restrain their chil
dren's attempts to solve their own problems, and demand
obedience above everything else, are likely to create
docile, shy, self-conscious, conforming children. Mowrer !
!
(1939) lias maintained that children from autocratic homes
or schools are likely to become either domineering or
autocratic themselves or highly conforming and susceptible
|to the influence of others. A study by Mussen and Kagan
(1958) provides a more specific test of the relationships
being considered. They found that in an Asch situation,
subjects who were extreme conformists were more likely to
perceive their parents on the Thematic Apperception Test
as harsh, punitive, restrictive and rejecting.
The relationships discussed above— individuals per
ceiving their parents as rejecting, restricting, and domi
nating are more conforming— older individuals, as compared
to younger individuals, perceive their parents as more
dominating, restrictive, and rejecting— support the hypoth
esis that older subjects will be more conforming than
younger subjects on a variety of tasks.
36
Age, cautiousness and conformity.— There seems to he
a growing body of literature from various perspectives and
with various types of data which demonstrates a relation
ship between increasing age past adulthood and cautiousness.
A review by Botwinick (196*+) indicated that, although many
of the relevant studies have not been conceptualized in
this way, there appears to be enough communality among them
that this relation is a repeated finding in the study of
aging. (Botwinick 1966.)
Some of the studies which lend support to the view
of an increase in caution with age include Welford's (1951)
study which related accuracy and speed measurements in a
psychomotor task; Eisdorfer, Axelrod and Wilkie (1963) and
Korchin and Basowitz (1957) who studied verbal learning;
Basowitz and Korchin (1957) who investigated the ability
of perceptual closure; Wallach and Kogan (1961) who were
interested in the decision process; Botwinick, Brinley and
Robin (1958) and Silverman (1963) who measured perceptual
discrimination; Craik (1962, 196*+) who measured performance
of aiming ability; and Craik (1965)j Milner, Walker, and
Beech (1967)> and Rees and Botwinick (1971) who studied
applications of signal detection theory in a detection
situation. It should be made clear that an increase in
cautiousness with age is one of the interpretations these
investigators offer in explanation of their results.
37
In Korchin and Basowitz's (1957) study, a young and
old group of subjects (mean ages 26.8 and 78.1 years), were
administered three paired-associate learning tasks. They
were familiar word pairs, nonsense equations and false
equations. The older and younger subjects were found to
differ in their behavior during learning. The younger
subjects were more apt to make some response to the stimu
lus items. They posed hypotheses whether correct or
incorrect. The older subjects, however, responded cor
rectly or not at all. The proportion of "no response"
errors remained high through learning. One of the explana
tions that Korchin and Basowitz posit for this behavior is
that the older individual is more cautious. That is,
despite encouragement to guess, it is possible that the
older individual needs to attain a greater degree of cer
tainly ~before he is willing to report. Although the sub
ject knows that the item is equally incorrect, whether he
gives no response or a wrong response, he apparently pre
fers the error of omission to that of commission. This
behavior of inhibiting a response in an uncertain situa
tion, tends to support the view that older individuals
would be more conforming, as compared to younger individ
uals, especially under tasks of high difficulty and those
that are ambiguous. It seems reasonable to conclude that,
in a conformity situation, increasing the stimulus
38
ambiguity would lead to an increase in the subjective
uncertainty of the individuals judgment and his dependence
on information from others. Consequently, this varialbe
would be positively related to conformity. In a study by
Wiener (1958), subjects were required to rate their feel
ings of certainly about their judgments in an Asch situa
tion. It was found that there was a significant positive
relationship between uncertainty and conformity. In a
later study, Wiener (1959) confirmed the importance of
uncertainly as a variable in conformity research.
In a study by Eisdorfer, Axelrod and Wilkie (1963) >
stimulus exposure and learning, in both young and old sub
jects, was investigated. Lists of eight words equated for
association value, size, and structure were employed in a
serial rote learning task with a one-second interword
interval and a forty-five-second intertrial interval.
Three groups of old subjects (mean age 66.5 years) and
three groups of young subjects (mean age 37.3 years)
received exposure times of 6, and 8 seconds, making up
a 3x2 analysis of variance design (Eisdorfer, Axelrod, and
Wilkie (1963). The results supported the postulate of
Korchin and Basowitz of an increase in cautiousness with
age. Older subjects gave a higher ratio of omission errors
relative to total errors than did younger subjects, indi
cating that the older individuals were more cautious. This
39
again supports the view that older individuals would con
form more readily. That is, in an uncertain situation
(a conformity situation), the older individual is more apt
to take the "cautious behavior path" and conform to the
perceptual judgments of the others in his group.
In a study by Basowitz and Korchin (1957)* a young
(mean age 26.8 years and an old (mean age 78.1 years) group
were compared in performance on two tests of perceptual
closure. The two tests were the Gestalt Completion and the
Thurstone adaptation of Gottschaldt's Concealed Figures.
The Gestalt Completion procedure requires the capacity to
organize, and the Thurstone test requires the capacity to
resist closure. The older subjects' performance was dis
tinctly inferior on both tasks. "Moreover, an analysis of
'wrong' responses on Gestalt Completion revealed signs of
perseveration, fixation on details and concretization by
the aged individuals, as well as a more general tendency
toward vagueness, and poor articulation of form" (Basowitz
and Korchin 1957). The older subjects al0Q Omitted a sig
nificantly greater number of items on Gestalt Completion.
One interpretation of this finding was that the older sub
jects demonstrated excessive cautiousness. That is,
". . . a defensive reluctance to venture responses for fear
of recognizing their inadequacy." (Basowitz and Korchin,
1957.) This finding could also be interpreted as evidence
**0
for the hypothesis of increased conformity with age. In a
conformity situation, the subject cannot manifest his
cautiousness by not responding, because this alternative is
not open to him. He may, however, as the present study
proposes, manifest his cautious behavior in the form of
conforming.
Mann (1959)* in. his review of studies relating
personality variables to conformity behavior, illustrates
six studies which demonstrated a high relationship between
conservatism and conformity. Conservatism was the only
personality variable that was consistently related to con
formity .
A study by Silverman (1963) compared young and old
subjects with regard to "confidence level required before
responding" with ability factors held constant. The young
and old subjects were matched on ability to recognize words
presented tachistoscopically under a forced-response condi
tion. The subjects were then compared with regard to the
number of responses given on an equivalent task which was
administered under a voluntary response condition. Older
subjects gave fewer responses relative to their perceptual
ability. These results provided some support to the view
of increased caution in responding with age. Again, this
increases cautiousness with age lends support to the
hypothesis that older individuals will be more conforming,
bl
since compared to acting independently against group con
formity pressure, it is the safe and more cautious mode of
behavior.
An approach to psychophysical problems has been sug
gested in the last fifteen to twenty years. This is signal
detection theory described by Swets, Tanner and Birdsall
(1961) and by Green and Swets (1966). Signal detection
theory provides independent measures of response criterion
(readiness or reluctance to respond) and sensory efficiency,
It is possible, therefore, through utilization of this type
analysis, to determine to what extent age decrements in
performance are due to increased caution as opposed to a
decline in sensory efficiency. Por a complete description
of signal detection theory, the reader is referred to Green
and Swets (1966). It is adequate for the present purpose
to note that the analysis provides independent measures of
cautiousness (p) and sensory efficiency (d*). High values
of p indicate caution and high values of d' indicate high
sensory efficiency.
Craik (1965) employed signal detection theory in an
investigation of whether old subjects adopt a more cautious
criterion in a detection situation. Stimuli were presented
to the subject via headphones which were comprised of
either a three-second burst of white noise or the same
white noise plus a faint 1,000 c.p.s. pure tone. In one
b2
segment of this experiment, a block of fifty stimuli were
presented to the subject to which he had to respond "yesM
or "no" with regard to the presence of a signal (the 1,000
c.p.s. pure tone). A young (age range 21-35, mean age 28.1
years) group of twenty male subjects were compared with an
old (age range 60-80, mean age 6b.2 years) group of twenty
male subjects. The results of this portion of the experi
ment indicated that in the yes-no series the old subjects
adopted a more cautious criterion. The mean values for
log p were 0.03 for the young group and 1.05 for the old
group. This difference was statistically significant
(t = 2.31; P < .05).
An experiment by Milner, Walker, and Beech (1967),
utilizing signal detection theory, also found that older
subjects adopt a decision criterion that could be inter
preted as being more cautious. They used psychiatric
patients, ranging in age from seventeen to fifty-four and
found a significant correlation between age and p (r =
+0.79; P < .001) in an auditory yes-no detection situation.
Rees and Botwinick (1971) compared young and old
subjects with regard to measures of decision (p) and sen
sory processes (d*) on an auditory signal detection task.
There was not a significant difference between the two age
groups in their detectability performance. However, older
subjects adopted higher criterion values than younger
subjects.
V3
These studies approached the issue of increased
caution with age in an experimental manner. They provide
support for the hypothesis of an increase in cautiousness
with age. Therefore, these studies also lend support to
the position that older individuals will be more conform
ing than younger individuals since cautiousness has been
shown to be highly related to conformity (Mann 1959?
Wiener 1958; Wiener 1959).
A study by Wallach and Kogan (1961) was specifically
directed at the issue of cautiousness in advanced age. The
issue was studied by fixing the limits of cautiousness to
the choice of two given alternatives: a rewarding but
risky alternative, or a less rewarding but safer one. They
measured this by employing a questionnaire which consisted
of twelve "life situations." A central character was
involved in each of the twelve life situations and he was
confronted with two alternatives. The task of the subject
was to make each choice for the central character by indi
cating the likelihood of success that was judged sufficient
to decide upon the more risky course. The results indi
cated that the older subjects required more certainty of
outcome before they would select the more risky alternative,
It was found, therefore, that the older subjects, in con
trast to the younger controls, responded in a more cautious
or conservative way in making decisions. This study may
also be interpreted as supporting the view that older indi
viduals are more conforming. It is a greater risk, in the
conformity situation, to disagree with the majority opinion;
and it is a much lower risk to conform. Botwinick (1966)
has extended Wallach and Kogan’s investigation and has
obtained the same results. Botwinick says, "It is clear
that it is unequivocal that cautiousness increases in
advanced age."
All the studies mentioned above, which indicate an
increase in cautious behavior by older individuals, tend to
support the hypothesis of greater conformity on the part of
older individuals. That is, the older individual, being
more cautious, would conform more often to group influence
than younger individuals, since it is a more cautious,
conservative, and less risk-involving mode of behavior.
This conclusion can also be drawn on the basis of the
investigations mentioned by Mann (1959) and by Wiener
(1958, 1959).
Age, anxiety, self-concept.,ego strength and, con
formity .— A number of studies have demonstrated a positive
relationship between anxiety and conformity behavior. In a
study by Walters and Karol (I960), subjects were isolated
and were then put in a social influence situation. They
found that those subjects who experienced greater anxiety
while isolated subsequently showed greater susceptibility
to social influence. In a study by Walters, Marshall and
Shooter (i960), subjects who rated high on anxiety con
formed more to the experimenter’s suggestions in a Sherif
autokinetic situation. In an experiment by Harley (1966),
female subjects were made anxious in anticipation of an
electric shock. These subjects were found to conform more
in an Asch situation than those who were not made to feel
anxious. A study by Janis (1955) showed that students
scoring high on test and social anxiety were more persuasi-
ble and susceptible to social influence than those subjects
who scored low on the two types of anxiety. Studies by
Berkowitz and Cottingham (i960), Insko, Arkoff, and Insko
(1965), Leventhal and Niles (196*+), and Leventhal, Singer
and Jones (1965) have found a positive relationship between
anxiety arousal and opinion change.
There is some evidence that relates age with anxiety.
It seems reasonable that due to social and physical losses,
together with increasing responsibilities and commitments,
an increase in anxiety with age is likely to result. Veri
tably, a number of writers, for example, Kaufman (19^0)
and Atkin (19^0), who have attempted theoretical explana
tions of the aging process, have considered anxiety
generated by social and physical losses as the fundamental
independent variable. Studies by Powell and Perraro (i960)
and Olsen and Elder (1958) suggest an increase in anxiety
q-g-
with age. In both of these investigations, reaction time
to stimulus words was employed as a measure of threat or
stress. Reaction times to words such as "unhappy,'1 "rest
less," "afraid," "worry," and "anxious" were considered
generalized "anxiety stimuli" as compared to words such as
"priest" or "church" which would be representative of the
religious aspect of life. Both studies found reaction
time to the anxiety stimulus words to increase with age.
In reference to the relationship between anxiety and age,
Kuhlen (196^) has stated, "Although the data are by no
means as extensive as one might wish, either with respect
to the range of symptoms sampled or the range of ages, the
evidence does suggest that increasing age brings increasing
susceptibility to stress and threat."
The relationships considered above— individuals
scoring higher on anxiety are more susceptible to conform
ity pressures; the increase in anxiety with age— support is
given to the hypothesis that older individuals will be more
conforming than younger individuals.
Numerous investigations have shown a relationship
between self-concept and conformity behavior. Typically,
self-concept means attitudes regarding oneself. That is,
one's opinion of his own personal worth, and the degree to
which a person is complacent and self-confident.
In a review of a number of studies of conformity
^7
and personality across a variety of situations, Linton and
Graham (1959) conclude that patterns of personality do make
a person more or less susceptible to social influence.
Along with the Moeller and Applezweig (1957) study, they
particularly stress the central role of the self-concept,
in terms of self-esteem, as a general factor which is
inversely related to conformity. This position is supported
by the work of Bray (1950), Kelman (1950), Cohen (1959)>
Janis and Field (1959) and many others.
Thorndike (1938) investigated the effect of group
discussion upon the correctness of group decisions with the
factor of majority influence considered. He found that the
responses of the majority exerted less influence on those
subjects who had confidence in themselves. In Hochbaum's
(195*0 study, it was also shown that the self-confident
subject was less susceptible to the conformity pressures of
his group. Asch (1952), Kelley and Lamb (1957)» and Wiener
(1956) have all shown that less self-confident subjects are
more likely to conform to a simulated majority opinion.
Bittes and Kelley (1956) have found that when esteem
differences are simulated, subjects tend to estimate their
own ability and self-esteem according to the esteem they
are led to believe they have. This, subsequently, influ
ences whether or not they will conform to the norms of the
group. Similar studies have resulted in the same
^8
conclusions (Mausner 195*+» Kelley & Shapiro 195*+).
The importance of self-confidence may explain why
DiVesta (1959) found that conformity decreased as subjects
acquired experience with their tasks. League and Jackson
(196*+), employing a click counting task, report that sub
jects scoring low on self-esteem on a personality test con
formed more closely to a contrived group judgment than did
subjects who scored high.
There are a number of investigations that have
reported a relationship between age and self-concept.
Anticipation of the change in self-concept with age would
lead one to predict a curvilinear change. That is, self-
concept would become more favorable during the time of
gains and increased status, and less favorable during the
period when losses are being encountered.
A study by Lehner and Guhderson (1953)? employing a
draw-a-person test, found a curvilinear relationship of
self-concept to age. The results of their study showed
that men tended to draw larger figures the older they got
up to about 30 years of age, thereafter, they drew smaller
pictures. Women were found to draw larger pictures up to
age forty, after which they began to draw smaller ones. It
can be inferred that these trends reflect trends in self-
evaluation, since it is often considered that in such
picture drawing the person's self-image is projected.
* + 9
In a systematic effort to investigate self-concept,
Mason (195*0 administered various measures of self-concept
to several groups of subjects from different backgrounds.
Mason found that indigent old people had more negative
self-concepts than did a group of independent middle-class
elderly, and both, in turn, had a more negative self-
concept than did a more youthful low-economic group. An
identical age trend was reported by Seward (19^5), who
administered intelligence tests to younger and older
college professors and recorded the comments his subjects
made during the course of the experiments. It was found
that older group members made twice as many self-belittling
remarks than did the younger group members.
A study by Lehner and Silver (19*+8) and one by Giedt
and Zehner (1951) employed a draw-a-person test in an
investigation of age changes in self-concept. They
required their subjects to draw a person and then to label
the age of the person drawn. It was found that subjects
under 25 tended to label their drawings with ages older
than their own, while those over 25 labeled the drawings
with younger ages. The interpretation offered for these
results suggested that approximately age 25-30 is the
idealized age in the American culture. Norman’s (19*+9)
findings also suggest that 'increasing age may be a threat
to one’s self-concept, especially for women. Norman found
50
that older women more often failed to record their date of
hirth in biographical sources. In reference to the evi
dence on age changes in self-concept, Kuhlen (1959) has
stated, 11. . • the data seem to suggest that, consciously
or unconsciously, the individual, as he gets older, has a
less positive attitude toward himself."
The relationships discussed above-individuals with
lower self-concepts are more likely to conform; older
individuals as compared to younger individuals score lower
on self-concept measures— support the hypothesis that older
subjects will be more conforming than younger subjects.
Previous empirical and theoretical studies, although
not perfectly, concur, that the overconformist has less
"ego strength." Por example, Hoffman (1953 )> using judg
ments of line lengths, found conformers to differ from non-
conformers by scoring lower on ego strength measures. The
personality measures obtained by Hoffman were from a
sentence-completion test, two questionnaires, and the
Thematic Apperception Test. Crutchfield (1955) reports
similar findings.
The older individual has been shown to have a lower
"ego strength" than younger age groups (Neugarten &
Gutmann 1958; Bosen I960; Shanon & Sharon 1965).
Rosen (i960) divided ego strength into "ego involve
ment" and "quality of ego involvement." It was found that
51
the extent of involvement of the ego in outer world events
decreases with age. She measured ego involvement by two
scores— the number of introduced figures in TAT stories,
and the presence in a story of any element of content
involving "conflict1 ’ or "controversy." Rosen also found
that the quality of ego involvement declines with age; the
shift was from assertive to passive affect. Rosen also
measured quality of ego involvement in two ways— a rating
of the emotional intensity of the TAT stories, and a count
of whether the activity described in the stories was
assertive or passive. Similar results were found by Shanon
and Sharon (1965) who tested Israeli men aged 39-61. They
also found the number of optimistic themes, positive end
ings to stories and achievement themes fell with age.
The relationships mentioned above— individuals
scoring low on ego strength are more likely to conform;
older individuals as compared to younger individuals score
lower on measures of ego strength— support the hypothesis
that older individuals will be more conforming than
younger individuals.
Sex and Conformity
Knower (1935) found women to be more influence able
than men. A number of investigators before and since have
confirmed the findings that females are more conforming
than males (Burt 1920; Crutchfield 1955; Jenness 1932;
52
Kirkpatrick 1936; Tuddenham, MacBride & Zahn 1958; and
others).
Beloff (1958), Tuddenham (1957) and Applezweig and
Moeller (1958) found women to be much more conforming than
men when confronted with pressure to conform by their
groups. This finding was substantiated by Coleman, Blake,
and Mouton (1958) who obtained correlations between diffi
culty of general information items and the tendency to con
form of .58 for men and .89 for women. Tuddenham found
similar differences when comparing college men and women.
However, other studies have failed to find a sex
difference in conformity behavior (Ehelps 1966; Klein
1970). Studies on acquiescence have shown little relation
to sex (Christie & lindauer 1963)* In- fact, men tend to
obtain slightly higher acquiescence scores than women
(Mahler 1962; Hilgard, Lauer, & Melei 1965). Kahana and
Coe*s (1969) study on conformity found that in contrast to
the major portion of the literature, males were more con
forming than females. Of the 2*+ women that participated in
the study, only 10 rated high on conformity. On the other
hand, of the nine men who participated, all scored high on
conformity.
Endler’s (1965) study is another example of a con
formity study that failed to find a sex difference in
degree of conformity. In Endler*s study, however, all the
53
confederates were male, while the subjects were both male
and female. In most of the above-mentioned studies where a
sex difference was discovered, the sex of the subjects was
the same as the confederates. Endler posits that perhaps
females conform less to male confederates than they do to
female confederates. He further postulates that this may
be because they identify to a larger degree with other
females, or, because they are more concerned with obtaining
social approval from females as a group than from males as
a group. Therefore, Endler maintains that in his investi
gation the presence of male confederates may have reduced
the conforming behavior of the females to the conformity
level of the males.
There continues to be a discrepancy among experi
mental findings in the degree of conformity between males
and females. Therefore, the present investigation will be
interested in determining if females are more conforming
than males. It has been well established, indicated by
the studies mentioned above, that when the subjects in the
conformity situation are of the same sex, there are sex
differences in conformity behavior (females being more con
forming). It will be a hypothesis of this investigation,
in contrast to Endler's (1965) data, that females will be
more conforming, on each of the experimental tasks investi
gated, even when the number of males and females in the
conformity situation are equal.
This hypothesis is partially based on a study by
Allen and Crutchfield (1963). They investigated whether
experimentally reinforced conformity would generalize to
subjective stimuli. The experimenters told the subjects
that the false group consensus was correct on objective
stimuli. An increase in conformity to group pressure was
found on objective stimuli receiving such authoritative
confirmation of the group’s responses. The results also
indicated that this experimentally reinforced conformity
generalized to other objective and subjective material on
which reinforcement was not given. Pertaining to the
current issue, it was found, talcing both reinforcement and
nonreinforcement conditions together, females were clearly
more conforming than males on vocabulary items and the
trend was similar for perceptual items. The results of
this investigation demonstrated that females were not only
more conforming than males, but also that this result
tended to generalize over all the tasks included in the
study, both objective and subjective.
Purther support for this hypothesis is based on the
investigations of Koponen (1957) and Spangler and Thomas
(1962). In both of these studies, females were found to
score significantly higher than males on the affiliation
scale of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. As
55
mentioned earlier, individuals scoring high on affiliation
needs have been found to he more susceptible to conformity
pressures (Applezweig & Moeller 1957; Raven 1959; Thibaut &
Strickland 1956; Tuddenham 1958). The Kbponen and Spangler
& Thomas studies found females to score significantly lower
than males on the achievement scale of the EPPS. As dis
cussed previously, those individuals scoring low on need
achievement have been found to be more susceptible to con
formity pressures (Krebs 1958; Samelson 1957; Thibaut &
Strickland 1956; Tuddenham 1958; Walker & Heyns 1962).
The Koponen and Spangler and Thomas studies also found
females to score significantly lower than males on the
dominance scale of the EPPS. Again, as described earlier,
individuals scoring low on dominance have been shown to be
more susceptible to social influence (Barron 1953; Bray
1950; Hoffman 1953; Kelman 1950).
Another basis for the hypothesis that females will
be more conforming than males in each of the sub-experiments
was a discussion by Bass (1961). He maintains that sex
differences in conformity behavior may be involved with
motivational orientation. He argues that men are more
'•task-oriented," while women are more "social-interaction
oriented." Therefore, he maintains that because women are
more concerned than men with obtaining social approval from
other individuals, women should tend to be more conforming.
Bass’ discussion was based on studies carried out at
Louisiana State University and on the study by Tuddenham
and MacBride (1958). In the Louisiana State studies, it
was found that college men were much more task oriented,
more concerned with getting the job done, getting the
correct answer and doing the best job possible. The women
subjects, however, were more interaction oriented, were
concerned about receiving social approval from others, and
were concerned about being accepted members of their groups,
It should also be mentioned, that the Klein (1970)
study, mentioned above, did not find a statistically sig
nificant sex difference. However, the data did show an
obvious trend indicating that females are more conforming
than males.
Task Difficulty and Conformity
The present investigation also investigated the
effect of the ambiguity or difficulty of the stimulus. It
has been shown that the more ambiguous the stimulus and the
more difficult the task, the greater is the proportion of
subjects conforming to the objectively incorrect judgment
of others (Asch 1951; Asch 1956; Berenda 1950; Carpenter,
Carpenter & Weiner 1956; Chipman 1966; Coleman, Blake &
Mouton 1958; Endler I960; Fisher, Williams & Lubin 1957;
Hunter 1968; Kelley & Lamb 1957; Klein 1970; London & Lim
196^; Miller & Tiffany 1963; Weiner 1956; and others).
57
In reference to task difficulty in perceptual con
formity situations, it has been illustrated that when the
perceptual situation is clearer and more distinct, and when
the perceptual disposition is stronger, conformity is less
likely to occur (Coffin 19^1). It has been demonstrated
that the larger the contrast on a discrimination judgment,
the less conformity will occur (Asch 19*+8; Asch 1956;
Crutchfield 1955; Klein 1970; Luchins 19*fh; Thrasher 195*0.
The more difficult the observational conditions (e.g., the
speeded presentation of clicks in a metronome click count
ing situation), the more conformity will occur (Blake,
Helson & Mouton 1957).
In Sherif's (1935) experiments employing the - auto-
kinetic phenomenon, the stimulus was highly ambiguous in
reference to the judgment of the distance the stationary
spot of light appeared to move. Considering the absence of
physical cues to distance, and the situation which required
absolute judgments, the tendency for the judgments of the
subjects to converge does not seem surprising. The data
led Sherif (19^8) to state, "... the greater the vague
ness of the stimulus field, the greater the influence of
... suggestion, prestige, social pressure and propaganda."
At about the same time, Murphy (1937) had found a marked
tendency for subjects judging which of two cards had more
dots on it to modify their judgments to conform to the
58
majority. It was shown that the influence of the majority
opinion was appreciable when ambiguity was introduced by
having approximately an equal number of dots on each card.
Luchins-("1955) utilized a situation similar to
Asch's in an investigation of conformity in a perceptual
situation. He required his subjects to judge which was
the shorter of two lines differing in length by from
one-sixteenth to one inch. It was found that generally the
influence of the confederates was greatest when the stimulus
was ambiguous. That is, when the difference between the
two lines was least.
A study by Luchins (194-5) is another example
illustrating an increase in conforming behavior under tasks
of high difficulty. Children aged eleven and thirteen were
required to interpret ambiguous drawings. A confederate's
answer preceded the subject's response. The children
tended to offer the same interpretation as the confederate
when the drawing left enough scope for ambiguity. However,
when the drawing presented a clearly structured object,
the subjects tended to remain independent of the con
federate 's interpretations.
In a study by Blake, Helson, and Mouton (1956),
subjects were asked to solve arithmetic problems without
paper and pencil in a "simulated group" situation. The
results indicated that the subjects were more influenced
by the decision of "others" as the problems became more
' 59
difficult. In a study by Kanareff and Lanzetta (1958),
subjects were required to judge wbich of two recorded tones
was highest in pitch. Ambiguity was maximal in that the
second tone was equal in pitch to the first on all test
trials. The investigators found an especially high degree
of imitation of partners' choices in this situation.
The studies mentioned above appear to indicate that
as the task becomes more difficult, or as the stimulus
becomes more ambiguous, there is an increased tendency for
the subject to depend on or look to others as sources of
information for the selection of the correct answer. A
direct relationship appears to be self-evident when the
following question is asked: Are conformity pressures more
effective when subjects are faced with ambiguous stimuli?
However, all studies have not yielded this relationship.
The experiments by Schonbar (194-5), utilizing an
autokinetic situation like that of Sherif (1955), found
that there may still be a marked social effect or conver
gence of judgments when subjects are required to judge
the movement of a point of light which actually does move.
This is a much less ambiguous situation than the one
reported by Sherif where the point of light is always
stationary.
In a study by Olmstead and Blake (1955), group
pressure was exerted on subjects to conform to the number
of metronome clicks heai-d. The results indicated that
60
group pressure operates even when the discrepancy is larger
than one or two metronome clicks. This illustrates that
group pressures to conform are present and do have an effect
on an individual's perceptual judgment in situations of
low task difficulty.
In a study by Blake, Helson & Mouton (1956), the
difficulty of the items in a metronome counting task was
varied to ascertain the effect of difficulty of task on
susceptibility to group opinion. It was assumed that there
would be a greater yielding to group pressure under con
ditions of higher rates of clicks. It was also assumed
that it would be more difficult for subjects to judge the
correct number of clicks as the rate of clicks increased.
However, the data of their study indicated that as the
rates of clicks increased in difficulty (140, 170, 200
clicks per minute), there was not a comparable rise in
conformity. The authors point out, however, that if the
metronome clicks had been calibrated to provide a greater
graduation in difficulty than was achieved, the expected
relationship of increased difficulty with increased con
formity would have probably been attained. This study,
nevertheless, must be considered as contradictory to the
findings of Asch (1956), Chipman (1966), Hunter (1968),
Endler (1960) and to the findings of many other studies
(mentioned above) which have found this relationship.
61
A variation of the original Asch (195"0 experiment
was conducted by Asch (195'0 in an exploratory attempt to
ascertain the effect of increasing the contradiction
between the majority and the critical subject. The purpose
of this was to determine if increasing the magnitude of
discrepancy would aid the critical subjects in asserting
their independence and in disclaiming the majority more
decisively. In this experiment, there was a total of ten
length-of-line judgments, five of which were critical. The
judgments of the confederates departed greatly from the
actual state of affairs by amounts ranging from one to seven
inches. Under these conditions, 28 percent of the critical
responses were errors identical to those of the con
federates. In a control group, the errors were 2 percent
of the total number of critical judgments. The mean
number of errors was 1.4- in the experimental group and 0.1
in the control group. In referring to this finding, Asch
said, "Increasing the objective discrepancies here did not
abolish the majority effect nor appreciably decrease it."
This illustrated that, in contradiction to most reported
studies, decreasing ambiguity does not decrease conformity.
While susceptibility and conformity may vary
directly with task difficulty, results of experiments
reported do not consistently demonstrate the validity of
this relationship. The present investigation, therefore,
was partially aimed at substantiating the following
62
relationship within each of the five sub-experiments:
Conformity will be greater at higher levels of task
difficulty.
Nature of the Experimental Task
A secondary concern of the present investigation
was to ascertain differences in conformity due to the
nature of the experimental task. Tasks in previous con
formity experimentation have ranged from questions that
have literal answers, to social attitudes that cannot be
presumed to have "correct" responses (Blake, Helson, &
Mouton 1958; Crutchfield 1955; Ferguson 19^; Festinger &
Thibaut 1951)* tasks that consists of material based
on fact and obvious perceptual judgments have been shown
to be most resistant to change from conformity pressures.
However, items such as attitudes toward social problems,
which obtain their validity from a social frame of
reference, appear to be more subject to social influence.
In reference to the issue of the nature of the
tasks, Blake and Mouton (1961) have stated:
Conformity behavior increases when it is necessary
for an individual to rely more heavily on the
responses of others in making his own adjustment.
Attitudes are more easily shifted than are reactions
to factual or logical items, probably because atti
tudes are more social in character.
In investigations where the ease of discrimi
nation had been varied by changing the conditions of
presentation, it was found that conformity increased as
63
subjects were prevented from utilizing an objective frame
of reference in giving their judgments (Deutsch & Gerard
1955; Luchins 194-4-; Raven & Rietsema 1957)*
In the present experiment, the nature of the tasks
range from a clear-cut perceptual judgment task (Experi
ment I) to a task involving social attitudes (Experiment V);
that is, from a task with an objective frame of reference
to a task with a social frame of reference.
The tasks in the present investigation increase in
ambiguity from Experiment I to Experiment V. In Experi
ment I, the stimulus is always present while the subject
is making his response.' In Experiment II and III, the
stimuli are not physically present while the subject is
making his response, but rather they must be judged from
memory. Deutsch and Gerard (1955) found more conformity
on line judgments when responses were made several seconds
after the stimuli had been removed. In Experiment IV,
the correct answer (objective frame of reference) is never
presented to the subject. In Experiment V, there is no
correct answer since the task deals with attitudes.
Issues of social opinion are much more ambiguous,
subject to argument and disagreement. Matters of fact
are more easily tested and less likely to be ambiguous.
Therefore, it is hypothesized (stated more formally in the
next section) that conformity will increase from Experi
ment I to Experiment V because correct answers to the
64-
stimulus presentations will become less easy to obtain with
assuredness.
Hypotheses
The above literature survey led to the formulation
of four hypotheses that this study tested. Before listing
them, it may be wise to define the term "informational
social influence" as an influence to accept information
obtained from another or others. That is, "social influence
is regarded as informational when the source of information
is regarded as a cue to the correct answer ..."
(Graham 1962). "Social conformity" is defined here as
". . . the public and/or private agreement of an individual
with an opinion or judgment he had not held before it was
presented to him. " (Sampson 1964-. )
The following hypotheses were tested using social
conformity as the dependent variable:
Hypothesis I: Informational social influence is
greater upon the judgments or opinions of older individuals
than upon the judgments or opinions of younger individuals.
Further this hypothesis will hold in each of the sub
experiments on all five tasks employed.
Hypothesis II. Informational social influence is
greater upon the judgments and opinions of females than
upon the judgments or opinions of males. Further, this
hypothesis will hold in each of the sub-experiments on
all five tasks employed.___________________________________
65
Hypothesis III. Informational social influence is
greater upon the judgments or opinions of the subjects as
the stimulus of the task becomes more ambiguous (i.e., as
the task becomes more difficult). Further, this hypothesis
will hold in each of the five sub-experiments on all five
tasks employed.
Hypothesis IV: Informational social influence is
greater upon the judgments or opinions of the subjects as
the nature of the experimental tasks proceed from an
objective to a social frame of reference (i.e., there will
be an increase in conformity from Experiment I to Experi
ment V).
Compliance vs. Private Acceptance
Arriving at a distinction between "compliance" and
"private acceptance" has been a concern of social psy
chologists for a number of years. Although there have
been few experiments that have dealt with this distinction,
a number of social psychologists have at least discussed
the issue (Festinger 1953» 1957; French & Raven 1959;
Hovland, Janis & Kelley 1953; Johoda 1959; Kelley & Volkart
1952; Kelman 1961; Lewin 1951; Newcomb, Turner & Converse
1965; Secord & Backman 1964).
The precise terms used in the distinction have
varied from investigator to investigator. Dichotomies used
in the distinction include: public versus private atti-
tudes, overt versus covert behavior, compliance versus
66
internalization and own versus induced forces.
When conducting an empirical investigation on con
formity, failure to consider the distinction between
compliance and private acceptance could result in treating
responses which are extremely different psychologically as
identical. When an individual is faced with a unanimous
disagreement from a group, he may comply or not comply.
Whatever his public response, the person may privately
agree or disagree with the group. Therefore, there are
four possible outcomes of a conformity experiment: (1)
compliance and private acceptance, (2) compliance without
private acceptance, (3) no compliance and no private
acceptance, and (4) private acceptance without compliance.
Two apparently identical responses of public conformity
may, therefore, actually reflect two totally disimilar
psychological states (compliance with or without private
acceptance).
The present investigation adopted the distinction
made by French and Raven 0959)* They have noted, although
stated as a dichotomy, that the distinction between com
pliance and private acceptance may represent an underlying
psychological continuum. The continuum could be expressed
as the degree to which the subject's behavior is dependent
upon the presence of some external agent. The "conforming"
behavior is considered "compliance" if it is evidenced
only in the presence of the person or persons who induced
67
the original conformity behavior. The "conforming"
behavior is considered as "private acceptance" if this
behavior subsequently does not depend on the presence of
the inducing agent. Theoretically, in between these two
extremes can be varying degrees to which the behavior is
evidenced without the presence of the other. Presumably,
this would represent varying degrees of private acceptance.
Lewin (19 51) was pointing in a similar direction
in his distinction between "own" and "induced" forces.
For example, Lewin states, "Porces may correspond to a
person's own needs .... Many psychological forces . . .
do not, however, correspond to his own wishes but to the
wishes of another person .... These forces can be
called induced forces." The similarity between Lewin1s
distinction and the distinction between compliance and
private acceptance is relatively clear. The existence of
an "induced" force acting on a person and having an
effect on his behavior corresponds to compliance without,
necessarily, private acceptance. If the "induced" force
becomes an "own" force, then you would have the situation
of private acceptance accompanying the compliance.
Prench (194-4-) further elaborates on the dis
tinction between "own" and "induced" forces. He discusses
the rejection or acceptance of "induced" forces in the
following manner:
68
An induced force which is accepted to a high
degree produces in the person additional own
forces in the same direction, so that the behavior
instigated becomes relatively independent of the
inducing agent and will occur even if his power
field is removed. But an induced force which is
rejected produces in the person opposing forces
with the result that induced behavior will cease
as soon as the inducing field is withdrawn.
(French 1944).
Here, again, is presented a distinction between compliant
behavior with and without private acceptance.
The question arises as to how one tests for private
acceptance. This becomes a meaningful question since in
any conformity study it is possible to distinguish between
four types of situations which may appear similar on the
surface (these are described above). An example of one of
these four outcomes will clarify the problem of failing to
distinguish between compliance and private acceptance.
Coch and French (1948) provide an example of a
person who complies but privately rejects the group norm.
They discuss the case of a woman clothes-presser they
observed in their investigation of the resistance to
behavioral changes in an industrial setting. The person
was placed in a work group that had its own production
norms and insisted on conformity to those norms by group
members. When the presser joined the group, the rest of
the group was producing at a rate of approximately 50 units
per hour. After the new girl had been in the group a few
weeks and became accustomed to the work, her production
began to exceed that of the rest of the girls. The group
69
quickly began, in the words of Coch and Stench, to "scape
goat" the girl. The scapegoating included several forms of
harassment. The enforcement of the group was effective.
The girl's productivity promptly dropped and subsequently
stayed at the same level as the rest of the group. At
this point there is no clear evidence whether this was
merely compliance without private acceptance or whether
the girl now privately accepted the group norm as the
appropriate level of productivity. When the group was
later dispersed in the factory, and were no longer present,
the girl1s productivity doubled within four days and
stabilized at this higher figure. This example provides a
clear indication of compliance without private acceptance.
This study represents a good paradigm for the joint study
of compliance and private acceptance.
Most studies in the social psychological literature
have employed either measures of compliance or measures of
private acceptance, but seldom both simultaneously. This
historical fact is unfortunate because it would be of
interest to examine how the two types of conformity inter
act. In reference to this issue, Kiesler (1969) has
stated:
The notion of private acceptance is obviously
an important aspect of the study of group pressure
and "conformity." However, .. . it has received
relatively little study. One obvious reason for
this is that it is more difficult to study private
acceptance experimentally than it is either to
study compliance or to ignore the distinction
70
altogether. Needed even more, however, are experi
ments in which both variables are studied at once.
There have been a few investigations that have
experimentally considered the distinction between compliance
and private acceptance. For example, in Sherif's (1935)
original investigation, one of the considerations was to
ascertain whether the effect of the social influence was
impermanent or continuous. Sherif tested the subjects'
autokinetic judgments 24 hours after the initial session.
It was found that the social influence continued to have
an effect on these subjects when tested alone after a day
had elapsed.
In a study by Bovard (194-8), subjects were tested
alone 28 days after the initial conformity session. The
subjects’ judgments, of the autokinetic stimuli, were found
to be close to their judgments obtained in the presence of
a confederate. Similar results have been reported by
Eohrer et al. (1954-), who used a year as the interval of
time between observations.
In a study by Hardy (1957)> the topic of divorce
was used in an attempt to study compliance and private
acceptance. The subjects were first required to give
public responses. The subjects then went into separate
rooms and filled out a questionnaire to give their
private responses. Nearly 50 percent of the subjects
complied by changing their opinion markedly toward the
group, as compared with their previous private responses.
71
Private acceptance was also found. Approximately 45 per
cent of the subjects privately shifted toward the group on
at least half of the tx^elve statements. There have been a
few other studies that have investigated the effect of
social influence on opinions which have found compliance
to be accompanied by private acceptance (Gerard 1954;
Raven 1959)-
The present investigation considered both com
pliance and private acceptance under the rubric of conform
ity. Although the major concern of the investigation was
with that portion of conformity designated as compliance,
an experimental attempt was made to distinguish between
these two forms of social behavior. The question raised
above as to how to test for both compliance and private
acceptance in the same experiment must be considered.
If the effects of social influence result in a
subject publicly complying, one can not determine solely
on this basis whether or not the compliance which is
observed is accompanied by private acceptance. If it is
accompanied by private acceptance, the behavior being
exhibited should persist even when the group exerting the
influence is removed. On the other hand, if compliance
is not accompanied by private acceptance, then the individ
ual should revert to his former mode of behavior when the
group exerting the pressure is removed. Therefore, the
operational way in which the present investigation
72
identified private acceptance was in terms of the after
effects remaining from social influence when the conformity
pressures had been alleviated. The actual research design
is presented in the General Method section which follows.
Restatement of the purpose of the present investi
gation.— The purpose of the present investigation was to
focus on determining whether the greater degree of con
formity expressed by older subjects in a visual perceptual
Judgment situation (Klein 1970) is unique to that situation,
or whether it is a general tendency for the older person
to be more conforming regardless of the experimental task.
It was also the purpose of this study to investigate sex
differences in conformity behavior and variation in con
formity behavior due to ambiguity of the stimulus on a
variety of experimental tasks. As a secondary concern,
this investigation was interested in determining if con
formity behavior varies due to the nature of the experi
mental task.
CHAPTER II
GENERAL METHOD
Subjects
One hundred and twenty subjects were recruited for
participation in the general experiment. The subjects were
all paid volunteers. Sixty of the subjects were young,
ranging in age from 17 to 24 years with a mean age of 18.6
years. Sixty of the subjects were old, ranging in age from
60 to 81 years with a mean age of 67.2 years. Half of the
subjects in each age group were male the other half female.
There were twenty-four subjects (half young and half old,
half male and half female) in each of the five sub-experi
ments. The young subjects were students attending the
University of Southern California. The older subjects
were recruited from the Institute of Lifetime Learning in
Long Beach, California. This institute offers adults
over the age of 55 continued learning through lectures,
classes and seminars.
The number of subjects utilized in this experiment
was determined by the considerations of the size of the
differences expected, the power of the designs, the control
measures employed, and the practical aspects of obtaining
subjects. Considering these points 24 subjects per
experiment appeared to be a sufficient number to determine
________________________Z3_______________________
74-
if the main effects were significant, to test the inter
actions, and to make certain post hoc comparisons.
Experiments designed to evaluate the role of
homogeneity among subjects regarding their degree of skill,
and equality of ability and knowledge have generally failed
to illustrate a consistent relationship between this factor
and susceptibility to conformity pressure (Festinger et al.
1952; Festinger & Thibaut 1951; Gerard 1954-; Hovland,
Janis & Kelley 1953; Janis & Hovland 1959)* Therefore, in
the present study, no strict emphasis was placed on equating
subjects on these factors. However, as much care as
possible was taken to select subjects that had attained at
least a minimum educational level.
Conformity Apparatus
There were three types of conformity apparatus
employed in the present investigation. The apparatus used
by Klein (1970) was utilized in sub-experiments I, III,
and V. In Experiment II, a modification of the apparatus
used by Mathie (1959) was utilized. In Experiment IV, a
technique used by Deutsch and Gerard (1955) was modified to
measure conformity.
i
Klein's (1970) apparatus.— The devising of
laboratory techniques to measure conformity was pioneered
by Sherif (1935) and by Asch (195^)• A group 0? experi
ments was reported by Asch (1951)» which have already been
75
described, in wbich subjects were given the task of com
paring the lengths of successive sets of lines. The
experimenter instructed all the members, except one, to
respond erroneously. The single uninstructed member was
then faced by a situation in which all the other group
members were perceived to be in error. The question was
whether or not the uninformed subject would conform to the
incorrect judgment of the confederates. A practical
limitation of Asch’s procedure was the necessity for the
experimenter, and also his confederates, to spend an hour
or longer testing each subject.
The limitation of Asch’s technique and apparatus
led to designing the apparatus used by Klein (1970), which
was based on the apparatus employed by Crutchfield (1955)*
This modified Crutchfield apparatus makes it possible to
test four subjects at a time in separate stalls. It pro
vides a two-choice answer reporting system, utilizing a
switch and light communication system that enables the
experimenter to introduce false information into the
system.
In front of each subject is a panel which has
eight six-watt bulbs placed side by side in pairs down the
face of the panel. Each pair of bulbs represents each of
the four subjects (as far as the subjects are concerned).
At the base of each of the subject’s panels are two
mercury switches. Mercury switches were used since they
76
silent; this prevents the subjects from knowing when the
other subjects respond. (The two switches on the subject's
panel light only the two bulbs indicating his response.
They also light two bulbs on the experimenter's panel, in
order for the experimenter to record the subject's response.
The experimenter's panel also has eight bulbs, two repre
senting each of the four subjects that are tested at the
same time, which enables the experimenter to record the
subjects' responses. At the base of the experimenter's
panel are six mercury switches. These control the lighting
of the remaining six bulbs on each of the subject's panels.
Each of the four adjacent panels have side wings which
form an open cubicle. In this way, although each individ
ual is sitting side by side to his fellow subjects, he is
unable to see their response panels.
In the present testing situation no confederates
are required. All four subjects are tested simultaneously
in a thoroughly standardized situation. Also, the experi
menter is able to exercise highly flexible control of the
simulated group judgments.
Modified Mathie (1959) apparatus.— This apparatus
seats four people next to one another separated by wooden
panels forming a row of open cubicles. This apparatus does
not require any confederates, and tests four subjects
simultaneously. In front of each subject, on a "flip-type"
77
rack is a stack of index cards each having one number
printed on it from one to fifty. The subject responds on
each trial by turning over the card which indicates his
response. On a table in front of the experimenter, facing
the subjects, are three "flip-type" racks each with a
stack of index cards numbered from one to fifty. By turning
over particular cards, the experimenter is able to intro
duce false information into the system. This apparatus
allows multiple-alternative tasks to be employed. The
actual procedure for utilizing this apparatus is described
when discussing Experiment II.
Klein (197*1) apparatus.— This apparatus is based on
a technique used by Deutsch and Gerard (1955)* This
apparatus seats four people next to one another, each in
an open cubicle. No confederates are required, and all
four subjects are tested at the same time. The apparatus
provides an unlimited answer-reporting system. Each sub
ject is given a "magic slate" on which he is told to
record his responses to the stimuli presented. In front
of each subject, is a rack covered with foam rubber on
which to place his "magic slate" after recording his
response. The experimenter has three "magic slates" on
which he records the supposed responses of the subjects.
He actually records false information deceiving the sub
ject. In front of the experimenter are three racks on
which he places the three "magic slates" after recording
the contrived responses of the subjects. This apparatus
makes it possible to use tasks that have multiple and un
defined response outcomes. The procedure for using this
apparatus is presented when discussing Experiment IV.
General Procedure
This investigation was comprised of five separate
experiments. Each followed the same research design;
however, they varied slightly in statistical design and
analysis. Experiments I through V were all interested in
age, sex and task difficulty as predictors of social
conformity. In the succeeding chapters, each of the sub
experiments are described in detail which includes a brief
introduction, a complete methodology (subjects, apparatus,
procedure, directions, data analysis) and results.
Below is a list of the five conformity sub-experi
ments.
Experiment I: A visual perceptual judgment task—
the subject's task was to judge which of two circular
discs was largest in size. (A modified replication of
Klein's (1970) study.)
Experiment II: An auditory perceptual judgment
task— the subject's task was to judge the number of
metronome clicks heard.
Experiment III: An auditory signal detection task-
the subject's task was to report whether he heard a pure
tone plus noise, or noise alone, in his right ear while
79
sometimes receiving additional information in his left ear.
Experiment TV: A problem solving task— the sub
ject's task was to solve one-operation arithmetic problems.
Experiment V: A social attitude task— the subject's
task was to rate statements on nationalism as to whether
he agreed or disagreed with them.
Research design.— The five experiments followed
an identical research design. The reason for arriving at
the particular design which was employed was primarily to
obtain a measure of both compliance and private acceptance
as two distinct measures of social conformity. The
following describes the research design for each of the
sub-experiments: First, individual performance was
evaluated under "alone" conditions. Next, the subject was
tested in a "conformity" situation where conformity
pressures were exerted to shift responses away from those
under the alone condition. The subject's behavior was then
again measured under the alone condition after the conform
ity pressures were relieved. Finally, the subject's
behavior was again measured under the alone condition one
week later.
Compliance, which will be referred to as con
formity, was evidenced if the subject's performance in the
conformity situation was different from his performance the
first time he was tested alone. Private acceptance was
evidenced when performance under the •post-conformity alone
80
condition was different from the pre-conformity alone
I
'condition in the direction of the divergent reports (con-
Itrived) given in the conformity situation. Further evidence
for private acceptance was evident when the performance !
j
■under the second post-conformity alone condition (one week j
later) was different from the pre-conformity alone con-
!
Idition. This last test determined whether the subjects j
J i
!retained the group norms even after the social influence j
| |
had been alleviated over a period of time. Diagram-
i I
matically, this research design takes the following form: j
; i
< ;
A C A----------------- A I
! initial one week I
I session later j
i A tested under "alone" condition ;
| C tested under "conformity" condition j
!
j Alone situation.— Subjects were scheduled to come
I
I to the experiment in groups of four. The subjects were
!
f
|then taken to the room where one of the three types of
i apparatus was set up. They were asked to seat themselves
i
in one of the four stalls. Each subject responded inde
pendently without any knowledge of the responses of the
other subjects. The instructions were given by a tape
recording (the subjects were also given a printed copy of
the directions to read), describing the apparatus and the
j task they were to perform. When the experimenter was
j
assured that the subjects understood the requirements of
81
the task, the series of trials "began. This same procedure
was followed after the conformity situation and again one
week after the initial session.
Conformity situation.— The subjects were already
seated in one of the four stalls of one of the three types
of apparatus. The instructions were given by a tape
recording (the subjects were also given a printed copy of
the directions to read), informing the subjects that this
portion of the experiment was interested in their per
formance in a group situation. The instructions described
the apparatus and the fact that it was designed so.that
each subject was not only able to report his own response,
but that he would also be informed of the responses of the
other group members. The subject then selected a sealed
envelope at random, in which he found a card indicating
the order in which he was to respond (either 1st, 2d, 3d,
or 4th). Each envelope contained a card with "4th"
printed on it. This led each subject to believe that the
other three members of the foursome had been assigned to
the 1st, 2d, and 3d response-order positions. The task
was then described. A portion of the trials were critical
trials, occurring randomly, on which the contrived report
of the responses of the three peers displayed a unanimous
selection of an incorrect response. The remaining trials
were innocuous where peer judgments were accurate. The
innocuous trials were included in order to maintain the
subject’s acceptance of the genuineness of the apparatus
and the situation. V/hen the experimenter was assured that
all the subjects understood the requirements of the task,
the series of trials began.
Actually, the subject had a wrong understanding of
the situation because he had been deceived. In the case
of those subjects tested with the Klein (1970) apparatus,
the apparatus was not actually wired the way the subject
had been informed. There was actually no connection
between the panels of the four subjects. Rather, they
were wired indentically to a control panel where the
experimenter sat. It was the experimenter who sent all
the information which appeared on the panels of the sub
jects. The wiring was in parallel so that whatever signals
were sent by the experimenter, simultaneously and identi
cally appeared on all four subject's panels. In the case
of the modified Mathie apparatus, and the apparatus based
on the modified Deutsch and Gerard technique, the experi
menter controlled the information the subjects received by
turning over particular cards or by writing false infor
mation on the experimenter's "magic slate" respectively.
Therefore, on the critical trials, the subjects received
the unanimous incorrect responses simultaneously.
The quantitative scores of the subjects are not
able to account entirely for the reasons of the various
conforming tendencies that were observed. Therefore, an
83
attempt to understand the behavior of the subjects stemmed
from observations of the subjects and from a post-experiment
questionnaire. (An example of the questionnaire used is
given in the Appendix, pp. 294-296.) The questionnaire
aimed at ascertaining the following: what the subjects
actually experienced during the experiment; whether or not
the subjects were deceived; whether they considered the
other subject's responses in arriving at their own
responses; etc.; personality characteristics of the sub
jects (self-concept, happiness, shyness, cautiousness);
the subjects' child-rearing experiences.
General Data Analysis
The actual scoring procedures and statistical
designs varied slightly among the five experiments; these
are described in the following chapters. Basically, they
consisted of various analysis of variance designs and post
hoc comparisons. Although the statistical analyses
differed slightly, each of the five experiments conducted
the same basic tests. The following describe these tests:
Scoring: 1st "A" score = performance score when
first tested alone.
2d "A" score = performance score when
tested alone immediately following the
conformity situation.
3d "A" score = performance score when
tested alone one week after the initial
testing.
"C" score = performance score under the
_____________________conformity situation._____________________
84
Test 1: "C” score minus 1st "A" score.— Scores
in the first alone situation on the critical trials were
subtracted from scores in the conformity situation on the
critical trials. These difference scores were used in
the analysis. This test determined if there were signi
ficant differences between the age groups, the sexes, and
the levels of task difficulty in the degree of compliance
(conformity).
Test 2: 2d "A" score minus 1st "A" score.— Scores
in the first alone situation were subtracted from scores
in the second alone condition (post-conformity). These
difference scores were used in the analysis. This test
determined if there were significant differences between
the age groups, the sexes, and the levels of task diffi
culty in degree of private acceptance.
Test 3: 3d "A" score minus 1st "A" score.— Scores
in the first alone condition were subtracted from scores
in the third alone condition (one week later). These
difference scores were used in the analysis. This test
determined if there were significant differences between
the age groups, the sexes, and the levels of task difficulty
in degree of private acceptance. It also determined the
persistence of the group norms after the social influence
had been alleviated over a period of time.
The results of tests 1, 2, and 3, in each sub
experiment, were separately quantitatively compared
85
(presented in the chapter on General Results). This
entailed three 2x2x3x5 analysis of variance designs, one
for each of the three tests (1, 2, and 3). Score entries
in each cell were based upon the results of each of the
five experiments. The main purpose of these combined
analyses was to determine if there was a significant
difference between old and young subjects on conformity
(compliance and private acceptance) over all the tasks
combined; to see if there was a significant difference
between male and female subjects on conformity (compliance
and private acceptance) over all the tasks combined; to
see if there was a significant difference beween the levels
of task difficulty on conformity (compliance and private
acceptance) over all the tasks combined; and to determine
if there was a significant difference between the types
of tasks on degree of conformity (compliance and private
acceptance). Post hoc comparisons were also utilized in
analyzing the data on the degree of conformity between the
various tasks. The question as to whether old or young
subjects are more conforming on each of these tasks, was
answered by the individual analyses that were conducted
in each sub-experiment (described in the following
chapters).
CHAPTER III
EXPERIMENT I
It has been consistently demonstrated that knowledge
of the reactions and responses of others can influence
behavior in the direction of conformity. Specifically in
the area of visual perceptual judgments, this result has
been found by a number of investigators (Asch 195'1; Endler
1960; Kanareff & Lanzetta 1960; Klein 1970; Luchins 1955;
Schonbar 194-5; Sherif 1955; etc.).
In a visual perceptual judgment conformity situ
ation, which was the setting for this experiment, the
subject is faced with an apparent disagreement between his
own clear perception and a unanimous contradictory con
sensus of the other subjects. The question arises as to
what the subject will do when confronted with these cir
cumstances. Will he rely on the evidence of his own
senses and respond independently, or will he yield to the
judgment of the group?
This experiment focused on determining if task
difficulty, age, sex and an interaction of these variables
have an effect on conformity behavior. More specifically,
this experiment attempted to answer the question: Do age,
sex, and task difficulty act as predictors of social con
formity in a laboratory visual perceptual judgment task?
86
87
This experiment was essentially a modified repli
cation of the experiment by Klein (1970). The primary
difference was the statistical design and analysis employed,
and, consequently, the number of subjects utilized.
This experiment tested the following hypotheses
using social conformity as the dependent variable:
hypothesis I: Informational social influence is
greater upon the visual perceptual judgments of older
individuals than upon the visual perceptual judgments of
younger individuals.
Hypothesis II: Informational social influence is
greater upon the visual perceptual judgments of females
than upon the visual perceptual judgment of males.
Hypothesis III. Informational social influence
is greater upon the visual perceptual judgments of the
subjects as the stimulus of the task becomes more ambiguous
(i.e., as the task becomes more difficult).
PKOCEDUEES
Twenty-four subjects were used in this experiment.
Half of the subjects were young ranging in age from 17 to
23. The other half of the subjects were old, ranging in
age from 64 to 76. There was an equal number of males and
females in both age groups. (A more complete description
of the subjects is given in the General Method section,
p. 73.)
88
The Klein (1970) conformity apparatus was utilized
for this experiment. (This apparatus has been described in
full detail in the General Method section, pp. 74—76.)
The visual stimuli were presented on 35 mm slides by a
Kodak #860 carousel projector.
Method
Each subject was first tested alone, then in the
conformity situation, then again alone. After a period of
one week, he was again tested in the alone situation.
(This procedure and the reasons for employing it have been
discussed in the General Method section, pp. 78-82.)
Visual task.— The subject was informed that a
series of slides would be projected on a screen in front
of him. He was told that each slide would show a pair of
white discs against a black background. He was instructed
that his task was to judge which of the two discs was the
largest, and to indicate his choice by turning on his left
switch if he felt the disc on the left was largest or the
right switch if he felt the disc on the right was largest.
When performing in the conformity situation he was reminded
to respond in the response position he chose at random
(all Ss responded in the 4-th position due to the deception
employed).
A series of 36 trials (slide presentations) fol
lowed. Twenty-four were critical trials, occurring
89
randomly, on which the judgment of three peers displayed
a unanimous selection of the wrong member pair (conformity
situation). The remaining 12 trials were innocuous where
peer judgments were accurate. The innocuous trials were
included in order to maintain the subject's acceptance of
the genuineness of the apparatus and the situation.
The critical trials were of low task difficulty,
medium task difficulty and high task difficulty. There
were eight critical trials representing each of the three
levels of task difficulty, and there were four innocuous
trials representing each of the levels of task difficulty.
In the low-task difficulty situation the radii of the two
discs were in a ratio of 16 to 10; in the medium-task
difficulty situation the radii of the two discs were in a
ratio of 16 to 14-; and in the high-task difficulty situ
ation the radii of the two discs were in a ratio of 16 to
15- The conditions of the task of this experiment is
presented in Table 89 of the Appendix, p. 298.
Directions for the alone situation.— This experi
ment is concerned with perceptual judgments. A
series of slides will be projected on the screen
in front of you. On each slide will be two white
discs against a black background. Tour task will
be to judge which of the two discs, the one on the
left or the one on the right, is the largest. If
you feel the disc on the left is largest, turn on
the left switch; if you feel the disc on the right
is the largest, turn on the right switch. After
you make your judgments, leave your switch on until
I tell you to turn it off. There will be no time
limit for your judgments, however, they should not
take long. When each slide appears, make your
judgment and wait for me to tell you to turn off
________your switch. Are there any questions?_____________
90
Directions for the conformity situation.— This
portion of the experiment is concerned with per
ceptual judgment in groups. Again, a series of
slides will he projected on the screen in front of
you. On each slide, as before, there will be two
white discs against a black background. Again,
your task will be to judge which disc is larger,
the one on the left, or the one on the right.
In this portion of the experiment, you will not
only make your own judgments, but you will also
be informed of the judgment of the other subjects.
You will each be responding in a predetermined
order, which will be decided at random. In each
of these envelopes, one of which each of you will
pick at random, is a card with a response order
printed on it (either 1st, 2d, 3d, or 4-th). Do
not show it to anyone after I see it; just keep
it face up in front of you. This card indicates
the response position in which you are to make
your judgment. Again, if you feel the disc on
the left is larger, turn on the left switch; if
you feel the disc on the right is larger, turn on
the right switch.
On the panel in front of you, each of the pairs
of bulbs will represent the responses of the sub
jects who have selected that response position.
Your switches will turn on those two bulbs that
correspond to the response position you have
selected. You will make your judgment response
after you see either the left or right bulb light
up in the response position that precedes the one
you have selected. Again, after you make your
judgment, leave your switch on until I tell you
to turn it off. When the next slide appears,
wait for your turn to respond and then make your
judgment.
If, for example, you select the 1st response
position, then you will make your response as
soon as the slide appears. If you have selected
the 3d position you will wait for the first two
subjects to judge which of the figures is largest,
which will be indicated by either the left or
right bulb lighting up in their position. There
will be no time limit for your judgments, however,
they should not take long. Are there any
questions?
91
Data Analysis
The "alone score" was the number of times the sub
ject responded with an incorrect judgment on the critical
trials in the alone situation. The "conformity score" was
the number of times the subject agreed with the contrived
group consensus on the critical trials in the conformity
situation.
Tests 1, 2, and 3, described in the General
Method, were conducted. Each of these tests were separately
accomplished by statistically analyzing the data by a
3x2x2 mixed analysis of variance design. These were two-
between, one-within groups designs. There was repeated
measurements over levels of task difficulty. That is, each
subject was tested under all three levels of task diffi
culty. This resulted in testing three main effects and
four interaction effects for the test of compliance (test 1)
and for the tests of private acceptance (test 2 and 3)«
Having found a significant main effect for task
difficulty in tests 1 and 2, Scheffe's (1959) method of
multiple comparisons was employed to find the source of
the effect in each test. The results of the comparisons
made are presented in the General Results section, p. 239*
92
RESULTS
The data were statistically analyzed by the utili
zation of three 2x2x3 mixed analysis of variance designs.
Complete analysis of variance summary tables are given in
Table 1 (compliance— C), Table 2 (private acceptance in the
initial session— 1st P.A.) and Table 3 (private acceptance
after one week— 2d P. A. ).
The data relevant to the hypothesis that older
individuals are more conforming than younger individuals
are given in Tables 4, 5 and 6 and are diagrammatically
presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3*
Table 4 gives the mean conformity (C) scores of the
two age groups, and indicates that the main effect of age
was significant (P = 5.225; p < .05). Figure 1 graphically
illustrates the difference in mean conformity (C) scores of
the two age groups. It can be seen from the figure that
mean conformity scores increased with age. The data pro
vide support for the hypothesis, that informational social
influence is greater upon the visual perceptual judgments
of older individuals than upon the visual perceptual
judgments of younger individuals (as measured by com
pliance).
Table 5 gives the mean conformity (1st P.A.) scores
of the two age groups. The main effect of age was not
significant at the .05 level of significance. Figure 2
93
TABLE 1
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY
TABLE FOR COMPLIANCE
EXPERIMENT I
Source of
Variation df sso . MSQ F
Age 1 4.500 4.500 5.226*
Sex 1
0
0
ITS
•
.500 .581
Age x Sex 1 .222 .222 .258
Error 20 17.222 .861
Task Difficulty 2 16.028 8.014 20.317***
Age x T. D. 2 4.083
2.041 5.176**
Sex x T. D. 2 .250
.125 .317
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .528 .264 .669
Error 40
15.777
.394
*p < .05
**p < .025
***p < .001
TABLE 2
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OE VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
FOR THE FIRST TEST OF PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE
EXPERIMENT I
Source of
Variation df SSQ. MSQ. F
Age 1 .222 .222 1.081
Sex 1 .056
.055
0.270
Age x Sex 1 .056
.055
0.270
Error 20 4.111 .205
Task Difficulty 2 6.861 5.450 15.424*
Age x T. D. 2 .861 .450
1.685
Sex x T. D. 2 .028 .015
0.054
Age x Sex x T. L. 2 .028 .015
0.054
Error 40 10.222
.255
*p < .001
95
TABLE 3
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
POR THE SECOND TEST OF PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE
EXPERIMENT I
Source of
Variation____________ df_______SS§______ MS§_______ P
Age 1
.125 .125 2.368
Sex 1
.125 .125
2.368
Age x Sex 1
.014 .013 0.263
Error 20 1.056
.053
Task Difficulty- 2 .361 .181 2.600
Age x T. D. 2 .083
.041 0.600
Sex x T. D. 2
.083
.041 0.600
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .028 .014 0.200
Error 60 2.778 .069
Mean
Conformity ^
*
Young Old
Pig. i. Mean conformity scores (compliance) of
young and old subjects (combining the three levels of
task difficulty) for Experiment I. Range of scores
also indicated.
TABLE 4
EXPERIMENT I
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OP OLD AND YOUNG
SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OP TASK
DIFFICULTY). P VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
AGE (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 1).
F
Age. N Mean Score
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Young
Old
12
12
1.083
2.583
5.226*
*p < .05
97
Mean
Conformity
Score
24 —
23 —
22 --
20 --
19 - =
18---
16 ---
15 —
14 -3 :
13 —
12 ---
10
Old
Fig. 2. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of young and old subjects (combining the
tbree levels of task difficulty) for Experiment I.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 5
EXPERIMENT I
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
OLD AND YOUNG SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE
LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE
FOR MAIN EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 2).
Age___
Young
Old
N
12
12
Mean Score
.666
.999
(from Analysis
of Variance)
1.081
98
Mean
Conformity
Score
24-
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14-
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 -
3
2
1
Young Old
Fig. 3* Mean conformity scores (2nd private
acceptance; of young and old subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment I.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 6
EXPERIMENT I
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2nd PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
OLD AND YOUNG SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE
LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE
FOR MAIN EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 3).
Age_
Young
Old
_N
12
12
Mean Score
.083
.333
F
(from Analysis
of Variance
2.368
99
graphically presents the mean conformity (1st P.A.) scores
of the two age groups. It is apparent that conformity
scores were only slightly higher for the older subjects.
The mean conformity (2d P.A.) scores of the two
age groups are presented in Table 6. The main effect of
age was not found to be significant at the .05 level of
significance. Figure 3 presents the difference in the
mean conformity (2d P.A.) scores of the two age groups.
It is evident that conformity scores were not significantly
different; the mean scores were only slightly higher for
the older subjects.
The hypothesis that females would conform more than
males was not confirmed by the data pertaining to com
pliance, initial private acceptance, or private acceptance
after one week. The data relevant of this hypothesis are
given in Tables 7» 8, and 9 and are presented graphically
in Figures 4, 5> and 6.
Tables 7, 8, and 9 present the mean conformity (C,
1st P.A., and 2d P.A. respectively) of the male and female
subjects. It is apparent that the main effect of sex was
not significant in any of the three analysis of variance
analyses. Figures 4, 5» and 6 illustrate the difference
in the mean conformity (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A. respective
ly) scores of the male and female subjects. It is clear
from the figures, that the female subjects were only
slightly more conforming than the male subjects.
T
Mean
Conformity
Score
Male Female
Fig. 4. Mean conformity scores (compliance) of
male and female subjects (combining the three levels of
task difficulty) for Experiment I. Eange of scores also
indicated.
TABLE 7
EXPERIMENT I
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF MALE AND FEMALE
SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK
DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 1).
F
(from Analysis
Sex____________ N________ Mean Score__________of Variance)
Male 12
Female 12
1.583
2.083
.580
101
Mean
Conformity
Score
24-
-----
25
-----
22
-----
21
20
. . .
19
18
---
17
-----
16
-----
15
14-
■ ■ —
13
-----
12
-----
11
— —
10
9
8
7
~'
6
c
----
J
4 -
i i . .
3
2
—
1
_ _ _
Male Female
Fig. 5- Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of male and female subjects (combining
tbe three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment I.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 8
EXPERIMENT I
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF MALE
AND FEMALE SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF
TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 2).
F
(from Analysis
Sex _______ N________ Mean Score__________of Variance
Male 12 .750
.270
Female 12 .916
102
24---
23 —
22 -33
2 1 - 3 3
20 ---
19 —
18 -33
17 —
16 -33
15 —
14 -ZZ
Mean 13 ---
Conformity ^ : —
Score 10
7
Fig. 6. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance) of male and female subjects (combining
tbe three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment I.
Eange of scores also indicated.
TABLE 9
EXPERIMENT I
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF MALE
AND FEMALE SUBJECTS (COMBINING TEE THREE LEVELS OF
TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 3).
3 I
Male Female
Sex N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Male 12 .083
2.368
Female 12 .333
103
The hypothesis, that informational social influence
is greater upon the visual perceptual judgments of the
subjects as the task becomes more difficult, was supported
by the data pertaining to compliance and the first test of
private acceptance. The data germane to this hypothesis
are given in Tables 10, 11, and 12 and are illustrated in
Figures 7» 8, and 9»
Mean conformity (C) scores for the three levels of
task difficulty, averaged over both age and sex, are
presented in Table 10. It is evident that the main effect
of task difficulty is highly significant (F = 20.317>
p < .001). Figure 7 illustrates graphically the difference
in the mean conformity (C) scores of the subjects tested
•under the three levels of task difficulty. It is clear
from the figure, the higher the level of task difficulty,
indicating greater stimulus ambiguity, the higher the con
formity (C) scores.
Having obtained a significant F value for the main
effect of task difficulty (0), the data were analyzed to
find the source of the effect. This was accomplished by
employing Scheffe's (1959) method of multiple comparisons.
The results of the comparisons made are presented in
Table 83 in the General Results section, p. 239.
Table 11 gives the mean conformity (1st P.A.)
scores for the three levels of task difficulty averaged
over both age and sex. It is apparent that the main effect
104
T - I 1
Low Task Medium Task High. Task
Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty
Fig. 7* Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of subjects for the three levels of task difficulty
(combining age and sex) for Experiment I. Range of
scores also indicated.
TABLE 10
EXPERIMENT I
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF SUBJECTS
FOR THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOR
MAIN EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN
FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 1).
F
Level of (from Analysis
Difficulty N Mean Score of Variance)
LTD 24
.125
MTD 24 .458
20.517*
HTD 24 1.250
6 ---
5 ---
Mean —
Conformity ^
Score —
*p < .001
105
8--
Mean ^ 3 Z
Conformity —
Score ^
Low Task Medium Task High Task
Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty
Fig. 8. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of subjects for the three levels of task
difficulty (combining age and sex) for Experiment I.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 11
EXPERIMENT I
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP
SUBJECTS FOR THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 2).
Level of
Difficulty N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD 24 .000
MTD 24
.125
13.424*
HTD 24 .708
*p < .001
106
8 ---
7 ---
Mean
Conformity
Score
2 ---
Low Task Medium Task High Task
Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty
Fig. 9. Mean conformity scores (2d private ac
ceptance) of subjects for the three levels of task
difficulty (combining age and sex) for Experiment I.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 12
EXPERIMENT I
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP
SUBJECTS FOR TEE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN
FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE-
TABLE 3).
F
Level of (from Analysis
Difficulty N Mean Score of Variance)
LTD 24- .000
MTD 24- .04-1 2.600
HTD 24- .166
J
107
of task difficulty was significant (F = 13 *4-24-, p < .001).
The mean conformity (1st P.A.) scores of the subjects
tested \mder the three levels of task difficulty are
presented graphically in Figure 8. It is clear from the
figure, the higher the level of task difficulty the higher
the conformity (1st P.A.) scores.
In order to find the source of the significant main
effect for task difficulty (1st P.A.), Scheffe's (1959)
method of multiple comparisons was employed. The results
of the comparisons made are presented in Table 83 in the
General Results section, p. 239*
Table 12 gives the mean conformity (2d P.A.) scores
for the three levels of task difficulty averaged over both
age and sex. It is apparent that the main effect of task
difficulty for private acceptance after one week was not
significant at the .05 level of significance (F = 2.600,
p < .10). The conformity (2d P.A.) scores of the subjects
tested under the three levels of task difficulty are
graphically presented in Figure 9* It is evident that
the conformity scores increased with levels of task diffi
culty, however, the difference in the mean scores was not
significant.
The analysis of the data pertaining to compliance,
presented in Table 1, also indicated a significant age by
task difficulty interaction effect (F = 5-176, p < .025).
That is, with increases in task difficulty conformity (C)
108
scores increased for "both young and old subjects. However,
tbe increase at eacb level was greater for the older
subjects.
CHAPTER IV
EXPERIMENT II
Conformity investigations in the area of perceptual
judgments have typically focused on the visual sense
modaility (Asch 1951; Kanareff & Lanzetta 1960; Kassarjian &
Kassarjian 1962; Klein 1970; Luchins 1955; Schonbar 194-5;
Sherif 1955; Vidulich & Kaiman 1961; and many others).
However, there are a few investigations that have con
sidered the auditory sense modality in perceptual conformity
studies. In the majority of these investigations, the
subject's task was to count the number of clicks heard
from a metronome (Blake & Brehm 1954-; Blake, Helson &
Mouton 1956; McDavid 1959; Olmstead & Blake 1955)*
The present conformity experiment also used the
metronome click counting task. The apparatus and procedure
was different in the present auditory judgment experiment
from those in the past. However, the use of this type of
auditory judgment task was based on those investigations
mentioned above.
The present experiment was directed at determining
if a situational condition, age, sex and an interaction of
these variables have an effect on conformity behavior.
More specifically, this experiment attempted to answer the
question: Does age, sex, and task difficulty act as
__________ 109
110
predictors of social conformity in a laboratory auditory
perceptual judgment task?
This experiment tested the following hypotheses
using social conformity as the dependent variable:
Hypothesis I: Informational social influence is
greater upon the auditory perceptual judgments of older
individuals than upon the auditory perceptual judgment of
younger individuals.
Hypothesis II: Informational social influence is
greater upon the auditory perceptual judgments of females
than upon the auditory perceptual judgments of males.
Hypothesis III: Informational social influence is
greater upon the auditory perceptual judgments of the
subjects as the stimulus of the task becomes more ambiguous
(i.e., as the task becomes more difficult).
PROCEDURES
There were twenty-four subjects used in this
experiment. Half of the subjects were old, ranging in
age from 61 to 75* other half of the subjects were
young, ranging in age from 18 to 23. There were an equal
number of males and females in both age groups. (A more
complete description of the subjects is given in the
General Method section, p. 73.
The Modified Mathie (1959) conformity apparatus was
employed in this experiment. (This apparatus has been
Ill
described in greater detail in the General Method section,
pp. 76-77-) Ehe stimuli were presented on magnetic tape
via Elega #DR-111 C stereo headphones. A Concord Mark III
tape recorder was used.
Method
In the initial session, the subjects were first
tested alone, then in a conformity situation, and then
again alone. They were retested in the alone situation
one week after their initial testing. (This research design
and reasons for utilizing it have been discussed in the
General Method section, pp. 79-81.)
Auditory task.— The subject was instructed that he
would be hearing a series of metronome clicks. He was
told that his task would be to judge how many clicks he had
heard. He was instructed to indicate his judgment by
turning over that card which had printed on it the number
of clicks he had heard. When performing in the conformity
situation, he was reminded to respond to the response
position he had chosen at random (all Ss responded in the
4th position due to the deception employed).
A series of 36 trials (metronome click presen
tations) followed. Twenty-four trials were critical
trials, occurring randomly, on which the contrived judg
ments of the three peers displayed a unanimous selection
of an incorrect number of clicks. There were 12 innocuous
112
trials where peer judgments were accurate. The innocuous
trials were included in order to maintain the subjects
acceptance of the genuineness of the apparatus and the
situation.
On the critical trials the incorrect judgments
were discrepant from the actual number of clicks by 1, 2, 3»
or 4- clicks. The variation of the reported discrepancy was
introduced to determine the effect of differences in the
magnitude of the reported discrepancy on conformity be
havior. It should be noted that this was a tangential
issue and not a variable of primary concern. However, the
statistical design does include background discrepancy as
a variable.
The critical trials were of low task difficulty,
medium task difficulty and high task difficulty. There
were eight critical trials representing each of the three
levels of task difficulty, and four innocuous trials
representing each of the levels of task difficulty. Under
low task difficulty, the rate of presentation of the
clicks was 138 per minute. Under medium task difficulty,
the clicks were presented at a rate of 184- per minute.
Under high task difficulty, the clicks were presented at
a rate of 224- per minute. The click discrepancies were
balanced over the rates of presentation to prevent con
founding. The number of actual clicks per trial were also
balanced over the rates of presentation to prevent
113
confounding. The conditions of the task for this experi
ment is presented in Table 90 in Appendix, p. 300.
Direction for the alone situation.— This experi
ment is concerned with perceptual judgments. You
will be hearing a series of metronome clicks. Your
task will be to judge how many clicks you hear in
each series. After you make your judgment, turn
over that card on the rack in front of you which
indicates the number of clicks you have heard. The
cards are numbered from one to fifty. After you •
make your judgment leave your card turned over,
facing me, until I indicate to return it to its
normal position. Each series of clicks will begin
five seconds after a tone is sounded. There will
be no time limit for your judgments, however, they
should not take long. Are there any questions?
Directions for the conformity situation.— This
portion of the experiment is concerned with
perceptual judgment in groups. Again, you will
be hearing a series of metronome clicks. Again,
your task will be to judge how many clicks you
heard in each series. Each series of clicks will
begin five seconds after a tone is sounded.
In this portion of the experiment, you will
not only make your own judgments, but you will
also be informed of the judgments of the other
subjects. You will each be responding in a pre
determined order which will be decided at random.
In each of these envelopes, one of which each of
you will pick at random, is a card with a response
order printed on it (either 1st, 2d, 3d» or 4th).
Do not show it to anyone after I see it; just keep
it face up in front of you. This card indicates
the response position in which you are to make your
judgment.
On the table in front of me you can see three
racks of cards numbered from one to three, each
containing cards numbered from one to fifty. Each
of these racks will represent the responses of the
subjects who have selected that response position.
You will make your judgment after you see the card
I turn over for the subject who selected the
response position that preceeds your response
position. Since no one follows the person who has
selected the fourth position, his response need
not be shown in order to save time. Again, after
you make your judgment, leave your card turned
over until I indicate to turn it back. When the
114
next series of clicks has been completed, wait
for your turn to respond and then make your
judgments.
If, for example, you have selected the first
response position, then you would make your
response as soon as the series of clicks was
completed. If you have selected the 3d position,
you will wait for the first two subjects to make
their judgments, which will be indicated by the
cards I turn over on the first two racks in front
of me, then you will make your judgment. There
will be no time limit for your judgments, how
ever, they should not take long. Are there any
questions?
Data Analysis
The "alone score" was the frequency the subject
responded with an incorrect answer on the critical trials
(in the direction of what the contrived report was in the
conformity situation) when tested alone. The "conformity
score" was the frequency the subject responded with an
answer identical with, or in the direction of, the con
trived group consensus on the critical trials in the
conformity situation.
Tests 1, 2, and 3, described in the General Method
section, were conducted. Each of these tests were
separately accomplished by statistically analyzing the
data by 2x2x3x4 mixed analysis of variance designs. These
were two-between, two-within groups designs. There was
repeated measurements over levels of task difficulty and
over the number of discrepant clicks reported by the
contrived group. This resulted in testing four main
effects and 11 interaction effects for the test of
115
compliance (test 1) and for the two tests of private ac
ceptance (tests 2 and 3).
Having found a significant main effect for task
difficulty in tests 1, 2, and 3, Scheffe's (1959) method
of multiple comparisons was employed to determine the
source of the effect in each case. The results of the
comparisons made are presented in the General Results
section, p. 239-
RESULTS
The data were statistically analyzed by using three
2x2x3x4 mixed analysis of variance designs. Complete
analysis of variance summary tables are given in Table 13
(compliance— C), Table 14- (initial test of private ac
ceptance— 1st P.A.) and Table 15 (private acceptance after
one week-2d P.A.).
The data pertaining to the hypothesis, that older
individuals are more susceptible to informational social
influence in making their auditory judgments, are given
in Tables 16, 17* and 18 and are diagrammatically presented
in Pigures 10, 11, and 12.
The mean conformity (C) scores of the two age groups
are presented in Table 16. The main effect of age was not
significant (E = 4.093, p < .10). Pigure 10 graphically
illustrates the difference in mean conformity (C) scores
of the two age groups. It is clear from the figure, that
COMPLETE
TABLE 13
ANALYSIS OE VARIANCE SUMMARY
TABLE FOR COMPLIANCE
EXPERIMENT II
116
Source of
Variation df SSQ MSQ F
Age 1
1.253 1.253 4.093*
Sex 1 .281 .281 0.918
Age x Sex 1 .003 •
o
o
VH
0.011
Error 20 6.124 .306
Task Difficulty 2 7*4-23 3.711
17.996**
Age x T. D. 2 1.256 .628 3.047*
Sex x T. D. 2 .062 .031 0.151
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .006 .003 0.016
Error 40 8.249 .206
Discrepant Report
3 20.343 6.781 23.121**
Age x D. R.
3 1.954- .651 2.221*
Sex x D. R.
3
.92 7 .309 1.053
Age x Sex x D. R.
3
.260 .086 0.296
Error 60 17.596 .293
T. D. x D. R. 6 7.18 7 1.197
7.238**
Age x T. D. x D. R. 6 2.076 .346 2.091*
Sex x T. D. x D. R. 6 .104
.017
0.104
Age x Sex x T. D.
x D. R. 6
.437
.072 0.440
Error 120 19.858 .165
* p < .10
* * p < .001
117
TABLE 14
COMELETE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
FOR THE FIRST TEST OF PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE
EXPERIMENT II
Source of
Variation df sso .
MSQ F
Age 1 .281 .281 1.680
Sex 1 .031 .031 0.186
Age x Sex 1
.003 •
o
o
V>J
0.020
Error 20 3.347 .167
Task Difficulty- 2 3.340 1.670 13.287**
Age x T. D. 2
.437
.218 1.740
Sex x T. D. 2 .020 .010 0.082
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .006 .003 0.027
Error 4-0
5.027 .125
Discrepant Report
3 3.677 1.225
9.540**
Age x D. R.
3
.204 .068
0.531
Sex x D. R.
3
.121 .040
0.315
Age x Sex x D. R.
3 .038 .012
0.099
Error 60 7*708 .128
T. D. x D. R. 6 2.020 .336 2.566*
Age x T. D. x D. R. 6 .368 .061
0.467
Sex x T. D. x D. R. 6 .284 .04-7 0.361
Age x Sex x T. D.
x D. R. 6 .076 .012
0.097
Error 120 15-748
.131
*p < .025
**p < .001
118
TABLE 15
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
POR THE SECOND TEST OP PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE
EXPERIMENT II
Source of
Variation df sso.
MSQ, P
Age 1
.015 .013 0.217
Sex 1 .013 .013 0.217
Age x Sex 1
.013 .013 0.217
Error 20
1.277 .063
Task Difficulty 2 .256 .128 3.303**
Age x T. D. 2 .006 .003 0.089
Sex x T. D. 2 .006 .003 0.089
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .006 .003 0.089
Error 40
1.555
.038
Discrepant Report
3
.180 .060
1.857
Age x D. R. 3 .013
.004 0.142
Sex x D. R.
3
.180 .060
1.857
Age x Sex x D. R.
3 .013
.004 0.142
Error 60 1.944 .032
T. D. x D. R. 6 .131
.021 0.742
Age x T. D. x D. R. 6 .048 .008 0.273
Sex x T. D. x D. R. 6 .381 .063
2.148*
Age x Sex x T. D.
x D. R. 6 .048 .008 0.273
Error 120
3.555 .029
*p < .10
**p < .05
119
Mean
Conformity
Score
Young Old
Fig. 10. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of young and old subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment II. Range of scores
also indicated.
TABLE 16
EXPERIMENT II
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF OLD AND YOUNG
SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK
DIFFICULTY) . F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
AGE (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 13).
Age N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Young 12 2.000
4.093*
Old 12
3.583
*p < .10
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
15
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
*
Mean
Conformity
Score
Young Old
Pig. 11. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of young and old subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment II.
Eange of scores also indicated.
TABLE 17
EXPERIMENT II
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP
OLD AND YOUNG SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE
LEVELS OP TASK DIFFICULTY). P VALUE
FOR MAIN EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 14).
F
(from Analysis
Age_____________N________ Mean Score__________of Variance)
Young 12 1.083
1.680
Old 12 1.833
121
Mean
Conformity
Score
24---
23 —
22 ---
20 ---
19 -EE
18
16 - =
15 —
14---
12
Young Old
Fig. 12. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of young and old subjects (combining tbe
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment II.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 18
EXPERIMENT II
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
OLD AND YOUNG SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE
LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE
FOR MAIN EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 15).
Age N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Young 12
• 533
.217
Old 12 .500
122
older subjects were more conforming than the younger
subjects. However, this difference was not significant
at the .05 level of significance.
Tables 17 and 18 give the mean conformity (1st
P.A. and 2d P.A. respectively) scores of the two age groups.
The main effect of age, in both analyses, was not signi
ficant at the .05 level of significance. Figures 11 and
12 graphically present the mean conformity (1st P.A. and
2d P.A. respectively) scores of the two age groups. It is
evident that the mean conformity scores (1st P.A. and 2d
P.A.) were only slightly higher for the older subjects.
The hypothesis that females are more conforming
than males was not confirmed by the data. The data rele
vant to this hypothesis are given in Tables 19, 20, and
21 and are presented graphically in Figures 13, 14-, and 15.
Tables 19, 20, and 21 give the mean conformity (C,
1st P.A. and 2d P.A. respectively) scores of the male and
female subjects. The main effect of sex was not signifi
cant in any of the three analysis of variance analyses.
Figures 13, 14-, and 15 diagrammatically illustrate the
mean conformity (C, 1st P.A. and 2d P.A. respectively)
scores of the male and female subjects. It is clear from
each of the figures, that it was the male subjects who
were slightly more conforming.
The hypothesis, that the more difficult the task
the more likely the subject is to be susceptible to
123
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
Mean 13
Conformity ^
Score 10
9
8
7
6
5 ■
4 ■
3 ■
2 ■
1 ■
Female Male
Fig. 13. Mean conformity scores (compliance) of
male and female subjects (combining the three levels of
task difficulty) for Experiment II. Range of scores
also indicated.
TABLE 19
EXPERIMENT II
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF MALE AND FEMALE
SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK
DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 13).
F
(from Analysis
Sex____________ N________ Mean Score__________of Variance)
Male
Female
12
12
3.166
2.416
.918
19999999999999
124
24---
23 —
22 ---
21 ---
20 - =
19 —
18---
17 - =
16 ---
15 —
-14 — —
Mean 13 ---
Conformity ^ —
Score 10 ——
Fig. 14. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of male and female subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment II.
Range of scores also indicated.
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF MALE
AND FEMALE SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF
TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 14).
6 -==
Male Female
TABLE 20
EXPERIMENT II
Sex Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Male
Female
12
12
1.583
1.335
.186
Mean
Conformity
Score
Male Female
Fig. 15. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance^) of male and female subjects (combining tbe
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment II.
Bange of scores also indicated.
TABLE 21
EXPERIMENT II
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF MALE
AND FEMALE SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF
TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 15).
F
Sex N Mean Score
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Male 12 .500
.217
Female 12 .333
^9999999999731
126
informational social influence, was supported by the data
pertaining to compliance and to both tests for private
acceptance. The data germane to this hypothesis are given
in Tables 22, 23, and 24 and are illustrated in Figures 16,
17, and 18.
Mean conformity (C) scores for the three levels of
task difficulty, averaged over both age and sex, are pre
sented in Table 22. It is evident that the main effect
of task difficulty is highly significant (F = 17-996,
p < .001). Figure 16 illustrates the difference in the
mean conformity (C) scores of the subjects tested under
the three levels of task difficulty. It is clear from the
figure, the higher the level of task difficulty, indicating
greater stimulus ambiguity, the higher the conformity (C)
scores.
Having obtained a significant F value for the main
effect of task difficulty (C), the data were analyzed by
Scheffe's (1959) method of multiple comparisons to find
the source of the effect. The results of the comparisons
made are presented in Table 83 in the General Results
section, p. 239-
Table 23 gives the mean conformity (1st P.A.)
scores for the three levels of task difficulty averaged
over both age and sex. It is apparent that the main effect
of task difficulty is significant (F = 13.287, p < .001).
The conformity scores (1st P.A.) of the subjects tested
127
8
7
6
Mean
Conformity
Score
♦
Low Task
Difficulty
Medium Task
Difficulty
High Task
Difficulty
Fig. 16. Mean conformity scores (compliance
of subjects for the three levels of task difficulty
(combining age and sex) for Experiment II. Range of
scores also indicated.
TABLE 22
EXPERIMENT II
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF SUBJECTS
FOR THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOR
MAIN EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN
FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 13).
Level of
Difficulty N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD 24- .250
MTD 24- .750 17.996*
HTD 24-
1.791
*p < .001
128
Mean
Conformity
Score
8 ---
5 ---
4 ---
5 ---
High Task Low Task Medium Task
Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty
Fig. 17- Mean conformity scores (ist private
acceptance) of subjects for the three levels of task
difficulty (combining age and sex) for Experiment II.
Hange of scores also indicated.
TABLE 23
EXPERIMENT II
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
SUBJECT FOR THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 14).
Level of
Difficulty N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD 24 .083
MTD 24 .291 13.287*
HTD 24
1.083
*p < .001
8
7
6
Mean ^
Conformity
t L .
Score
3
2
1
Low Task Medium Task High Task
Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty
Fig. 18. Mean conformity scores (2d private
•acceptance) of subjects for the three levels of task
difficulty (combining age and sex) for Experiment II.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 24-
EXPERIMENT II
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP
SUBJECTS FOR THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN
FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE-
TABLE 15).
Level of
Difficulty N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD 24 .000
MTD 24 .125 3.303*
HTD 24
.291
*P < .05
129
130
under the three levels of task difficulty are presented
graphically in Figure 17. It is apparent from the figure,
the higher the level of task difficulty, the higher the
conformity scores.
In order to determine the source of the signifi
cant main effect of task difficulty (1st P.A.), Scheffe's
(1959) method of multiple comparisons was employed. The
results of the comparisons made are presented in Table 83
in the General Results section, p. 239*
Table 24 presents the mean conformity scores (2d
P.A.) for the three levels of task difficulty averaged
over both age and sex. The main effect of task difficulty
for private acceptance after one week was significant
(P = 3.303, p < .05). The difference in the mean con
formity (2d P.A.) scores of the subjects tested under the
three levels of task difficulty is illustrated diagram-
matically in Figure 18. It is apparent that as the
difficulty of the task increases, conformity scores increase
significantly. Scheffe's (1959) method of multiple com
parisons was employed to find the source of the significant
main effect for task difficulty (2d P.A.). The results
of the comparisons made are presented in Table 83 in the
General Results section, p. 239*
The main effect of "discrepancy of contrived back
ground reports" was found to be significant in the test for
131
compliance (I? = 23.121, p < .001— Table 13), and for the
first test of private acceptance (F = 9.540* P < .001—
Table 14). That is, the closer the contrived report to
the actual number of clicks sounded, the greater the
conformity to that contrived report.
The analysis of the data pertaining to compliance,
Table 13, and to the first test of private acceptance,
Table 14, also indicated a significant task difficulty by
discrepancy of contrived background report interaction
effect (F = 7*238, p < .001; F = 2.58, p < .025 respec
tively). That is, with increases in task difficulty
conformity (C, and 1st P.A.) scores increased for all four
discrepant background reports, however, the increase in
conformity at each level of task difficulty was greater
for the background reports closest to the actual number of
clicks sounded.
CHAPTER V
EXPERIMENT III
There have been a number of studies in the past
that have investigated auditory detection. However, there
appears to be a dearth of conformity experiments that have
employed an auditory detection task, especially in the way
it will be approached in this experiment. A study by
Kanareff and Lanzetta (1958) is, perhaps, the only con
formity study that has employed an auditory task that
approaches the one that was utilized in this experiment.
The task they used was an auditory pitch discrimination
task. They found a high degree of imitation of partner
choices using pairs of recorded tones and requiring the
subject to judge whether the second tone was higher or
lower in pitch.
The present experiment focused on investigating
conformity using an auditory detection task. The idea for
the basic task was taken from Broadbent (1963)• However,
the task of the present experiment was a variation of the
task used in the Broadbent experiment.
The present investigation was directed at
determining if age, sex, and task difficulty act as pre
dictors of social conformity in a laboratory auditory
detection task.
132
133
Broadbent's (1963) investigation demonstrated that
performance on an auditory detection task decreased as
attention was diverted away from the stimulus source. It
was shown that this decrement was reflected in d1— that is,
a reduction of the effective signal strength of the stimu
lus. The situation of the experiment called for the
subject to attend to a signal in noise on one ear and to a
series of digits on the other ear. The results indicated
that the subjects' ability to detect the signal dropped
from the control to the divided attention condition.
This drop was not greater for the older subjects of his
experiment. Therefore, older subjects are not at a dis
advantage on this type of divided attention task.
This experiment tested the following hypotheses
using social conformity as the dependent variable:
Hypothesis I: Informational social influence is
greater upon the auditory detection performance of older
individuals than upon the auditory detection performance
of younger individuals.
Hypothesis II: Informational social influence is
greater upon the auditory detection performance of females
than upon the auditory detection performance of males.
Hypothesis III: Informational social influence
is greater upon the auditory detections of the subjects as
the stimulus of the task becomes more ambiguous (i.e., as
the task becomes more difficult).
134
PROCEDURES
There were twenty-four subjects used in this
experiment. Twelve of the subjects were old, ranging in
age from 60 to 74. Twelve of the subjects were young,
ranging in age from I7 to 22. There were an equal number
of males and females in both age groups. (A more complete
description of the subjects is given in the General Method
section, p. 73.)-
The Klein (1970) apparatus was utilized in this
experiment for measuring conformity. (This apparatus has
been described in detail in the General Method section,
pp. 74-76.)
A tape recording was made in order to present the
stimulus material to the subjects. The tape recording on
the right channel consisted of an audiometric reproduction
of the pure tone at the test frequency and band limited
random white noise. The tape recording on the left channel
consisted of a series of digits. The following equipment
was employed to reproduce the stimuli on the right channel
of the tape: a Tektronix type 162 waveform generator;
four Tektronix type 161 pulse generators; a Grason Stadler
model 901-B noise generator; two Grason Stadler model 829-E
electronic switches; a General Radio model 1313 oscilator;
a Tektronix type 502-A oscilloscope; a mixer; an Ampex
model AG 440 tape recorder. A diagram of the set-up used
155
in making the tape is presented in Figure 6? of the
Appendix, p. 299* subjects each had a pair of Elega
model DE-111C stereo headphones through which they received
the stimuli.
Method
The subjects on the first testing were first tested
alone, then in the conformity situation and then again
alone. They were tested alone an additional time one week
after the initial testing. (This research design and the
reasons for employing it have been discussed in the General
Method section, pp. 78-82.)
Auditory detection task.— On each trial, the subject
received a 4—second burst of limited band random white
noise in his right ear. On half of the trials, a 1000 Hz
tone was also presented. On the signal plus noise trials,
the tone began one second after the noise onset and ended
one second before the noise offset. The signal to noise
ratio on the trials where the tone was present was +3dB.
That is, the tone was 3dB more intense. The subjects were
told that the likelihood of a trial being noise alone or
signal plus noise is equal, but that these would occur
randomly.
The subject was instructed that he would be pre
sented a series of trials in which either noise alone or a
pure tone signal plus noise would occur in his right ear.
136
He was told his task would he to determine whether or not
a signal was present. He was instructed that if he felt
that there was a signal present he was to turn on his
right switch and if he felt there was not a signal present
he was to turn on his left switch. The subject was also
instructed that on certain trials he would be hearing
digits spoken in his left ear. He was told to ignore the
digits on some trials and to pay attention to them on
others. V/hen responding in the conformity situation the
subject was reminded to respond in the response position
he had chosen at random (all subjects responded in the 4th
position due to the deception employed.)
A series of 36 trials followed. Twenty-four of the
trials were critical trials, occurring randomly, on which
the contrived consensus of the three peers was inaccurate.
The other 12 trials were innocuous where peer responses
were unanimously correct. The innocuous trials were
included in order to maintain the subject's acceptance of
the genuineness of the situation and apparatus. There
was an equal number of critical trials with noise alone
and with signal plus noise. There was also an equal
number of innocuous trials with noise alone and with
signal plus noise.
There were eight critical trials at each of three
levels of task difficulty, and four innocuous trials at
each of the three levels of task difficulty. Under high
137
task difficulty, during the detection interval, the subject
heard a series of digits in his left ear and he was told
to pay attention to these digits. Under medium task
difficulty, during the detection interval, the subject
also heard the series of digits in his left ear but was
told to ignore them. Under low task difficulty, during
the detection interval, nothing was presented in the sub
ject's left ear. The information in the left ear increases
the difficulty of detecting the signal in the right ear,
especially when the subject is instructed to pay at
tention to that information. The conditions of the task
for this experiment is presented in Table 9^ of the
Appendix, p. 301.
Directions for the alone situation.— This experi-
ment is concerned with auditory detections. Your
task will be to respond on a number of trials as
to whether or not you hear a signal in addition
to noise on your right ear, or just noise alone.
If you feel a signal was present on a trial turn
on your right switch. If you feel only noise
was present, turn on your left switch. Leave
your switches on until I indicate to turn them
off. In your left ear, you will sometimes hear
a series of digits. If I indicate to ignore
them or to pay attention to them follow my in
structions. After you make your judgments as
to the presence of a signal, write down the digits
you heard. There is an equal number of trials
with signals present and signals absent, however,
they will be randomly distributed among the trials.
There will be no time limit for your judgments,
however, they should not take long. Are there
any questions?
Directions for the conformity situation.— This por
tion of the experiment is concerned with auditory
158
detection in groups. Again, your task will "be to
respond on a number of trials as to whether or not
you hear a signal, in addition to noise, or just
noise alone in your right ear. In your left ear,
as before, there will sometimes be a series of
digits. If I indicate to ignore them, or pay
attention to them, follow my directions.
In this portion of the experiment you will not
only make your own responses, but you will also be
informed of the responses of the other subjects.
You will each be responding in a predetermined
order which will be decided at random. In each
of these envelopes, one of which each of you will
pick at random, is a card with a response order
printed on it (either 1st, 2d, 5d, or 4th). Do
not show it to anyone after I see it; just keep
it face up in front of you. This card indicates
the response position in which you are to make
your responses. Again, if you feel that there
was a signal present on a trial, turn on your
right switch. If you feel there was only noise
present on a trial, turn on your left switch.
On the panel in front of you, each of the
pairs of bulbs will represent the responses of
the subjects who have selected that response
position. Your two switches will turn on those
two bulbs that correspond to the response position
you have selected. You will make your response
after you see either the left or right bulb light
up in the response position that preceeds the one
you have selected.
If, for example, you select the first response
position, you would make your response as soon as
the trial interval was over. If you select the
third position, you will wait for the first two
subjects to respond as to the presence of a signal,
as indicated by either the left or right bulbs
lighting up in both the first and second positions
on your panel. Again, there will be an equal
number of trials with and without a signal present,
and they will be randomly distributed in the series.
After you make your responses leave your switch on
until I tell you to turn it off. On the trials
where digits are presented, write the digits you
heard down after making your judgment as to the
presence of a signal. There will be no time limit
for your responses, however, they should not take
long. Are there any questions?
139
Data Analysis
The "alone score" was the number of times the
subject made an incorrect response on the critical trials
in the alone situation. The "conformity score" was the
number of times the subject agreed with the contrived
group consensus on the critical trials of the conformity
situation.
Tests 1, 2, and 3, described in the General
Method section, were conducted. Each of these tests was
accomplished separately by statistically analyzing the
data by 2x2x3 mixed analysis of variance designs. These
were two-between, one-within groups designs. This resulted
in testing three main effects and four interaction effects
for the test of compliance (test 1) and for the tests of
private acceptance (test 2 and 3)- There was repeated
measurements over the levels of task difficulty. That is,
each subject was tested tinder all three levels of task
difficulty.
Having found a significant main effect for task
difficulty in tests 1, 2, and 3, Scheffe's (1959) method of
multiple comparisons was employed to find the source of
the effect in each case. The results of the cong>arisons
made is presented in the General Results section, p. 239.
140
RESULTS
Three 2x2x3 mixed analysis of variance designs
were used to analyze the data statistically. Complete
analysis of variance summary tables are given in Table 25
(compliance— C), Table 26 (initial test of private ac
ceptance— "1st P.A.) and Table 27 (private acceptance after
one week— 2d P.A.).
The data pertaining to the hypothesis that older
individuals are more conforming than younger individuals
are given in Tables 28, 29, and 30 and are graphically
illustrated in Figures 19, 20, and 21.
Table 28 presents the mean conformity scores (C)
of the two age groups, and indicates that the main effect
of age was significant (F = 5*399, P < *05). The difference
in mean conformity (C) of the two age groups is graphically
illustrated in Figure 19. It can be seen from the figure,
that mean conformity scores increased with age. The data
provide support for the hypothesis that informational
social influence is greater upon the auditory detections
of older individuals than upon the auditory detections of
younger individuals (as measured by compliance).
Table 29 gives the mean conformity (1st P.A.)
scores of the two age groups. The main effect of age was
not significant at the .05 level of significance (F =
4.056, p < .10). Although the main effect was not
141
TABLE 25
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY
TABLE FOR COMPLIANCE
EXPERIMENT III
Source of
Variation df SSQ MSQ. F
Age 1 10.888 10.888
5.399*
Sex 1 .222 .222 0.110
Age x Sex 1
.055 .055 0.027
Error 20
40.533
2.016
Task Difficulty- 2
36.999 18.499
21.546**
Age x T. L. 2 4.111
2.055 2.571
Sex x T. D. 2 .111
.055
0.064
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .111
.055
0.064
Error 40 54.666 .866
*p < .05
*t> < .001
142
TABLE 26
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OE VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
FOR THE FIRST TEST OF PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE
EXPERIMENT III
Source of
Variation df SSQ MSQ F
Age 1
5.013
5.012 4.056*
Sex 1 .125 .125
0.101
Age x Sex 1
.125 .125 0.101
Error 20 24.722 1.236
Task Difficulty- 2
22.027 11.013
13.042**
Age x T. D. 2 3.694 1.847
2.187
Sex x T. D. 2 .250 .125 0.148
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .250 .124 0.148
Error 40
33.777
.844
*p < .10
**p < .001
TABLE 27
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OE VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
EOR THE SECOND TEST OF PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE
EXPERIMENT III
Source of
Variation df SSQ. MSQ. F
Age 1 .125
.125 0.217
Sex 1
.125 .125 0.217
Age x Sex 1
. ' 125 .125 0.217
Error 20
11.499 .575
Task Difficulty 2
1.333
.666 4.000*
Age x T. D. 2 .000 .000 0.000
Sex x T. D. 2 .000 .000 0.000
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .000 .000 0.000
Error 40 6.666 .166
*p < .05
144
Mean
Conformity
Score
24---
23 -EE
22 ---
20
18
16
10
6 ---
Young Old
Fig. 19. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of young and old subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment III. Range of
scores also indicated.
TABLE 28
EXPERIMENT III
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF OLD AND YOUNG
SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK
DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
AGE (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 25).
F
N Mean Score
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Young
Old
12
12
2.583
4.916
5-399*
*p < .05
Mean
Conformity
Score
24
___
23
---
22
21
...
20
19
---
18
. . .
17
‘
16
.
15
■ TT7T
14
--
13
12
— —
11
—
10
9
■
8
7
6
5
4
.
3
_
2
_zn
1
.—
Young Old
Pig. 20. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of young and old subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment III.
Bange of scores also indicated.
TABLE 29
EXPERIMENT III
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
OLD AND YOUNG SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE
LEVELS OP TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE
FOR MAIN EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 26).
Age N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance
Young 12 1.416
4.056*
Old 12 3.000
*p < .10
146
24 ---
23 —
22 ---
21 ---
20 ---
19 —
18 - =
16 - =
15 - =
14
Mean 15 ---
Conformity ^ —
Score 10
Young Old
Fig. 21. Mean confonnity scores (2d private
acceptance) of young and old subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment III.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 30
EXPERIMENT III
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
OLD AND YOUNG SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE
LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE
FOR MAIN EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 27).
— a . i i j & -------------- i j— i — u i ■ mi. m l ii i i M-U
F
(from Analysis
Age_____________N________ Mean Score__________of Variance)
Young 12 .500
O-
OJ
•
Old 12
.75 0
14-7
significant at the adopted significance level, it can be
seen in Figure 20 that the mean conformity score was
substantially higher for the older group.
Table 30 presents the mean conformity (2d P.A.)
scores of the two age groups and indicates that the main
effect of age was not significant at the .05 level of
significance. Figure 21 presents diagrammatically the mean
conformity (2d P.A.) scores of the two age groups. It is
apparent from the figure that conformity scores were only
slight1y higher for the older subjects.
The hypothesis that females are more conforming
than males was not confirmed by the data pertaining to
compliance, the first test of private acceptance, or
private acceptance after one week. The data relevant to
this hypothesis are given in Tables 31, 32, and 33 and are
presented graphically in Figures 22, 23, and 24-.
The mean conformity (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.)
scores of the male and female subjects are given in
Tables 31, 32, and 33 respectively. It can be seen from
each of the tables, that the main effect of sex was not
significant in each of the three analysis of variance
analyses. Figures 22, 23, and 24- present graphically the
mean conformity scores (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A. respective
ly) of the male and female subjects. It is evident from
Figure 23, that in the first test of private acceptance the
female subjects were only slightly more conforming than
148
Mean
Conformity
Score
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Male Female
Fig. 22. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of male and female subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment III. Range of
scores also indicated.
TABLE 31
EXPERIMENT III
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF MALE AND FEMALE
SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK
DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 25).
F
(from Analysis
Sex____________ N________ Mean Score__________of Variance)
Male 12 3-916
.110
Female 12 3-583
Mean
Confonnity ^ —
♦
T
Male Female
Fig. 23. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of male and female subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment III.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 32
EXPERIMENT III
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF MALE
AND FEMALE SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF
TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 26).
Sex N Mean Score
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Male
Female
12
12
2.083
2.333
,101
150
Mean
Conformity
Score
24
25
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
15
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
5
2
1
Female Male
Fig. 24. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of male and female subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment III.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 55
EXPERIMENT III
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF MALE
AND FEMALE SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF
TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 27).
Sex N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Male 12 .750
.217
Female 12 .500
^^999999999999
151
the male subjects. Figures 22 and 24 indicate that in the
case of compliance and private acceptance after one week, it
was the male subjects who were slightly more conforming.
The hypothesis, that informational social influence
is greater upon the auditory detections of the subjects as
the task becomes more difficult, was supported by the data
pertaining to compliance and to both tests of private ac
ceptance. The data relevant to this hypothesis are given
in Tables 34, 35> and 36 and are illustrated in Figures 25,
26, and 27.
Mean conformity (C) scores for the three levels of
task difficulty, averaged over both age and sex, and are
presented in Table 34. It is clear that the main effect
of task difficulty is highly significant (F = 21.346,
p < .001). The difference in the mean conformity (C)
scores of the subjects tested under the three levels of
difficulty is illustrated in Figure 25* It is apparent
from the figure that the higher the level of task diffi
culty, the higher the conformity (C) scores.
Having obtained a significant F value for the main
effect of task difficulty (C), the data were analyzed by
Scheffe's (1959) method of multiple comparisons to find
the source of the effect. The results of the comparisons
made are presented in Table 83 in the General He suits
section, p. 239.
152
8
7
6
Mean
Conformity
Score
±
Low Task Medium Task High Task
Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty
Fig. 25- Mean conformity scores (compliance) of
subjects for the three levels of task difficulty (com
bining age and sex) for Experiment III. Hange of
scores also indicated.
TABLE 34-
EXPERIMENT III
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF SUBJECTS
FOR THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOR
MAIN EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN
FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 25).
Level of
Difficulty N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD 24- .4-16
MTD 24- 1.166 21.346*
HTD 24- 2.166
*p < .001
153
Mean
Confonnity
Score
2 ---
High Task Medium Task Low Task
Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty
Pig. 26. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of subjects for the three levels of task
difficulty (combining age and sex) for Experiment III.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 35
EXPERIMENT III
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP
SUBJECTS FOR THE THREE LEVELS OP TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 26).
Level of
Difficulty N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD 24 .208
MTD 24 .500 13.042*
HTD 24 1.500
*p < .001
Mean
Confonnity
Score
Low Task
Difficulty
Medium Task
Difficulty
High Task
Difficulty
Pig. 27. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of subjects for the three levels of task
difficulty (combining age and sex) for Experiment III.
Bange of scores also indicated.
TABLE 36
EXPERIMENT III
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP
SUBJECTS POR THE THREE LEVELS OP TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). P VALUE POR MAIN
EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN
PROM ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE-
TABLE 27).
Level of
Difficulty N Mean Score
P
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD
MTD
HTD
24
24
24
.041
.208
.375
4.000*
*p < .05
155
Table 35 presents the mean conformity (1st P.A.)
scores for the three levels of task difficulty averaged
over both age and sex. It is apparent that the main
effect of task difficulty is significant (F = 13.04-2,
p < .001). The mean conformity scores (1st P.A.) of the
subjects tested under the three levels of task difficulty
are presented graphically in Figure 26. It is clear from
the figure, the higher the level of task difficulty the
higher the conformity (1st P.A.) scores.
In order to find the source of the significant main
effect obtained for task difficulty (1st P.A.), Scheffe's
(1959) method of multiple comparisons was used. The
results of the comparisons made are presented in Table 83
in the General Results section, p. 239.
Table 36 presents the mean confonnity (2d P.A.)
for the three levels of task difficulty averaged over both
age and sex. The main effect of task difficulty for
private acceptance after one week was significant (F =
4-. 000, p < .05). The difference in the mean conformity
scores of the subjects tested under the three levels of
task difficulty is illustrated in Figure 27* It is
apparent that as the difficulty of the task increases,
there is a significant increase in mean conformity (2d
P.A.) scores. Scheffe's (1959) method of multiple com
parisons was used to find the source of the significant
main effect for task difficulty (2d P.A.). The results of
156
the comparisons made are presented in Table 85 in the
General Results section, p. 259•
CHAPTER VI
EXPERIMENT IV
Experimentation in the area of social conformity
has generally considered tasks dealing with perceptual
judgments (Asch 195/ I; Kanareff & Lanzetta 1960; Klein 1970;
Schonbar 194-5; Sherif 1935; etc.), or attitudes and
opinions (Converse & Campbell 1968; Gordon 1952; Kiesler,
Zana, & DeSalvo 1966; etc.). In both of these types of
tasks, the subject is making a judgment or rating on
stimuli presented to him. These tasks do not require the
subject to perform any mental manipulations except for the
judgment of stimuli. There have been a few investigations
that have required the subjects to "solve problems"
(Blake, Helson & Mouton 1956; Coffin 194-1).
In the study by Blake, Helson, and Mouton (1956)
a "simulated group" technique was used to investigate
conformity in solving arithmetic problems without paper
and pencil. They found that the more difficult the
problems were, the more the subjects were influenced by
the solutions of others.
The present investigation was based on the study
by Blake, Helson and Mouton (1956) in that it also utilized
arithmetic problem solving as the task.
157
158
The present investigation was directed at deter
mining if age, sex, and task difficulty act as determinants
of social conformity in a laboratory arithmetic problem
solving task.
This experiment tested the following hypotheses
using social conformity as the dependent variable:
Hypothesis I. Informational social influence is
greater upon the arithmetic problem solutions of older
individuals than upon the arithmetic problem solutions of
younger individuals.
Hypothesis II: Informational social influence is
greater upon the arithmetic problem solutions of females
than upon the arithmetic problem solutions of males.
Hypothesis III: Informational social influence is
greater upon the arithmetic problem solutions of the sub
jects as the task becomes more difficult.
PROCEDURES
There were twenty-four subjects used in this
experiment. Twelve of the subjects were young, ranging in
age from 18 to 24-. Twelve of the subjects were old,
ranging in age from 62 to 78. There were an equal number
of males and females in both age groups. (A more complete
description of the subjects is given in the General Method
section, p. 73*)
159
Two additional groups of twenty-four individuals,
selected from the same population as the general subject
sample, were used to assess the difficulty of arithmetic
problems. One of these groups was comprised of older
individuals ranging in age from 61 to 75- other group
was young, ranging in age from 17 to 23- Both of these
standardizing groups had an equal number of males and
females.
The conformity apparatus that was used in this
experiment was based on the principle of the Klein (1970)
and Mathie (1959) apparatus. (This apparatus has been
described in greater detail in the General Method section,
p. 77.)
Method
In the initial session, the subjects were first
tested alone, then in the conformity situation, and then
again alone. They were retested in the alone situation
one week after their first testing. (This research design
and the reasons for employing it have been discussed in
the General Method section, pp. 79-81.)
Problem-solving; task.— The subject was instructed
that he would be given a series of arithmetic problems to
solve without the use of paper and pencil. He was told to
indicate his solution by writing it on his "magic slate."
He was told to then place the slate in the rack in front
160
of him with the solution facing the experimenter. When
performing in the conformity situation, he was reminded to
respond in the response position he had chosen at random.
(All Ss responded in the 4th position due to the deception
employed.)
A series of 36 trials of arithmetic problems in
volving one operation (addition, subtraction, multipli
cation or division) followed. Each problem was presented
for five seconds. Twenty-four trials were critical trials,
occurring randomly, on which the solutions of the three
peers were unanimously incorrect. There were 12 innocuous
trials where the contrived solutions were accurate. The
innocuous trials were included in order to maintain the
subject's acceptance of the genuineness of the apparatus
and the situation.
The critical trials were of low task difficulty,
medium task difficulty, and high task difficulty. There
were eight critical trials at each level of difficulty
(2 addition, 2 subtraction, 2 multiplication, 2 division).
There were four innocuous trials at each level of task
difficulty. "Difficulty" of the arithmetic problems was
assessed by the performance of the two standardizing groups
of 24 subjects before the actual experiment began. Prob
lems answered correctly by more than 75 percent of the
subjects of a standardizing group were categorized as low
task difficulty problems for that age group. Problems
161
answered correctly by more than 75 percent of the subjects
of a standardizing group were categorized as low task
difficulty problems for that age group. Problems answered
correctly by 25 to 75 percent of the subjects of a
standardizing group were classified as medium task diffi
culty problems for that age group. Problems answered
correctly by less than 25 percent of the subjects of a
standardizing group were categorized as high task difficulty
problems for that age group. By using both age groups in
standardizing the difficulty of the problems used, the
task did not put either the young or the old subjects at
a disadvantage.
On the critical trials, the incorrect problem
solutions were discrepant from the correct solution by a
small or large amount. Those incorrect problem solutions
classified as mildly discrepant were those that were in
the error range of the standardizing groups. Those
classified as highly discrepant were those outside the
error range of the standardizing group. The variation of
the discrepant background report of the contrived group
was introduced to determine the degree to which these
differences affect conformity behavior. It should be made
clear that this issue is an aside. It is not one of the
primary concerns of the investigation. However, the
statistical design and analysis does include discrepant
background report of the contrived group as a variable.
162
(The conditions of the task of this experiment for both
young and old subjects, is presented in Tables 92 and 95
in the Appendix, pp. 302-303.)
Directions for the alone situation.— This experi
ment is concerned with arithmetic problem solving.
You will see a series of one operation arithmetic
problems (either addition, subtraction, multi
plication, or division). Your task will be to
solve the problems without paper and pencil.
Each problem will appear for five seconds. After
you arrive at a solution, write your answer on
the "magic slate" in front of you and then place
the slate on the rack in front of you with your
answer facing me. Leave the slate on the rack
until I tell you to take it off. Are there any
questions?
Directions for the conformity situation.— This
portion of the experiment is concernedwith
arithmetic problem solving in groups. Again
you will be seeing a series of one-operation
arithmetic problems. Again, your task will be to
solve the problems without paper and pencil. Each
problem will appear for five seconds.
In this portion of the experiment, you will
not only make a response indicating your solution,
but you will also be informed of the solutions
arrived at by the other subjects. You will each
be responding in a predetermined order which will
be decided at random. In each of these envelopes,
one of which each of you will pick at random, is
a card with a response order printed on it (either
1st, 2d, 3d, or 4th). Do not show it to anyone
after I see it; just keep it face up in front of
you. This card indicates the response position
in which you are to display your solution answers.
On the table in front of me you can see three
empty racks numbered from 1 to 3- "magic
slate" I place on each of these racks will repre
sent the responses of the subjects who have selected
that response position. You will make your response
after you see the "magic slate" placed on the rack
in front of me for the subject who has selected the
response position that precedes the one you have
selected. Since no one follows the person who
has selected the fourth position his response need
not be shown in order to save time. Again, after
you display vour answer, leave your slate on its
163
rack until I tell you to take it off. When the
next problem appears, wait for your turn to respond
and then display your solution answers. You are
allowed to change your answer as long as you do
it before you display it. Remember, however, you
cannot make calculations on the slate.
If for example, you have selected the first
response position, then you would display your
solution answer immediately after the problem is
presented. If you have selected the third
position, you will wait for the first two sub
jects to display their solutions, which will be
indicated by the numbers on the slates in front
of me in racks one and two, then you will display
your solution answers. Are there any questions?
Data Analysis
The "alone score" was the frequency the subject
responded with an incorrect answer on the critical trials
(in the direction of what the contrived report of the
group was in the conformity situation) when tested alone.
The "conformity score" was the frequency the subject
responded with an answer identical with or in the direction
of the contrived group consensus on the critical trials
in the conformity situation.
Tests 1, 2, and 3, described in the General Method
section, were conducted. Each of these tests was
separately accomplished by analyzing statistically the
data utilizing a 2x2x3x2 mixed analysis of variance design.
There were two-between, two-within groups designs. There
was repeated measurements over levels of task difficulty
and discrepancy of contrived background reports. This
resulted in testing four main effects and 11 interaction
effects for the test of compliance (test 1) and for the
164
tests of private acceptance (tests 2 and 3).
Having found a significant main effect for task
difficulty in tests 1, 2, and 3, Scheffe's (1959) method
of multiple comparisons was employed to determine the
source of the effect in each case. The results of the
comparisons made are presented in the General Results
section, p. 239*
RESULTS
The data were analyzed statistically by the
utilization of three 2x2x3x2 mixed analysis of variance
designs. Complete analysis of variance summary tables
are presented in Table 37 (compliance— C), Table 38 (first
test of private acceptance— 1st P.A.) and Table 39 (private
acceptance after one week— 2d P.A.).
The data relevant to the hypothesis that older
individuals are more conforming than younger individuals
are given in Tables 40, 41, and 42 and are diagrammatically
presented in Figures 28, 29, and 30.
The mean conformity (C) scores for the two age
groups, and the F value for the main effect of age, are
presented in Table 40. The main effect of age was found
to be significant (F = 4.515, p < .05). Figure 28
illustrates graphically the difference in mean conformity
(C) scores of the two age groups. It is clear from the
figure that mean conformity scores increased with age.
TABLE 37
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE SUMMARY
TABLE POR COMPLIANCE
EXPERIMENT IV
Source of
Variation df SSQ MSQ. P
Age 1 12.250 12.250
4.513**
Sex 1 5.444
5-555
2.006
Age x Sex 1 .000 .000 0.000
Error 20
54.277 2.713
Task Difficulty- 2
35-555 16.777
32.386****
Age x T. D. 2 4.166
2.083
4.021**
Sex x T. D. 2
1.055 .527
1.018
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .166 .083
0.160
Error 40 20.722 .518
Discrepant Report 1 14.694 14.694 19.097****
Age x D. R. 1 1.361 1.361
1.769
Sex x D. R. 1 .111 .111 0.144
Age x Sex x D. R. 1 .444 .444
0.577
Error 20 15-388
.769
T. D. x D. R. 2
2.055 1.027
4.774***
Age x T. D. x D. R. 2 1.388 .694 3.225*
Sex x T. D. x D. R. 2
.055 .027 0.128
Age x Sex x T. D.
x D. R. 2 .889
.444 2.064
Error 40 8.610
.215
*p < .10 **p < .05
***p < .025 ****p < .001
166
TABLE 58
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OE VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
FOR THE FIRST TEST OF PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE
EXPERIMENT IV
Source of
Variation df SSO. MSQ. F
Age 1 9-506 9.506 6.475***
Sex 1 5.062 3.062 2.086
Age x Sex 1 .540 .340
0.231
Error 20 29.361 1.468
Task Difficulty 2 17.166
8.583
31.055*****
Age x T. D. 2 5-722 1.861 6.733*****
Sex x T. D. 2 .500 .250 0.904
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .222 .111 0.402
Error
40 11.055
.276
Discrepant Report 1 10.562 10.562 23.400*****
Age x D. R. 1 2.006 2.006 4.446**
Sex x D. R.
1 1.173 1.175
2.600
Age x Sex x D. R. 1 .062 .062 0.138
Error 20 9.027 .451
T. D. x D. R. 2 3.166
1.583
7.550****
Age x T. D. x D. R.
2 1.055 • 527
2.516*
Sex x T. D. x D. R.
2 .055 .027
0.132
Age x Sex x T. D.
x D. R. 2 .000 .000 0.000
Error 40 8.388 .209
*p < .10 **p < .05 ***p <
.025
****p < .005
< #0Q1
167
TABLE 39
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OE VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
FOR THE SECOND TEST OF PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE
EXPERIMENT IV
Source of
Variation df SSQ. MSQ F
Age 1 4.340 4.340 4.240*
Sex 1 .562 .562 0.549
Age x Sex 1 .062 .062 0.061
Error 20 20.472 1.023
Task Difficulty- 2
6.791 3.395
-14..64/1 ****
Age x T. D. 2
2.513
1.256 5.419***
Sex x T. D. 2 .291 .145
0.628
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .125 .062 0.269
Error 40
9.277 .231
Discrepant Report 1 4.340 4.340 12.550***
Age x D. R. 1 .840 .840
2.429
Sex x D. R. 1 .062 .062 0.180
Age x Sex x D. R. 1 .006 .006 0.020
Error 20 6.916 .345
T. D. x D. R. 2 .847 i423 3.765**
Age x T. D. x D. R. 2
.513
.256 2.284
Sex x T. D. x D. R. 2 .125 .062
0.555
Age x Sex x T. D.
x D. R. 2 .347 .173 1.543
Error 40
4.499
.112
*p < .10
**p < .05
***p < .005
* * * *p ^
.001
168
Mean
Conformity
Score
24-
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14-
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 -
3
2
1
Old Young
Fig. 28. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of young and old subjects (combining the three levels of
task difficulty) for Experiment IV. Range of scores
also indicated.
TABLE 4-0
EXPERIMENT IV
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF OLD AND YOUNG
SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK
DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
AGE (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 37).
Age N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Young 12 3.666
4-. 513*
Old 12 7.166
*p < .05
99999999999999
169
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14-
Mean 13
12
Conformity ^
Score 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Young Old
Fig. 29. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of young and old subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment IV.
Range of scores also indicated.
•TABLE 41
EXPERIMENT IV
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
OLD AND YOUNG SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE
LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE
FOR MAIN EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 38).
Age N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance
Young 12
2.083
6.475*
Old 12 5.166
*P < .025
t
170
Mean
Conformity
Score
24-
---
23
---
22 — —
21 1 -
20 ■ — ■
19
———
18 — —
17 ——
16
— —
1b
— —
14-
---
1b
-
12 ■ — -
11
— —
10 ——
9
— —
8 ——
7
6
5
4 - .——
b
-——
2 — -
1 ■-1 ■ '
Young Old
Fig. JO. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of young and old subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment IV.
Bange of scores also indicated.
TABLE 4-2
EXPERIMENT IV
MEAN CONFOEMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
OLD AND YOUNG SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE
LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE
FOR MAIN EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 39).
Age N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Young 12 1.083
4-. 24-0*
Old 12 3.166
*p < .10
171
The data offer support to the hypothesis that informational
social influence is greater upon the arithmetic problem
solving performance of older individuals than it is upon
the arithmetic problem-solving performance of younger
individuals (as measured by compliance).
Table 41 gives the mean conformity (1st P.A.)
scores for the young and old subjects. The main effect of
age was significant (P = 6.475, P < .025)* Figure 29
presents graphically the difference in the mean conformity
(1s P.A.) scores for both age groups. It is evident that
mean conformity scores increased with age. This data
lends further support to the hypothesis that the older
individual is more conforming (as measured by initial
private acceptance).
Table 42 presents the mean conformity (2d P.A.)
scores of the old and young subjects and indicates that
the main effect of age was not significant at the .05
level of significance (P = 4.240, p < .10). Figure 30
illustrates the difference in the mean conformity (2d
P.A.) scores for the two age groups. It is clear that
although this difference did not reach significance, the
conformity scores were generally substantially higher for
the older subjects.
The hypothesis that females are more conforming
than males did not receive support from the data per
taining to compliance, the first test of private
172
acceptance or private acceptance after one week. The data
relevant to this hypothesis are given in Tables 43, 44, and
45 and are graphically presented in Figures 31, 32, and
33.
The mean conformity (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.)
scores of the male and female subjects are presented in
Tables 43, 44, and 45 respectively. It is apparent that
the main effect of sex was not significant in any of the
three analysis of variance analyses. Figures 31, 32, and
33 illustrate the difference in the mean conformity scores
(C 1st P.A., 2d P.A. respectively) of the male and female
subjects. It is evident from the figures that the female
subjects were only slightly more conforming than the male
subjects.
The hypothesis, that informational social influence
is greater upon the arithmetic problem-solving performance
of the subjects as the task becomes more difficult, was
supported by the data pertaining to compliance and to both
tests of private acceptance. The data relevant to this
hypothesis are given in Tables 46, 47, and 48 and are
diagrammatically presented in Figures 34, 35, and 36.
Mean conformity (C) scores for the three levels of
task difficulty, averaged over both age and sex, are pre
sented in Table 46. It is apparent that the main effect
of task difficulty was highly significant (F = 32.386,
p < .001). The difference in the mean confirmity (C)
173
Mean
Conformity
Score
24-
----
23
— —
22
----
21
----
20
----
19
----
18 ■ ■
17
----
16
----
15
----
14-
-----
13
----
12
_
11
----
10
Q
7
8
_ _ _
7
6
c
~ZZL
?
4-
3
0
c .
1
Male Female
Fig. 31. Mean conformity scores (compliance) of
male and female subjects (combining the three levels of
task difficulty) for Experiment IV. Range of scores
also indicated.
TABLE 4-3
EXPERIMENT IV
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF MALE AND FEMALE
SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK
DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 37).
F
(from Analysis
Sex____________ N________ Mean Score__________of Variance)
Male 12 4-. 24-9
2.006
Female 12 6.383
174-
Mean
Conformity
Score
22
20
18
16
12
10
Female Male
Fig. 32. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of male and female subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment IV.
Eange of scores also indicated.
TABLE 44
EXPERIMENT IV
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF MALE
AND FEMALE SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF
TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE-TABLE 38).
Sex N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Male 12
2.74-9
2.086
Female 12 4.500
Mean
Conformity
Score
T
T
Male Female
Fig. 33* Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of male and female subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment IV.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 45
EXPERIMENT IV
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF MALE
AND FEMALE SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF
TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 39).
F
(from Analysis
Sex N Mean Score of Variance)
Male
Female
12
12
1.750
2.500
• 549
Mean
Conformity
Score
Low Task Medium Task High Task
Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty
Fig. 34. Mean conformity scores (compliance) of
subjects for the three levels of task difficulty (com
bining age and sex) for Experiment IV. Range of scores
also indicated.
TABLE 46
EXPERIMENT IV
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF SUBJECTS
FOR THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOR
MAIN EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN
FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 37).
Level of
Difficulty N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD
MTD
HTD
24
24
24
.750
1.583
3.083
32.386’ '
F P <
.001
177
~T **
± T
Low Task Medium Task High Task
Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty
Pig. 35* Mean confonnity scores (1st private
acceptance; of subjects for the three levels of task
difficulty (combining age and sex) for Experiment IV.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 4-7
EXPERIMENT IV
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP
SUBJECTS FOR THE THREE LEVELS OP TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). P VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 38).
Level of
Difficulty N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD 24 .458
MTD 24 1.041
31.055*
HTD 24 2.125
Mean
Conformity
Score
*p < .001
178
8
7
6
Mean
Conformity
Score
± 1
Low Task
Difficulty
Medium Task
Difficulty
High Task
Difficulty
Fig. 36. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of subjects for the three levels of task
difficulty (combining age and sex) for Experiment IV.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 48
EXPERIMENT IV
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
SUBJECT FOR THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN
FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE—
TABLE 39).
F
Level of
Difficulty N Mean Score
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD
MTD
HTD
24
24
24
.250
.583
1.291
14.641*
*p < .001
179
scores of the subjects tested under the three levels of
task difficulty is illustrated in Figure 34-. It is clear
that the higher the level of task difficulty, the higher
the conformity scores.
Having obtained a significant F value for the
main effect of task difficulty (C), the data were analyzed
by Scheffe's (1959) method of multiple comparisons to find
the source of the effect. The results of the comparisons
made are presented in Table 83 in the General Results
section, p. 239*
Table 4-7 presents the mean conformity (1st P.A.)
scores for the three levels of task difficulty averaged
over both sex and age. It is apparent that the main effect
of task difficulty was significant (F = 31.055> P < 001).
The mean conformity (1st P.A.) score of the subjects tested
under the three levels of task difficulty are presented
graphically in Figure 35* It is clear from the figure,
the higher the level of task difficulty the higher the
conformity (1st P.A.) scores.
In order to determine the source of the significant
main effect obtained for task difficulty (1st P.A.),
Scheffe's (1959) method of multiple comparisons was
employed. The results of the comparisons made are
presented in Table 83 in the General Results section,
P- 239-
180
Table 4-8 presents the mean conformity (2d P.A.)
scores for the three levels of task difficulty averaged
over both age and sex. The main effect of task diffi
culty for private acceptance after one week was signifi
cant (F = 14-.64-1, p < .001). The difference in the mean
conformity (2d P.A.) scores of the subjects tested under
the three levels of task difficulty is illustrated in
Figure 36. It is clear that as the difficulty of the
task increased, there was a significant increase in mean
conformity scores. Scheffe's (1959) method of multiple
comparisons was used to determine the source of the sig
nificant main effect for task difficulty (2d P.A.). The
results of the comparisons made are presented in Table 83
in the General Results section, p. 239-
The main effect of "discrepancy of contrived back
ground report" was found to be significant in the test for
compliance (F= 19.097> P < -001— Table 37)» the first test
of private acceptance (F = 23*4-00, p < .001— Table 38),
and in the test of private acceptance after one week (F =
12.550, p < .005— Table 39). That is, the closer the
contrived report to the actual problem answer, the greater
the conformity to that contrived report.
A significant task difficulty by discrepancy of
contrived background report interaction effect was also
found for compliance (F = 4-. 774* P < .025— Table 37)» the
first test of private acceptance (F = 7»555» P < .005—
181
Table 38), and in the test for private acceptance after
one week (IF = 3*766, p < .05— Table 39)* That is, with
increases in task difficulty conformity scores (C, 1st P.A.,
and 2d P.A.) increased for both discrepant background
reports. However, the increase in conformity at each level
of task difficulty was greater for the background reports
closest to the actual problem answers.
A significant age by task difficulty interaction
effect was also obtained for compliance (P = 4.021, p< .001
— Table 38) and for the test of private acceptance after
one week (P = 5*419, p < *005— Table 39). That is, with
increases in task difficulty conformity scores (C, 1st
P.A., and 2d P.A.) increased for both young and old sub
jects; however, the increase at each level was greater
for the older subjects.
The age by discrepancy of contrived background
report interaction effect was significant in the first
test of private acceptance (P = 4.446, p < .05— Table 38).
That is, when the contrived report approached the actual
problem answer, conformity increased for both age groups;
however, the increase was greater for the older subjects.
CHAPTER VII
EXPERIMENT V
Investigations have repeatedly studied suscepti
bility to social influence utilizing perceptual tasks
(Asch 195^; Kanareff & Lanzetta 1960; Klein 1970; Olmstead
& Blake 1955; Sherif 1955; and many others). There have
also been a number of investigations on susceptibility to
social influence in reference to various attitudes and
opinions (Allen & Crutchfield 1963; Blake, Helson & Mouton
1956; DiVesta 1958; Ferguson 194-4-; Helson, Blake, Mouton &
Olmstead 1956; Horwitz, Piana, Goldman & Lee 1955; and
others). Although the conformity studies with perceptual
tasks are, perhaps, more experimental in regard to control,
they are somewhat less comparable to "real life" situations
than are attitude task conformity studies. It would appear
beneficial for conformity studies to consider both types
of tasks in order to obtain a broader perspective of the
area.
The study of attitudes has occupied a central place
in social psychology during the past 50 years. Cardno
(1955) has stated, "Attitude entails an existing pre
disposition to respond to social objects which, in inter
action with situational and other dispositional variables,
guides and directs the overt behavior of the individuals."
________________________________132________________________________ I
183
If the attitude of an individual toward an object
is known, it can be used in conjunction with situational
and other dispositional variables to explain, understand
and predict reactions of that individual to that object.
In addition to knowing the attitude, knowing the principles
governing the change of the attitude will provide mean
ingful information. It is the change in attitudes, or
more specifically, the susceptibility of an individual to
social influence which leads to a change in his attitudes,
that was of concern in this experiment.
The present experiment was directed at determining
if age, sex, and task difficulty act as predictors of
social conformity in a laboratory social attitude task.
The specific attitudes this investigation focused on were
those toward intemationalism-nationalism.
[Phis experiment tested the following hypotheses
using social conformity as the dependent variable:
Hypothesis I: Informational social influence is
greater upon the attitude ratings of older individuals
than upon the attitude ratings of younger individuals.
Hypothesis II: Informational social influence is
greater upon the attitude ratings of females than upon the
attitude ratings of males.
Hypothesis III: Informational social influence is
greater upon the attitude ratings of the subjects as the
task becomes more difficult (i.e., as the task becomes
184
more ambiguous).
PROCEDURES
Twenty-four subjects were used in this experiment.
Half of the subjects were young, ranging in age from 17 to
22. The other half were old, ranging in age from 63 to 81.
(A more complete description of the subjects is given in
the General Method section, p. 73*)
I Two additional groups of 24 individuals, selected
from the same population as the general subject sample,
were used to determine the percentage of young and old
I
individuals who agree or disagree with the various attitude I
| |
statements used in this experiment. One of these groups
|was comprised of younger individuals, ranging in age from
18 to 22. The other group consisted of older individuals,
ranging in age from 62 to 79- Both of these standardizing
groups had an equal number of males and females.
The Klein (1970) conformity apparatus was utilized
for this experiment. The apparatus is described in full
detail in the General Method section, pp. 74-76*
Attitude scale.— The attitude scale that was used
in this experiment was the Worldmindedness Scale developed
by Sampson & Smith (1957)* Kie scale is designed to
measure nationalistic-intemationalistic attitudes.
Sampson and Smith referred to it as a "social attitudes
questionnaire." A complete description of the attitude____
185
scale is given in the Appendix, p. 297.
It should he made clear that the primary purpose
of this investigation was not to determine age differences
on these attitudes. Bather, the purpose was to determine
age differences as to the susceptibility of the ratings
of these attitudes to change due to social influence.
Method
In the initial session the subjects were given the
i
i attitude scale alone, then in the conformity situation
and then again alone. They were given the scale again one
week later in the alone situation. (This research design j
and the reasons for utilizing it have been discussed in
f
the General Method section, pp. 79-80.)
Social attitude task.— The subject was told he
would be rating a series of statements by either agreeing
or disagreeing with them. He was instructed that a series
of slides would be projected on the screen in front of
him and that each slide would present a statement. He
was told to rate the statement by turning on his left
switch if he agreed with the statement and his right switch
if he disagreed with it. When performing in the conformity
situation he was reminded to respond in the response
position he had chosen at random (all Ss responded in the
4-th position due to the deception employed).
186
A series of 32 trials (slide presentations)
followed. Twenty-four were critical trials, occurring
randomly, on which the contrived group consensus displayed
a unanimous rating of the statement opposite to the
majority of a standardizing group for that statement.
The remaining eight trials were innocuous where peer
ratings unanimously displayed the majority response given
by a standardizing group for that statement. The innocuous
trials were included in order to maintain the subject's
acceptance of the genuineness of the apparatus and the
situation.
The critical trials were of low task difficulty,
medium task difficulty, and high task difficulty. Of the
twenty-four critical trials, there were eight representing
each of the three levels of task difficulty. "Difficulty"
of the attitude statements was assessed by the performance
of the two standardizing groups of subjects before the
actual experiment began. If 90 percent (or more) of the
subjects of a standardizing group agreed or disagreed with
an attitude statement, then it was classified as a low-task
difficulty statement. If between 75 percent and 90 percent
of the subjects of a standardizing group agreed or dis
agreed with an attitude statement, then it was classified
as a medium-task difficulty statement. If between 55 per
cent and 75 percent of the subjects of a standardizing
group agreed or disagreed with an attitude statement, then
187
it was classified as a high-task difficulty statement. By
using separate age groups in standardizing the difficulty
of the attitude statements, the task did not put either
the young or old subjects at a disadvantage. The con
ditions of the task for this experiment, for both young
and old subjects, is presented in Tables 94- and 95 of the
Appendix, pp. 307-308. An example of the attitude scale
is presented in the Appendix, pp. 304-306.
Directions for the alone situation.— This experi-
ment is concerned with social attitudes. A
series of slides will be projected on the screen
in front of you. On each slide will be a state
ment. Your task will be to rate each statement
on the basis of your agreement or disagreement
with it. If you agree with the statement, turn
on your left switch. If you disagree with the
statement, turn on your right switch. After you
make your ratings, leave your switch on until I
tell you to turn it off. When each slide appears
make your rating and wait for me to tell you to
turn off your switch. There will be no time limit
for your ratings, however, they should not take
long. Are there any questions?
Directions for the conformity situation.— This
portion of the experiment is concerned with
social attitudes in groups. Again, a series of
slides will be projected on the screen in front
of you. On each slide, as before, a statement
will be shown. Again your task will be to rate
each statement on the degree to which you agree
or disagree with it. Again, the ratings cor
respond to the following switches: left switch—
agree, right switch— disagree.
In this portion of the experiment, you will
not only make your own ratings, but you will
also be informed of the ratings of the other
subjects. You will each be responding in a
predetermined order which will be decided at
random. In each of these envelopes, one of which
each of you will pick at random, is a card with a
188
response order printed on it (either 1st, 2d, 3d,
or 4-th). Do not show it to anyone after I see
it; Just keep it face up in front of you. This
card indicates the order in which you are to make
your ratings.
On the panel in front of you, each of the
pairs of bulbs will represent the responses of
the subject who has selected that response position.
Your switches will turn on those two bulbs that
correspond to the response position you have
selected. You will make your rating after you
see one of the two bulbs light up in the response
position that preceeds the one you have selected.
If, for example, you have selected the first
response position, then you will make your ratings
as soon as the slides appear. If you have
selected the 3d position, you will wait for the
first two subjects to rate the statement, which
will be indicated by either the left or right
bulbs turning on in the first and second positions.
Again, after you make your ratings, leave your
switch on until I tell you to turn if off. When
the next slide appears, wait for your turn to
respond and then make your rating. There will
be no time limit for your ratings, however, they
should not take long. Are there any questions?
Data Analysis
The "alone score" was the frequency the subject
responded with a non-majority rating on the critical trials
in the alone situation. The "conformity score" was the
frequency the subject agreed with the contrived group
consensus (non-majority ratings) on the critical trials
in the conformity situation.
Tests 1, 2, and 3, described in the General Method
section, were conducted. Each of these tests were ac
complished by analyzing the data statistically through the
use of a 2x2x3 mixed analysis of variance design. These
were two-between one-within groups designs. This resulted
189
in testing three main effects and four interaction effects
for the test of compliance (test 1) and for the tests of
private acceptance (tests 2 and 3). There was repeated
measurements over the levels of task difficulty. That is,
the subjects were tested under all three levels of task
difficulty.
Having found a significant main effect for task
difficulty in tests 1, 2, and 3, Scheffe's (1959) method
of multiple comparisons was employed to determine the
source of the effect in each case. The results of the
comparisons made are presented in Table 83 in the General
Results section, p. 239•
RESULTS
Three 2x2x3 mixed analysis of variance designs
were used to analyze statistically the data. Complete
analysis of variance summary tables are given in Table 4-9
(compliance— C), Table 50 (initial test of private ac
ceptance— 1st P.A.) and Table 51 (private acceptance after
one week— 2d P.A.).
The data relevant to the hypothesis that older
individuals are more conforming than younger individuals
are given in Tables 52, 55, and 5^ and are graphically
presented in Figures 37, 38, and 39.
Table 52 gives the mean conformity (C) scores of
the two age groups, and indicates that the main effect of
TABLE 49
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OE VARIANCE SUMMARY
TABLE EOR COMPLIANCE
EXPERIMENT V
Source of
Variation df SSQ MSQ. E
Age 1
21.125 21.125
13.000*
Sex 1
4.013 4.013 2.470
Age x Sex 1 .680 .680 0.418
Error 20
32.499 1.625
Task Difficulty 2
76.777
38.388 54.841**
Age x T. D. 2 14.333 7.166 10.238**
Sex x T. D. 2 1.444 .722 1.031
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .110
.055 0.079
Error 40
27.999 .6999
*p < .005
**p < .001
191
TABLE 50
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
FOR THE FIRST TEST OF PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE
EXPERIMENT V
Source of
Variation df SSQ MSQ. F
Age 1 21.125 21.125 13.318**
Sex 1
4.015 4.013
2.530
Age x Sex 1
1.125 1.125 0.709
Error 20 31.722 1.586
Task Difficulty 2 44.194
22.097 19.887***
Age x T. D. 2
6.583 3.291 2.962*
Sex x T. D. 2
2.527 1.263 1.137
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .250 .125
0.112
Error 40 44.444 1.111
*p < .10
**p < .005
***p < .001
TABLE 51
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
EOR THE SECOND TEST OP PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE
EXPERIMENT V
Source of
Variation____________ df SSO. MSQ_________ P
Age 1 9-388 9.388 6.787*
Sex 1
3.555 3.555 2.570
Age x Sex 1 .500 .500 0.361
Error 20 27.666
1.383
Task Difficulty 2 25.861 12.930 9.946**
Age x T. D. 2
4.527 2.263 1.741
Sex x T. D. 2
2.194 1.097
0.844
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .083
.04-1 0.032
Error 4-0
51-999 1.299
*p < .01
**p < .001
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
Mean 13
12
Conformity ^
Score 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Young Old
Fig. 37* Mean conformity scores (compliance) of
young and old subjects (combining the three levels of
task difficulty) for Experiment V. Range of scores
also indicated.
TABLE 52
EXPERIMENT V
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF OLD AND YOUNG
SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK
DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
AGE (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 49).
Age .... N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Young 12 4.416
13.000*
Old 12 7.666
*p < .005
193
I
Mean
Conformity
Score
Young Old
Fig. 38. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of young and old subjects (combining tbe
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment V.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 53
EXPERIMENT V
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
OLD AND YOUNG SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE
LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE
FOR MAIN EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 50).
Age N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Young 12
2.833
13-318*
Old 12
6.083
*p < .005
33959525
195
Mean
Conformity
Score
24
25
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
I
Old Young
Fig. 39« Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of young and old subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment V.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 54
EXPERIMENT V
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
OLD AND YOUNG SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE
LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE
FOR MAIN EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 51).
Age N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Young 12
2.083
6.787*
Old 12 4.250
*p < .01
99999999999999
196
age was significant (F = 13.000, p < .005). The difference
in mean conformity (C) scores of the two age groups is
illustrated in Figure 37* It is clear that the mean
conformity scores increased with age. Table 53 presents
the mean conformity (1st P.A.) scores of the two age groups
and indicates a significant main effect for age (F = 13.318,
p < .005). Figure 38 graphically illustrates the dif
ference in the mean conformity (1st P.A.) scores of the
two age groups. It can be seen from the figure, that mean
conformity scores increased with age. Table 5^ gives the
mean conformity (2d P.A.) scores of the two age groups.
Again, the main effect of age was found to be significant
(F = 6.787» P < .01). The difference in the mean con
formity scores is diagrammatically presented in Figure 39*
It is apparent from the figure, that the mean conformity
scores increased significantly with age.
The data from all three analyses (compliance, 1st
P.A., 2d P.A.) provided support for the hypothesis that
informational social influence is greater upon the social
attitude ratings of older individuals than upon the social
attitude ratings of younger individuals.
The hypothesis, that females are more conforming
than males, was not confirmed by the data pertaining to
compliance, initial private acceptance or private ac
ceptance after one week. The data pertaining to this
hypothesis are given in Tables 55> 56, and 57 and are
197
24 —
23 —
22 --
21 ---
20 --
19 - =
18
17 —
16 ~ZH
15 —
14
Mean 13 ---
Conformity ^ ' —
Score 10 ———
8 -^=
2
Male Female
Fig. 40. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of male and female subjects (combining the three levels
of task difficulty) for Experiment V. Eange of scores
also indicated.
TABLE 55
EXPERIMENT V
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF MALE AND FEMALE
SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK
DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 49).
F
(from Analysis
Sex____________ N________ Mean Score__________of Variance)
Male
Female
12
12
5.333
6.750
2.470
198
Mean
Conformity
Score
24
----------
25
----------
22
----------
21
----------
20
— -
19
----------
18
— "■
17
----------
16 ——
15
.
14
----------
13
----------
12
----------
11
----------
10
Q
— --
8
.. .
7
----------
6
----------
5
----------
4
Z
— » ■
2
....
1
■ i
Male Female
Fig. 41. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of male and female subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment V.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 56
EXPERIMENT V
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF MALE
AND FEMALE SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF
TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX . (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 50).
F
(from Analysis
Sex N Mean Score of Variance)
Male
Female
12
12
3.750
5.166
2.530
199
Mean
Conformity
Score
24-
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14-
15
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4-
5
2
1 ±
Male Female
Fig. 4-2. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of male and female subjects (combining the
three levels of task difficulty) for Experiment V.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 57
EXPERIMENT V
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF MALE
AND FEMALE SUBJECTS (COMBINING THE THREE LEVELS OF
TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE-TABLE 51).
Sex N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Male 12
2.4-99
2.570
Female 12
5.835
200
presented graphically in Figures 40, 41, and 42.
Tables 55, 56, and 57 give the mean conformity (C,
1st P.A., and 2d P.A. respectively) of the male and female
subjects. It is apparent that the main effect of sex was
not significant in any of the three analysis of variance
analyses. Figures 40, 41, and 42 illustrate the difference
in the mean conformity (C, 1st P.A., 2d P.A. respectively)
of the male and female subjects. It is evident from the
figures, that the female subjects were only slightly more
conforming than the male subjects.
The hypothesis, that informational social influence
is greater upon the social attitude ratings of the sub
jects as the task becomes more difficult, was supported by
the data pertaining to compliance and to both tests of
private acceptance. The data relevant to this hypothesis
are given in Tables 58, 59, and 60 and are illustrated
diagrammatically in Figures 43, 44, and 45*
Mean conformity (C) scores for the three levels of
task difficulty, averaged over both age and sex, are pre
sented in Table 58. It is apparent that the main effect
of task difficulty is highly significant (F = 54.841,
p < .001). The difference in the mean conformity (C)
scores of the subjects tested under the three levels of
task difficulty is illustrated in Figure 43. It is evident
that there was a significant increase in conformity scores
as task difficulty increased.
8 ---
7 ---
201
Mean
6 ---
Conformity
Score
4 ---
< ►
1 ---
►
Low Task Medium Task High Task
Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty
Fig. 43. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of subjects for the three levels of task difficulty
(combining age and sex) for Experiment V. Bange of
scores also indicated.
TABLE 58
EXPERIMENT V
MEAN CONFORMITY SCOEES (COMPLIANCE) OF SUBJECTS
FOE THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOE
MAIN EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN
FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 49).
Level of
Difficulty N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD
MTD
HTD
24
24
24
.875
1.791
5.375
54.841*
*p < .001
8
Mean
Conformity
Score
t
Low Task
Difficulty
Medium Task
Difficulty
High Task
Difficulty
Pig. 44. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of subjects for the three levels of task
difficulty (combining age and sex) for Experiment V.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 59
EXPERIMENT V
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE OF
SUBJECTS FOR THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— -TABLE 50).
Level of
Difficulty N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD 24 .666
MTD 24 1.250 19.887*
HTD 24
2.54-1
*p < .001
T T
Mean
Conformity
Score
Low Task
Difficulty
Medium Task
Difficulty
High Task
Difficulty
Fig. 45. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of subjects for the three levels of task
difficulty (combining age and sex) for Experiment V.
Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 60
EXPERIMENT V
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
SUBJECT FOR THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(COMBINING AGE AND SEX). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN
FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE-
TABLE 51).
Level of
Difficulty_____ N_
LTD 24
MTD 24
HTD 24
Mean Score
.458
.8533
"1.875
(from Analysis
of Variance)
9.946*
*p < .001
204-
In order to find the source of the significant main
effect obtained for task difficulty (C), Scheffe's (1959)
method of multiple comparisons was employed. The results
of the comparisons made are presented in Table 83 in the
General Results section, p. 239*
Table 59 presents the main conformity (1st P.A.)
scores for the three levels of task difficulty averaged
over both age and sex. It is apparent that the main effect
of task difficulty was significant (P = 19*887, p < .001).
The difference in the mean conformity (1st P.A.) scores of
the subjects tested under the three levels of task diffi
culty are presented graphically in Figure 44. It is
evident from the figure, the higher the level of task
difficulty the higher the conformity scores.
Having obtained a significant F value for the main
effect of task difficulty (1st P.A.), the data were
analyzed by Scheffe's (1959) method of multiple comparisons
to determine the source of the effect. The results of the
comparisons made are presented in Table 83 in the General
Results section, p. 239*
Table 60 gives the mean conformity (2d P.A.) scores
of the subjects for the three levels of task difficulty.
[Che main effect of task difficulty for private acceptance
after one week was significant (F = 9*946, p < .001). The
difference in the mean conformity (2d P.A.) scores of the
subjects tested under the three levels of task difficulty
205
are presented diagrammatically in Figure 45. It is apparent
from the figure, the higher the level of task difficulty
the higher the conformity scores. Scheffe's (1959) method
of multiple comparisons was used to find the source of the
significant main effect of task difficulty (2d P.A.). The
results of the comparisons made are given in Table 83 in
General Results section, p. 239.
The analysis of the data pertaining to compliance,
presented in Table 49, also indicated a significant age
by task difficulty interation effect (F = 10.238, p < .001).
That is, with increases in task difficulty conformity (C)
scores increased for both young and old subjects; however,
the increase at each level of difficulty was greater for
the older subjects.
CHAPTER VIII
GENERAL RESULTS
Three 2x2x3x5 mixed analysis of variance designs
were used to analyze statistically the combined data of
the five experiments. These were three between-groups,
one within-groups designs. The three between-groups
variables were age, sex, and experimental task. The
within-groups variable was task difficulty. In each of
the analyses there were four main effects and 11 inter
actions tested. Complete analysis of variance summary
tables are given in Table 61 (compliance— C), Table 62
(initial test of private acceptance— 1st P.A.), and
Table 63 (private acceptance after one week— 2d P.A.).
Age
The general hypothesis of this investigation, in
reference to age, stated: Informational social influence
is greater upon the judgments or opinions of older subjects
than upon the judgments or opinions of younger subjects;
further, this hypothesis will hold in all five experiments.
The data relevant to the first portion of this hypothesis
/ I
It was recognized that heterogeneity of variance
may have been present. However, this probably would not
have affected the significance of the main effects that
were found.
206_________________________
207
TABLE 61
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY
TABLE FOR COMPLIANCE
COMBINED ANALYSIS
Source of
Variation df SSQ. MSQ. F
Age 1 59.211 59.211
26.725**
Sex 1 5.211 5.211 1.449
Experimental Task 4 99-094
24.773
11.181**
Age x Sex 1 .044 .044 0.020
Age x E. T. 4 6.816 1.704
0.769
Sex x E. T. 4 14.761 5.690
1.665
Age x Sex x E. T. 4 1.261
.315
0.142
Error 100 221.551 2.215
Task Difficulty 2 210.688 105.344 159.451**
Age x T. D. 2 52.822 16.411 21.724**
Sex x T. D. 2 .688 .544
0.455
E. T. x T. D. 8 15.921 1.990 2.654*
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .288 .144 0.191
Age x E. T. x T. D. 8 5.066
.385 0.507
Sex x E. T. x T. D. 8 4.588
• 573 0.759
Age x Sex x E. T.
x T. D. 8 1.488 .180 0.246
Error 200 151.084
• 755
*p < .01
**p < .001
208
TABLE 62
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
FOR THE FIRST TEST OF PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE
COMBINED ANALYSIS
Source of
Variation df SSQ MSQ. F
Age 1 35.002 33.002
24.783***
Sex 1
4.669 4.669 3.506*
Experimental Task A 71.683 17.920
13.457***
Age x Sex 1
.625 .625 0.469
Age x E. T. 4 16.761 3.440
2.583**
Sex x E. T. 4
5-705
1.426 1.071
Age x Sex x E. T. 4 1.361 .340
0.255
Error 100 133.164
1.331
Task Difficulty 2 111.216 55-608 84.054***
Age x T. D. 2 17.772 8.886 13.431***
Sex x T. D. 2 .838
.419 0.634
E. T. x T. D. 8
10.783 1.347 2.037**
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .349 • 175
0.264
Age x E. T. x T. D. 8 3.005 .375 0.567
Sex x E. T. x T. D. 8 2.994
• 3 74 0.565
Age x Sex x E. T.
x T. D. 8
.705
.088 0.133
Error 200
132.315
.661
*p < .10
**p < .05
***p < .001
TABLE 63
COMPLETE ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
POR THE SECOND TEST OF PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE
COMBINED ANALYSIS
Source of
Variation df SSQ. MSQ P
Age 1 9.344 9.344
10.809***
Sex 1
1.599 1.599
1.850
Experimental Task 4 52.016 13.004
15.04-3***
Age x Sex 1
.177 .177 0.205
Age x E. T. 4 8.961 2.240
2.591*
Sex x E. T. 4
3.483
0
GO
•
1.007
Age x Sex x E. T. 4
.627 .156 0.181
Error 100 86.443 .864
Task Difficulty- 2 27.172 13.586
31.393***
Age x T. D. 2 4.238
2.119 4.897**
Sex x T. D. 2 1.216 .608 1.405
E. T. x T. D. 8 15.216 1.902
4.395***
Age x Sex x T. D. 2 .105 .052 0.121
Age x E. T. x T. D. 8 5.372 .671 1.551
Sex x E. T. x T. D. 8 1.783
.222
0.515
Age x Sex x E. T.
x T. D. 8 .338 .042
0.097
Error 200
86.553
.432
*p < .05
**p < .005
***p < .001
210
are given in Tables 64, 65, and 66 and are illustrated in
Figures 46, 47, and 49. Tables 67, 68, and 69 and Figures
49, 50, and 51 present data pertaining to the first and
second portion of this hypothesis.
Table 64 gives the mean conformity (C) scores of
the two age groups, averaged over the five experimental
tasks, and indicates that the main effect of age was sig
nificant (F = 26.725, P < .001). The difference in mean
conformity (0) scores of the two age groups is illustrated
in Figure 46. It is clear that the mean conformity scores,
averaged over the five experimental tasks, increased sig
nificantly with age. Table 65 presents the mean conformity
(1st P.A.) scores of the old and young subjects, averaged
over the five experimental tasks, and indicates a sig
nificant main effect for age (F = 24.783, p < .001).
Figure 47 illustrates graphically the difference in the
mean conformity (1st P.A.) scores of the two age groups.
It is evident that the mean conformity scores, averaged
over the five experimental tasks, increased significantly
with age. Table 66 gives the mean conformity (2d P.A.)
scores of the two age groups averaged over the five experi
mental tasks. Again, the main effect of age was found to
be significant (F = 10.809, p < .001). The difference in
the mean conformity (2d P.A.) scores is presented dia-
grammatically in Figure 48. It is apparent that the mean
conformity scores, averaged over the five experimental
211
Mean
Conformity
Score
24
25
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
15
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
5
2
1
t
Old Young
Fig. 46. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of young and old subjects (averaged over the five
experimental tasks). Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 64
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF OLD AND YOUNG
SUBJECTS (AVERAGED OVER THE FIVE EXPERIMENTAL
TASKS). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF AGE
(TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE-TABLE 61).
Age N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Young 60 2.750
26.725*
Old 60
5.185
*p < .001
^
212
Mean
Score
24
22
20
18
16
Young Old
47. Mean conformity scores (1st private
j, , of young and old subjects (averaged over
the five experimental tasks). Range of scores also
indicated.
Pi
acceptance
TABLE 65
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP OLD
AND YOUNG SUBJECTS (AVERAGED OVER THE FIVE
EXPERIMENTAL TASKS). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 62).
Age N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Young 60 1.616
24.783*
Old 60
3.433
*p < .001
213
Mean
Conformity
Score
24-
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14-
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 -
3
2
1
±
Old Young
Fig. 4-8. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of young and old subjects (averaged over
the five experimental tasks). Range of scores also
indicated.
TABLE 66
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF OLD
AND YOUNG SUBJECTS (AVERAGED OVER THE FIVE
EXPERIMENTAL TASKS). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS
VARIANCE-TABLE 63).
Age N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Young 60
.833
10.809*
Old 60 1.800
*p < .001
99999999999999
Mean
Conformity
Score
Exp.. I Exp. II Exp. Ill Exp. IV Exp. V
Fig. 49. Mean conformity scores (compliance) of
young and old subjects for each of the five experiments.
TABLE 67
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF YOUNG AND OLD
SUBJECTS FOR EACH OF THE FIVE EXPERIMENTS. F VALUES
FOR MAIN EFFECT OF AGE (TAKEN FROM SEPARATE
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ANALYSES).
Experiment N
Mean
Young
Score
Old
F
(from Analysi;
of Variance)
Experiment I 24 1.083 2.583 5.225**
Experiment II 24 2.000
3.583 4.093*
Experiment III 24 2.583 4.916 5.399**
Experiment IV 24 3.666 7.166 4.513**
Experiment V 24 4.416 7.666 13.000***
*p < .10
**p <
.05
***p < .005
215
Mean
Conformity
Score
22
20
18
16
12
Old
Young
Exp. I Exp. II Exp. Ill Exp. IV Exp. V
Fig. 50. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of young and old subjects for each of the
five experiments.
TABLE 68
MEAN CONFORMITY SCOEES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE)
OE YOUNG AND OLD SUBJECTS FOR EACH OE THE EIVE
EXPERIMENTS. E VALUES FOR MAIN EFFECT OEAGE
(TAKEN FROM SEPERATE ANALYSIS OE
VARIANCE ANALYSES).
Experiment N
Mean
Young
Score
Old
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Experiment I 24 .666
.999
1.081
Experiment II 24
1.085 1.833
1.680
Experiment III 24 1.416 3.000 4.056*
Experiment IV 24
2.083
5.166 6.475**
Experiment V 24
2.833 6.083
13-518***
*p < .10 **p < .025 ***p < .001
^
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
Mean 13
12
Conformity ^
Score 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Exp. I Exp. II Exp. Ill Exp. IV Exp. V
Pig 51• Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of young and old subjects for each of the
five experiments.
TABLE 69
MEM CONFORMITY SCOEES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP
YOUNG AND OLD SUBJECTS POR EACH OP THE PIVE
EXPERIMENTS. P VALUES POR MAIN EFFECT
OP AGE TAKEN PROM SEPARATE MALYSIS
OP VARIANCE ANALYSES).
Experiment N
Mean
Young
Score
Old
F
(from Analysis
of Variance
Experiment I 24
.083 .533
2.368
Experiment II 24
.333
.500
.217
Experiment III 24 .
vn
O
O
.750 .217
Experiment IV 24
1.083 3.166 4.240
Experiment V 24 2.083 4.250
6.787
*p < .10 **p
A
•
o
Young
217
tasks, increased signficantly with age.
Table 67 presents the mean conformity (0) scores
of the young and old subjects, and the E values for the
main effect of age, for each of the five experiments. The
main effect of age was found to be significant in Experi
ment I (E = 5.225, p < .05), Experiment III (E = 5*339,
p < .05), Experiment XV (E = 4.5"13, P < .05), and Experi
ment Y (E = 15.000, p < .005). The difference in the
mean conformity (C) scores of the two age groups for the
five experiments is presented graphically in Eigure 49.
It is apparent from the figure, that mean conformity
scores were higher for the older subjects on all experi
mental tasks.
Table 68 gives the mean conformity (1st P.A.)
scores of the young and old subjects, and the E values for
the main effect of age (1st P.A.), for each of the five
experiments. The main effect of age was significant in
Experiment XV (E = 6.475, P < *025) and Experiment Y
(E = 13,3/ 18, p < .005). The difference in the mean con
formity (1st P.A.) scores of the two age groups for the
five experiments is illustrated graphically in Eigure 5°*
It is apparent, that although the difference between the
age groups only reached significance at the .05 level of
significance in Experiments IV and V, the mean conformity
scores were higher for older subjects on all experimental
tasks.
218
Table 69 presents the mean conformity (2d P.A.)
scores of the young and old subjects and the F values for
the main effect of age (2d P.A.) for each of the five
experiments. The main effect of age was significant in
Experiment V (F = 6.787, p < .01). The difference in the
mean conformity (2d P.A.) scores of the two age groups for
the five experiments is presented graphically in Figure 51*
It is evident, that although the difference between the
age groups only reached significance at the .05 level of
significance in Experiment V, the mean conformity scores
were higher for older subjects on all experimental tasks.
The data from all the analyses, especially in the
case of compliance, provide support for the hypothesis
that older individuals are more conforming than younger
individuals. The data also support the generalizability
of this hypothesis as indicated by the higher conformity
(C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) scores for the older subjects
in all experiments.
Sex
The general hypothesis of this investigation,
in reference to sex, stated: Informational social in
fluence is greater upon the judgments or opinions of
females than upon the judgments or opinions of males;
further, this hypothesis will hold in all five experi
ments.
219
The data relevant to the first portion of this
hypothesis are given in Tables 70, 7/ l, end 72 and are
illustrated in Figures 52, 53, and 54* Tables 73, 74, and
75 and Figures 55, 56, and 57 present data pertaining to
the first and second portion of this hypothesis.
Tables 70, 7^, and 72 give the mean conformity
(C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A. respectively) scores of the male
and female subjects averaged over the five experimental
tasks. It is apparent that the main effect of sex was not
significant in any of the three analysis of variance
analyses. Figures 52, 53, and 54 illustrate the difference
in the mean conformity (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A. respective
ly) scores of the male and female subjects. It is evident
from the figures, that the females were only slightly
more conforming than the males when the data of the five
experiments was combined.
Table 73 presents the mean conformity (C) scores
of the male and female subjects, and F values for the
main effect of sex (C), for each of the five experiments.
The main effect of sex (C) was not significant in any of
the five experiments. The difference in the mean con
formity (C) scores of the male and female subjects for
the five experiments is presented graphically in Figure 55*
It is apparent from the figure that the mean conformity
scores were higher for the female subjects in Experiments
I, III, and V and were higher for the male subjects in
220
Mean
Conformity
Score
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Male
Fig. 52. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of male and female subjects (averaged over the five
experimental tasks). Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 70
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF MALE AND FEMALE
SUBJECTS (AVERAGED OVER THE FIVE EXPERIMENTAL TASKS).
F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF SEX (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 61).
Sex
F
N Mean Score
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Male
Female
60
60
3.683
4.250
1.449
2799999999999^
221
Mean
Conformity
Score
22
20
18
12
11
10
Male Female
Fig, 53- Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of male and female subjects (averaged over
the five experimental tasks). Range of scores also
indicated.
TABLE 71
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS (AVERAGED OVER THE FIVE
EXPERIMENTAL TASKS). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF SEX (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS
OF VARIANCE-TABLE 62).
Sex N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance
Male 60
2.183
3.506*
Female 60 2.866
*p < .10
Mean
Conformity
Score
Male Female
Fig. 54. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of male and female subjects (averaged
over the five experimental tasks). Range of scores
also indicated.
TABLE 72
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF
MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS (AVERAGED OVER THE
FIVE EXPERIMENTAL TASKS). F VALUE FOR
MAIN EFFECT OF SEX (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE-
TABLE 63).
Sex N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Male
Female
60
60
1.116
1.516
1.850
223
Mean
Conformity
Score
22 ---
21 - =
20 - =
19 -EE
18---
16---
^5 -EE
14 ---
12
10 - =
9 - =
'emale
Male
Exp. I Exp. II Exp. Ill Exp. IV Exp. V
Fig- 55- Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of male and female subjects for each of the five experi
ments.
TABLE 73
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OE MALE AND EEMALE
SUBJECTS EOR EACH OE THE EIVE EXPERIMENTS. E VALUES
EOR MAIN EEEECT OE SEX (TAKEN EROM SEPARATE
ANALYSIS OE VARIANCE ANALYSES).
Experiment N
Mean
Male
Score
Eemale
E
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Experiment I 24
1-583 2.083
o
to
L f\
•
Experiment II 24 3-166 2.416 .918
Experiment III 24 3-916
3-583
.110
Experiment IV 24 4.249 6.583
2.006
Experiment V 24
5-333 6-750 2.470
Male
Mean
Conformity
Score
Exp. I Exp. II Exp. Ill Exp. IV Exp. V
Pig. 56. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of male and female subjects for each of the
five experiments.
TABLE 74-
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP
MALE AND EEMALE SUBJECTS POR EACH OP THE
PIVE EXPERIMENTS. P VALUES POR MAIN
EPEECT OP SEX (TAKEN PROM SEPARATE
ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE ANALYSES).
Experiment N
Mean
Male
Score
Pemale
P
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Experiment I 24
.75 0 .916 .270
Experiment II 24
1.583 1.333
.186
Experiment III 24-
2.083 2.333
.101
Experiment IV 24
2.749 4.500 2.086
Experiment V 24 3.750 5.166 2.530
225
Mean
Conformity
Score
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Female
Male
Exp. I Exp. II Exp. Ill Exp. IV Exp. V
Fig* 57* Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of male and female subjects for each of
the five experiments.
TABLE 75
MEAN CONFOEMITY SCOEES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF MALE
AND FEMALE SUBJECTS FOR EACH OF THE FIVE EXPERIMENTS.
F VALUES FOR MAIN EFFECT OF SEX (TAKEN FROM
SEPARATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ANALYSES).
Experiment N
Mean
Male
Score
Female
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Experiment I 24
.083 *333
2.368
Experiment II 24 .500
*533 .217
Experiment III 24 *750 .500
.217
Experiment IV 24 1*750 2.500
*549
Experiment V 24
2.499 3*833
2.570
226
Experiment II. The mean conformity (2d P.A.) scores of
the male and female subjects, and the F values for the
main effect of sex for the five experiments, are presented
in Table 75* main effect of sex was not significant
in any of the experiments. The difference in mean con
formity (2d P.A.) scores of the male and female subjects
for the five experiments is illustrated in Figure 57- It
is clear from the figure that the mean conformity (2d
P.A.) scores were higher for the female subjects in Ex
periments I, III, and V and were higher for the male
subjects in Experiments II and IV.
The data from all the analyses generally do not
provide support for the hypothesis that females are more
conforming than males. The main effect of sex was not
significant at the .05 level, in any of the separate
experiments, nor was it significant in the general analyses
when the data from the individual experiments was combined.
It was also found, in a number of cases, that it was the
male subjects who were slightly more conforming.
Task Difficulty
The general hypothesis of this investigation, in
reference to task difficulty, stated: Informational social
influence is greater upon the judgments or opinions of the
subjects as the stimulus of the task becomes more ambiguous
(i.e., as the task becomes more difficult); further, this
hypothesis will hold in each of the five experiments.______
227
The data relevant to the first portion of this
hypothesis are given in Tables 76, 77, and 78 and are
illustrated in Figures 58, 59, and 60. Tables 80, 81,
and 82 and Figures 61, 62, and 63 present data pertaining
to the first and second portion of this hypothesis.
Table 76 gives the mean conformity (C) scores for
the three levels of task difficulty, averaged over the
five experimental tasks, and indicates that the main
effect of task difficulty was highly significant (F =
139.4-51, p < .001). The difference in mean conformity (C)
scores for the three levels of task difficulty, combining
the data of the five experiments, is illustrated in
Figure 58. It is clear that the mean conformity scores
increased significantly as the task becomes more diffi
cult. Table 77 presents the mean conformity (1st P.A.)
scores of the three levels of task difficulty, averaged
over the five experimental tasks, and indicates that the
main effect of task difficulty was significant (F = 84.054-,
p < .001). Figure 59 illustrates graphically the dif
ference in the mean conformity (1st P.A.) scores of the
three levels of task difficulty. It is evident that the
mean conformity scores, based on the combined data of the
five experiments, increased significantly as the task
became more difficult. Table 78 gives the mean conformity
(2d P.A.) scores of the three levels of task difficulty,
averaged over the five experimental tasks, and indicates
228
8
7
6
Mean
Conformity
Score
1
Low Task
Difficulty
Medium Task
Difficulty
High Task
Difficulty
Fig. 58. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of the three levels of task difficulty (averaged over
the five experimental tasks). Range of scores also
indicated.
TABLE 76
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF THE THREE LEVELS
OF TASK DIFFICULTY (AVERAGED OVER THE FIVE EXPERIMENTAL
TASKS). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY
(TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE— TABLE 61).
Level of
Difficulty Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD
MTD
HTD
.485
1.150
2.553
159.451'
*p < .001
229
Mean
Conformity
Score
8
7
6
±
Low Task
Difficulty
Medium Task
Difficulty
High Task
Difficulty
Fig- 59- Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance) of the three levels of task difficulty
(averaged over the five experimental tasks). Range
of scores also indicated.
TABLE 77
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP THE
THREE LEVELS OP TASK DIFFICULTY (AVERAGED OVER THE
FIVE EXPERIMENTAL TASKS). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN FROM
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE—-TABLE 62).
Level of
Difficulty Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
LTD
.285
MTD .641 84.054*
HTD 1.600
*p < .001
230
Mean
Conformity
Score
7 ---
5 ---
4 ---
2 ---
Low Task Medium Task High Task
Difficulty Difficulty Difficulty
Fig. 60. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of the three levels of task difficulty
(averaged over the five experimental tasks). Range of
scores also indicated.
TABLE 78
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF THE
THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY (AVERAGED OVER THE
FIVE EXPERIMENTAL TASKS). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT
OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 63).
Level of
Difficulty
LTD
MTD
HTD
Mean Score
.150
.358
.808
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
31.393*
"p < .001
231
that the main effect of task difficulty was significant
(I* = 31*393, p < 001). The difference in mean conformity
(2d P.A.) scores for the three levels of task difficulty,
combining the data of the five experiments, is illustrated
in Figure 60. It is evident that the mean conformity
scores increased as the difficulty of the task increased.
Having found a significant main effect for task
difficulty (C, 1st P.A. and 2d P.A.) on the combined data
of the five experiments, Scheffe's (1959) method of multiple
comparisons was used to determine the source of the effect
in each case. The results of the comparisons made are
given in Table 79* Comparison 1 was carried out to
determine if the mean conformity scores (C, 1st P.A., and
2d P.A.) of low task difficulty and high task difficulty
were significantly different. It can be seen from Table 79
that this comparison was significant in the case of
compliance (F = 135*71, P < .001), the first test of
private acceptance (F = 79*18, p < .001) and private
acceptance after one week (F = 30.17, p < .001). Compari
son 2 was conducted in order to ascertain if the mean
conformity scores (C, 1st P.A. and 2d P.A.) of medium task
difficulty and high task difficulty were significantly
different. It is apparent from Table 79 that this com
parison was significant in the case of compliance (F =
51*98, p < .001), the first test of private acceptance
(F = 41.86, p < .001) and private acceptance after one
TABLE 79
COMPARISONS BETWEEN LEVELS OP TASK DIFFICULTY
ON THE COMBINED DATA OP THE FIVE EXPERIMENTS
First Second
Private Private
Comparison Compliance Acceptance Acceptance
1
LTD— HTD
F = 135.71
p < .001
F = 79.18
p < .001
F = 30.17
p < .001
2
MTD— HTD
F = 51.98
p < .001
F = 41.86
p < .001
F = 14.46
p < .001
3
LTD— MTD
F = 19.40
p < .001
F = 5-86
p < .005
F = 2.86
p < .10
253
week (F = 14.46, p < .001). Comparison 3 was made in order
to determine if the mean conformity scores (C, 1st P.A.,
and 2d P.A.) of low task difficulty and medium task
difficulty were significantly different. It is clear from
Table 79 that this comparison was significant in the case
of compliance (F = 19*40, p < .001) and the first test of
private acceptance (F = 5*86, P < *005)* This comparison
was not significant for the second test of private ac
ceptance (F = 2.86, p < .10) at the .05 level of signi
ficance. It can be concluded that the significant main
effects obtained for task difficulty (C, 1st P.A., and
2d P.A.) on the combined data, was due to significant
differences between each of the levels of task difficulty.
Table 80 presents the mean conformity (C) scores
of the three levels of task difficulty, and the F values
for the main effect of task difficulty (C), for each of
the five experiments. The main effect of task difficulty
was found to be significant in Experiment I (F = 20.317 j
p < .001), Experiment II (F = 17*296, p < .001), Experi
ment III (F = 21.346, p < .001), Experiment IV (F =
32,386, p < .001), and Experiment V (F = 54.841, p < .001).
The difference in the mean conformity (C) scores of the
three levels of task difficulty for the five experiments
is presented graphically in Figure 61. It is apparent
from the figure that mean conformity scores increased,
as task difficulty increased, on all experimental tasks.
234-
Mean
Conformity
Score
8 ---
3 ---
MTD
Exp. I Exp. II Exp. Ill Exp. IV Exp. V
Fig. 61. Mean conformity scores (compliance) of
the three levels of task difficulty for each of the five
experiments.
TABLE 80
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF THE THREE LEVELS
OF TASK DIFFICULTY FOR EACH OF THE FIVE EXPERIMENTS.
F VALUES FOR MAIN EFFECT OF TASK DIFFICULTY (TAKEN
FROM SEPARATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ANALYSES).
Experiment
Low Task
Difficulty
Mean Score
Medium Task
Difficulty
High Task
Difficulty F
Experiment I
.125 .4-58 1.250
20.317*
Experiment II .250 .750 1.791 17.996*
Experiment III .4-16 1.166 2.166 21.34-6*
Experiment IV
.750 1.583 3.083
32.386*
Experiment V
.875 1.791 3.375
54-. 84-1*
*p < .001
235
Table 81 presents the mean conformity (1st P.A.)
scores of the three levels of task difficulty, and the F
values for the main effect of task difficulty (1st P.A.),
for each of the five experiments. The main effect of task
difficulty was found to be significant in Experiment I
(F = 13.4-24, p < .001), Experiment II (F = 13.287, p <
.001), Experiment III (F = 13.042, p < .001), Experiment IV
(F = 31.055, P < .001), and Experiment V (F = 19.887,
p < .001). The difference in the mean conformity (1st
P.A.) scores of the three levels of task difficulty for
the five experiments is presented graphically in Figure 62.
It is evident from the figure that mean conformity scores
increased, as task difficulty increased, on all experi
mental tasks.
Table 82 gives the mean conformity scores (2d P.A.)
of the three levels of task difficulty, and the F values
for the main effect of task difficulty (2d P.A.), for
each of the five experiments. The main effect of task
difficulty was found to be significant in Experiment II
(F = 3*303, p < .05), Experiment III (F = 4.000, p < .05),
Experiment IV (F = 14,641, p < .001) and Experiment V
(F = 9-946, p < .001). The difference in the mean con
formity scores (2d P.A.) of the three levels of task
difficulty for the five experiments is illustrated in
Figure 63. It is clear from the figure that mean con
formity scores increased, as task difficulty increased, on
236
Mean
Conformity
Score
Fig. 62. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of the three levels of task difficulty
for each of the five experiments.
TABLE 81
MEAN CONFORMITY' SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP THE
THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY FOR EACH 0#; THE FIVE
EXPERIMENTS. F VALUES FOR MAIN EFFECT tiF TASK
DIFFICULTY (TAKEN FROM THE SEPARATE ANALYSIS
OF VARIANCE ANALYSES).
Experiment
Low Task
Difficulty
Mean Score
Medium Task
Difficulty Difficulty F
Experiment I .000
.125 .708 13.424*
Experiment II
.083
.291
1.083 13.287*
Experiment III .208 .500 1.500 13.042*
Experiment IV .458 1.041 2.125 31.055*
Experiment V .666 1.250 2.541 19-887*
*p < .001
8
7
6
5
5
HTD
2
MTD
Exp. I Exp. II Exp. Ill Exp. IV Exp. V
237
Mean
Conformity
Scone
6 ---
3 ---
Exp. I Exp. II Exp. Ill Exp. IV Exp. V
Fig. 63. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of the three levels of task difficulty for
each of the five experiments.
TABLE 82
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF THE
THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY FOR EACH OF THE FIVE
EXPERIMENTS. F VALUES FOR MAIN EFFECT OF TASK
DIFFICULTY (TAKEN FROM THE SEPARATE ANALYSIS
OF VARIANCE ANALYSES).
Experiment
Low Task
Difficulty
Mean Score
Medium Task
Difficulty
High Task
Difficulty F
Experiment I .000 .041 .166 2.600
Experiment II .000
.125 .291 3.303*
Experiment III .041 .208
.375
4.000*
Experiment IV .250
.583 1.291 14.641**
Experiment V .458
.833 1.875
9.946**
*p < .05 **p < .001
238
all experimental tasks.
The data from all the analyses provide support for
the hypothesis that conformity increases as the level of
difficulty increases. The data also support the generaliz-
ability of this hypothesis as indicated by the higher con
formity scores obtained at higher levels of difficulty in
all the experiments.
Having obtained the significant F values for the
main effect of task difficulty within each experiment, the
data were analyzed in each case to find the source of the
effect. This was accomplished by employing Scheffe's
(1959) method of multiple comparisons. The results of the
comparisons made in Experiments I, II, III, IV, and V are
presented in Table 83.
Comparison 1 was aimed at determining if the mean
conformity scores (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) of low task
difficulty and high task difficulty were significantly
different. It can be seen from Table 83 that this com
parison was significant in every, experiment. Comparison
2 was conducted in order to ascertain if the mean con
formity scores (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) of medium task
difficulty and high task difficulty were significantly
different. This comparison was significant in almost
every experiment for all three conformity measures.
Comparison 3 was made in order to determine if the mean
conformity scores (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) of low task
TABLE 83
SUMMARY TABLE OP THE COMPARISONS BETWEEN
THE LEVELS OP TASK DIFFICULTY
MADE IN EXPERIMENTS I— V
FIRST PRIVATE SECOND PRIVATE
COMPLIANCE ACCEPTANCE ACCEPTANCE
Experiment Comparison Comparison Comparison
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
LTD-HTD MTD-HTD LTD-MTD LTD-HTD MTD-HTD LTD-MTD LTD-HTD MTD-HTD LTD-MTD
Experiment I
Experiment II
Experiment III
F=19.09
IX. 001
F= 9.50
XX. 001
F= 1.68
IX. 20
F=11.77
XX. 001
F= 7.98
IX. 001
F= .34
F=70.64
XX. 001
F=30.66
p<.001
?= 7.35
XX. 005
F=47.63
ix. 001
F=29.72
XX. 001
F= 2.04
IX. 20
F=13.08
IX. 001
F= 4.27
IX.025
F= 2.08
ix. 20
F=21.57
XX. 001
F= 7.04
XX. 005
F= 3.96
xx. 025
F=11.93
p<.001
F= 7.^4
IX. 005
F= .61 F= 5.72
p<.01
F= 1.43 F = 1.43
Experiment IV
Experiment Y
F=63.11
p<.001
F=26.17
p<.001
F= 8.01
IX. 001
F=60.65
ix.001
F=25.65
ix. 001
F= 7.30
IX. 005
F=27.04
ix. 001
F=12.60
IX. 001
F= 2.70
p<.10
F=53.88
P<.001
F=21.63
Pc.001
F= 7.20
P<.005
F=19.20
Px.001
F= 9.02
P<.001
F= 1.83
P<.20
£= 9.35
P<.001
£= 5.09
P<.01
F= .64
ro
v > i
vD
240
difficulty and medium task difficulty were significantly
different. It is apparent from Table 83 that this
comparison was generally significant for compliance, but
it was not generally significant at the .05 level of sig
nificance for the tests of private acceptance.
Generally, it can be concluded that the difference
between low task difficulty and high task difficulty, and
the difference between medium task difficulty and high
task difficulty, contributed to the overall significant
F values obtained for task difficulty (0, 1st P.A., and
2d P.A.) in the five experiments. It can also be con
cluded that the difference between low task difficulty and
medium task difficulty only contributed to the significant
P values obtained for task difficulty, in the five experi
ments, in the case of compliance.
Nature of the Task
The general hypothesis, in reference to the nature
of the experimental task, stated: Informational social
influence is greater upon the judgments or opinions of
the subjects as the nature of the tasks proceed from an
objective to a social frame of reference (as the tasks
increase in ambiguity). That is, there will be an increase
in conformity from Experiment I to Experiment V.
The data relevant to this hypothesis are given in
Tables 84, 85, and 86 and presented graphically in
Figures 64, 65, and 66.____________________________________
24-1
Mean
Conformity
Score
Exp. I Exp. II Exp. Ill Exp. IV Exp. V
Pig. 64-. Mean conformity scores (compliance)
of the five experimental tasks (averaged over age, sex,
and task difficulty). Range of scores also indicated.
TABLE 84-
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) OF THE FIVE
EXPERIMENTAL TASKS (AVERAGED OVER AGE, SEX
AND TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN
EFFECT OF EXPERIMENTAL TASK (TAKEN
FROM ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE—
TABLE 61).
F
Experimental (from Analysis
Task N Mean Score of Variance)
Exp. Task I 24-
1.833
Exp. Task II 24-
2.791
Exp. Task III 24- 3.750 11.181*
Exp. Task IV 24- 5.4-16
Exp. Task V 24- 6.04-1
*p < .001
Mean
Conformity
Score
? r 11
Exp. I Exp. II Exp. Ill Exp. IV Exp. V
Pig. 65. Mean conformity scores (1st private
acceptance; of the five experimental tasks (averaged
over age, sex, and task difficulty). Range of scores
also indicated.
TABLE 85
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OP THE
PIVE EXPERIMENTAL TASKS (AVERAGED OVER AGE, SEX AND
TASK DIPPICULTY). P VALUE POR MAIN EPPECT OP
EXPERIMENTAL TASK (TAKEN PROM ANALYSIS OP
VARIANCE-TABLE 62).
Experimental
Task
P
N Mean Score
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Exp.
Exp.
Exp.
Exp.
Exp.
Task I
Task II
Task III
Task IV
Task V
24
24
24
24
24
.833
1.500
2.208
3.624
4.458
13.457*
*p < .001
24-3
Mean
Conformity
Score
24-
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14-
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4-
3
2
1
Exp. I Exp. II Exp. Ill Exp. IV Exp. V
Fig. 66. Mean conformity scores (2d private
acceptance; of the five experimental tasks (averaged
over age, sex, and task difficulty). Range of scores
also indicated.
TABLE 86
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) OF THE
FIVE EXPERIMENTAL TASKS (AVERAGED OVER AGE, SEX AND
TASK DIFFICULTY). F VALUE FOR MAIN EFFECT OF
EXPERIMENTAL TASK (TAKEN FROM ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE— TABLE 63).
Experimental
Task N Mean Score
F
(from Analysis
of Variance)
Exp. Task I 24-
.24-9
Exp. Task II 24- .4-16
Exp. Task III 24- .624- 15.04-3*
Exp. Task IV 24- 2.124-
Exp. Task V 24- 3.106
*p < .001
244-
Table 84 presents the mean conformity (C) scores
of the five experimental tasks, averaged over age, sex and
task difficulty, and indicates that the main effect of
experimental task was significant (F = 11.181, p < .001).
The difference in the mean conformity (C) scores of the
five experimental tasks is illustrated in Pigure 64. It
is clear that the mean conformity scores increased from
Experiment I to Experiment V. Table 85 gives the mean
conformity (1st P.A.) scores of the five experimental tasks,
averaged over age, sex, and task difficulty, and indicates
that the main effect of experimental task was significant
(P = 13.457, P < .001). Pigure 65 presents graphically
the difference in the mean conformity (1st P.A.) scores
for the five experimental tasks. It is evident that the
mean conformity scores increased from Experiment I to
Experiment V. Table 85 gives the mean conformity scores
(2d P.A.) of the five experimental tasks, averaged over
age, sex and task difficulty, and indicates that the main
effect of experimental task was significant (P = 15-043,
p < .001). The difference in the mean conformity (2d P.A.)
scores of the five experimental tasks is illustrated in
Figure 66. It is apparent that the mean conformity scores
increased from Experiment I to Experiment V.
Having found a significant main effect for
experimental task in reference to compliance and both tests
of private acceptance, Scheffe's (1959) method of multiple
245
comparisons was employed to determine possible sources of
the effect, and to determine if there was a significant
increase in conformity between the experimental tasks.
The results of the comparisons made are presented in
Table 87-
Comparison 1 was aimed at determining if the mean
conformity (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) scores of Experi
mental Task I and Experimental Task II were significantly
different. It can be seen from Table 87, that this
difference was not significant in the case of compliance
or for either test of private acceptance. Comparison 2
was made to determine if the mean conformity (C, 1st P.A.,
and 2d P.A.) scores of Experimental Task II and Experi
mental Task III were significantly different. It is
apparent from Table 87, that this difference was also not
significant in the case of compliance or either tests of
private acceptance. Comparison 3 was conducted to see if
there was a significant difference between the mean con
formity (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) scores of Experimental
Task III and Experimental Task IV. This difference was
significant in reference to compliance (P = 7*75, P <.001),
initial private acceptance (P = 9-18, p < .001) and private
acceptance after one week (P = 15-62, p < .001). Compari
son 4 was directed at determining if the mean conformity
(C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) scores of Experimental Task IV
and Experimental Task V were significantly different. The
TABLE 87
COMPARISONS BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL TASKS
Comparison Compliance
First
Private
Acceptance
Second
Private
Acceptance
(1)
Exp. T.-Exp. Tp F =
P <
2.50
.10
F = 2.04
p < -20
F = .20
(2) Exp. Tp-Exp. T, F =
P. <
2.50
.10
F = 2.^9
p < .20
F = .30
(3)
Exp. T^-Exp. T F =
P <
7.75
.005
F = 9.18
p < .001
F = 15.62
0 < .001
(4) Exp. T^-Exp. T5 F = 1.04 F = 3.13
P < .10
F = 7.50
P < .005
(5)
Exp.
ETp+ET3 p =
X1~ 2 t > <
7.51
.005
F = 6.36
0 < .005
F = .65
(6) Exp.
ET^ +ET0+ETX - c ,
Tc--- V - 2---^ =
5 3 p <
43.20
.001
F = 59.33
p < .001
F = 78.57
D < .001
(7)
Exp.
m et1+et2+et5 e =
V* 3 P <
28.29
.001
F = 21.59
p < .001
F = 20.01
p < .001
Experimental Task I— Visual perceptual judgment
Experimental Task II— Auditory perceptual judgment
Experimental Task III— Auditory signal detection
Experimental Task IV— Problem solving
Experimental Task V— Social attitude
ro
- £ •
0
| 247
difference was only significant for the second test of
private acceptance (F = 7*50, p < .005). Comparison 5
i was directed at determining if the mean conformity (C,
i
j 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) score of Experimental Task I was
i
| significantly different from the average of the mean con-
| formity (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) scores of Experimental
f f
Task II and III. This comparison was significant in the
case of compliance (P = 7*51* P < *005) and in the first
I test of private acceptance (F = 6.36, p < .005). This
I comparison was not significant in the second test of
i
I private acceptance. Comparison 6 focused on ascertaining
j if the average of the mean conformity (C, 1st P.A., and
i
j 2d P.A.) scores of Experimental Tasks, I, II, and III
| differed significantly from the mean conformity (C, 1st
I
| P.A., and 2d P.A.) score of Experimental Task V. This
difference was found to be significant in the case of
j compliance (F = 43*20, p < .001), initial private ac-
| ceptance (F = 59*35, p < .001), and private acceptance
| after one week (F = 78.57* p < .001). Comparison 7 was
I
j concerned with determining if the average of the mean
i
J conformity (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) scores of Experi-
i
mental Task I, II, and III differed significantly from
the mean conformity (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) score of
Experimental Task IV. This difference proved to be sig
nificant for compliance (F = 28.29, P < .001), initial
private acceptance (F = 21.59* p < .001) and private
248
acceptance after one week (F = 30.01, p < .001).
Other Significant Effects
The combined analyses of the five experiments also
I indicated a significant age by task difficulty interaction
I
i effect for compliance (F = 21.724, p < .001— Table 61),
I
| initial private acceptance (F = 13.431, p < .001— Table
j 62), and private acceptance after one week (F = 4.897*
i
; p < .005— Table 63). That is, with increases in task
j i
| difficulty conformity (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) scores
j i
i increased for both young and old subjects; however, the
| increase at each level of difficulty was greater for the
i
! old subjects.
j
| The combined analyses of the five experiments
i
| indicated a significant task difficulty by experimental
task interaction effect for compliance (F = 2.634, p < .01
— Table 61), initial private acceptance (F = 2.037,
p < .05— Table 62) and private acceptance after one week
| (F = 4.395* P < *001— Table 63). That is, with increases
i in task difficulty conformity (G, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.)
I
I scores increased for all experimental tasks; however, the
i
increase in conformity at each level of task difficulty
was greater from Experiment I (visual perceptual judgment)
to Experiment V (social attitude).
The combined analyses of the five experiments also
indicated a significant age by experimental task
249
interaction effect for the first test of private acceptance
(F = 2.583, p < .05— Table 62) and for private acceptance
I
J after one week (F = 2.59*1, P < *05— Table 63). That is,
there was an increase in conformity from Experimental Task 3
to Experimental Task V for both age groups; however, this
increase in conformity was greater for the older subjects.
In order to obtain a clearer picture of the effects
operating in each of the five experiments, the mean con
formity scores (C, 1st P.A., and 2d P.A.) for the two age
groups and for the sexes at each level of task difficulty
are given in Tables 96 through 110 in the Appendix:, pp.
j 309-323.
Postexperiment Questionnaire
The postexperiment questionnaire (presented in the
Appendix, p. 294) yielded qualitative data on the
subjects participating in each of the five experiments.
This data was combined and is presented in Table 88. The
questions that exhibited different responses from the two
age groups, or that are of interest in themselves, are
shown in Table 88 along with the frequency of the various
responses. The male and female subjects responded
similarly to the questions. However, the frequency of the
responses of the male and female subjects will also be
shown for the questions that demonstrated an age difference.
Questions which required a rating on a scale, which
demonstrated an age difference, are also presented in
250
TABLE 88
RESPONSES GIVEN IN THE POSTEXEERIMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
(DATA COMBINED PROM THE PIVE EXPERIMENTS)
Question 1: How confident of your ratings were you?
Age Sex
Response_____ young old male female
Extremely confident 22 11 15
18
Somewhat confident 30 38
35 33
Not confident 8 11 10
9
Question 3: When you gave a response that differed from
the other members of the group, who do you
suppose was right?
Age Sex
_______Response_____ young old male female
I was always right 26 12 20 18
I was sometimes
right 30 41 34
37
I was never right 4 7 6
Question 4: Did you ever respond opposite to your true
feelings?
Age Sex
Question 3-
Question 6:
yes
no
18 21 17 22
42 39 43 38
Did you consider the ratings of the other
group members in making your rating?
Response
Age Sex
young old male female
yes
no
23 27 32 28
37 33 38 32
Did you notice a divergence between your
responses and those of the group?
Response
Age Sex
young old male female
yes
no
60 60 60 60
0 0 0 0
TABLE 88 (continued)
251
Question 9:
Question 10:
Question 11:
Question 17:
Question 20:
Explain what you think the experiment was
about—
Age Sex
Response_____ young old male female
Not aware 36
43
38 41
Somewhat aware 24
17
22 19
Completely
aware 0 0 0 0
How would you rate your parents on their
attempts to dominate you as a child?
Parents never dominate 1, Parents extremely
dominating 10.
Age
young old
How would you rate your parents in regard to
letting you solve your own problems as a
child?
No restraints 1, Extremely restraining 10.
Age
__________ young old,
mean z qn 74/1
score y*7r (
How would you rate your parents on their
attitude toward you?
Accepting 1, Rejecting 10.
Age
__________ young old
mean 5 23 6.41
score ___
How would you rate yourself on cautiousness?
Not cautious at all 1, Very cautious 10.
Age
__________ young old
mean
score
2.77 7.29
252
TABLE 88 (continued)
Question 21: How would you rate yourself on the way you
approach problems?
Actively 1, Passively 10.
Age
young old
3.18 6.22
score
253
Table 88.
I Responses to Question 1 were classified as "ex-
| tremely confident," "somewhat confident," and "not con
fident." "Extremely confident" responses were those in
iwhich the subject expressed complete assuredness of the
j i
i accuracy of his responses. "Somewhat confident" i
I !
j responses were those in which the subject expressed some
i
I doubt as to the accuracy of his responses. "Not confident"
| responses were those in x»;hich the subject expressed un
certainty as to the accuracy of his responses. Responses J
i to Question 5 are self-explanatory. |
i
| It is apparent from Table 88, that the responses
to Questions 1 and 3 of the older subjects were more often j
j self-doubting than those of the younger subjects. These j
|
| results indicate that the older individuals were less
certain of the accuracy of their responses than were the
!
j younger individuals.
i It is evident from the responses given to Questions
I
i 4 - and 5, that both age groups generally did not acknowledge
i
their conformity behavior. The difference in response to
these questions, between the two age groups, was relatively
i small compared to the difference in conformity expressed
by the old and young subjects. Therefore, it can be con
cluded that the older subjects were even less willing to
admit to their conformity, or less aware of their con
formity, than were the younger subjects.
254-
Responses to Question 9 were classified as "Not
aware as to the nature of the experiment," "somewhat aware,"
|and "completely aware." "Not aware" responses were those
I
I in which the subject did not express any awareness as to
!
iwhat the experiment was actually concerned about, or the
■ deception procedures employed. "Somewhat aware" responses
were those in which the subject expressed a general aware
ness as to the purpose of the experiment, but did not
|realize that there was any deception actually taking place.
j "Completely aware" responses would have been those where
i
|the subject not only had an awareness of the nature of the
! experiment, but also where the subject was aware of the
I
j deception procedures.
| It is clear from Table 88, indicated by the
responses to Questions 6 and 9, that the deception pro
cedure, the apparatus and the situation were found to be
credible by the subjects of both age groups. The responses
; to Question 9 indicated that the older subjects were
1
i somewhat more deceived and completely unaware of the
nature of the experiment and the deception procedures.
Responses to Questions 10, 11, 17» 20, and 21 were
on a 10-point scale. It can be seen from the responses
given to Questions 10, 11, and 17 that the mean scores for
these questions were substantially higher for the older
subjects. It is apparent that the older subjects rated
their parents more dominating, restraining and rejecting
255
than the younger subjects rated their parents. It is
clear from the responses given to Question 20 that the
older subjects considered themselves to be more cautious.
The responses given to Question 21 indicate that the older
|subjects felt that they approach problems more passively,
whereas, younger subjects felt they approached problems
more actively.
r
CHAPTER IX
I DISCUSSION
j
i In each of the five experiments of this investi
gation, one outcome consistently recurred. When an
individual was confronted by social influence, his judg
ments and opinions were affected. A subject may have had j
an unequivocal judgment about an object when tested alone; i
j I
|but as soon as a group and its concomitant social influence
were present he ceased to behave solely on the basis of
'his own perceptions or opinions. A more specific assertion |
I I
!can be made about this responsiveness to social influence:
i
|in different ways and in varying degrees, the majority
I
|of subjects tested on the various experimental tasks
I
employed showed a "shift toward the group position."
Age
The major hypothesis of this investigation was that
}older individuals are more conforming than younger indi-
t
viduals. It was further posited that this hypothesis would
hold in all five of the experiments involving a variety of
tasks. When conformity was viewed in terms of compliance,
older individuals were found to be significantly more
conforming than younger individuals in four of the five
experiments conducted. In the remaining experiment, the
256 ____________________
257
difference was nearly significant at the .05 level of
significance. The experiments demonstrated a disparity
i
[between the compliant behavior of the young and old indi-
I
viduals on a variety of experimental tasks. Collectively,
the results of this investigation argue against the
position that greater conformity by the older individual
is "task specific." Rather, the results of this investi
gation lend support to the position that there is a
1"general tendency" for older individuals to be more con-
t
-forming than younger individuals regardless of the experi
mental task.
[
; The results of this investigation, pertaining to |
|the tests of private acceptance, require a somewhat dif- j
■ i
:ferent interpretation. The older subjects were not found j
j
[to be significantly more conforming than the younger sub
jects on the two tests for private acceptance in Experi-
!
ments I, II, and III. In Experiment XV, the older subjects
were found to be significantly more conforming than the
younger subjects on the initial test for private acceptance.
In Experiment V, the older subjects were found to be more
conforming than the younger subjects on the initial test
of private acceptance, and on the test of private acceptance
one week after the initial testing. It should be pointed
out that the older individuals were found to be more con
forming on both tests of private acceptance, in every
experiment, although this difference did not always reach
258
statistical significance. Therefore, these results, al-
ithough not to the same degree as the results on compliance,
i
Ilend support to the position that there is a general
i
!tendency for the older individual to be more conforming
i
ithan the younger individual regardless of the experimental
j !
|task. |
i i
} The results indicate that on tasks of perception
when the group was no longer present, and when the social
i
influence was removed, the age difference in conformity
i I
ibehavior was not as marked. It may have been the un- J
! i
j ambiguity of the perceptual tasks that caused a relatively j
!small amount of private acceptance by both age groups. In i
! i
|the past other investigations utilizing an unambiguous j
! i
'task have generally found only a minimal degree of private
i
!acceptance (Asch 1956; Luchins & Luchins 1955)* However,
I
j there have been a few investigations that have reported
!
|private acceptance on perceptual tasks (Bovard 1953;
Luchins & Luchins 1961).
The results of this investigation indicate that on
tasks of problem solving and social attitudes, the age
difference in conformity behavior is still very apparent
even after the social influence has been alleviated. It
I
appears that when the stimulus of the task is sufficiently
ambiguous to allow a variety of responses, or where there
is no "correct" response, it is very unlikely that only
compliance occurs. Past experimentation has found that on
unambiguous tasks there is usually private acceptance in
! addition to compliance (Bovard 194-8; Hardy 1957; Israel
|1963; Rohrer et al. 1954-; Sherif 1955)*
I
j Implications of age findings.— If a high value is
|to he placed on the ability of an individual to resist
j social influence which is in opposition to his individual
ijudgments or opinions, then the implications of the afore-
|stated results are not especially optimistic. It appears
I that regardless of the task, the older individual is more
i allowing than the younger individual to be influenced by
i
|others. This tendency, for the old to show a greater
i
;susceptibility to social influence, was found to be most
!visible in the case of social attitudes. It is in this
j
i domain that the practical implications of conformity
|
ibehavior are most salient. Therefore, the data obtained
I from this investigation, and from data obtained through
i future research on conformity, should be examined for
jpractical implications. For example, having found that
the older individual is more conforming, future investi
gations should be directed at determining if some of the
behavior patterns attributed to older individuals (e.g.,
disengagement) are due to their conformity behavior. In
addition, perhaps the older individual's conformity
behavior could be modified when it is found to be in
conflict with his needs, interests, rights and desires.
In this way, the older person would cease to be targets
260
for advertisement, demagoguery and con games.
Through future research, it may be found that the
|
jgreater conformity by the older individual accounts for
Ithe disparity between what the older person wants and
|
Ineeds for his environment and society and what he does
|about obtaining these things. If this were found to be
true, ways of encouraging the older individual to be less
J conforming and more active in striving for his needs and
I
!rights could be developed.
The question arises, therefore, as to the methods
;one would employ to decrease the older individual's
I
jsusceptibility to social influence. The available experi
mental evidence lends itself to the interpretation that
j
|one of the primary reasons for susceptibility and con-
Iformity is inadequate individual knowledge and understand
ing. An inference from this, is that resistance to social
I
influence can be attained by insuring that the older
individual is well informed and educated with respect to
i
i facts, opinions, et cetera, where he has a concern.
i
Coleman et al. have said, "... susceptibility to con-
j formity pressures can be decreased by increasing an
individual's ability to make a competent selection of
responses."
The present investigation has provided a great
deal of data germane to the question— are older individuals
more conforming than younger individuals? Future research
261
should be devoted to answering the questions pertaining to
the aforementioned social issues which have broad social
implications.
t
j
Why are older individuals more conforming?— The
question arises as to why older individuals appear to be
more conforming than younger individuals. Both young and
old subjects had identical direct access to the stimulus
'material and only indirect knowledge of the experiences of
i
others. When they faced a task alone, in any of the ex
periments, they performed similarly; neither group
expressing the slightest need for corroboration of their
!
j judgments or opinions. Why then was there a divergent
!trend in the conformity behavior of the two age groups?
A multiplicity of causes may serve to answer this question.
The answer is complex, but despite its complexity a better
!understanding of why older individuals were found to be
i
j more conforming can be attained by considering some of the
jtheoretical explanations of conformity behavior.
One explanation of conformity behavior can be
derived from Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive
dissonance or the theories of cognitive consistency
(Heider 1946, 1958; Osgood & Tannenbaum 1955)* That is,
disagreement with others creates dissonance (Festinger
1957; Brehm & Cohen 1962) or imbalance (Heider 1958).
Theoretically, the states of imbalance or dissonance
create tensions within the individual which generates
262
forces to reduce dissonance or restore balance. One of the
ways to reduce this dissonance or to restore balance is to
jchange one's opinion in the direction of that held by the
i
! group. The possibility exists that the older individual
■ is more disturbed by states of dissonance or imbalance. If
|this were true, then the greater conformity by older indi-
i
viduals would be a logical result. That is, in a con
formity situation, the older individual experiencing a
i
'stronger motivation to reduce dissonance or restore balance,
!would be more likely to conform in order to obtain the
!
imore comfortable state.
i
i
i Another explanation of conformity behavior centers
around the socialization process and learning theory.
During the period the child is experiencing the sociali-
I
!zation process, he is rewarded for imitating others and is
frequently punished for trying to be different (Kidd &
jCampbell 1955)• -As the individual continues through ele
mentary school, high school, college and beyond school a
I
I great deal of his behavior is likewise shaped by punishment
!and reward. Through stimulus generalization and secondary
reinforcement, imitative behavior may become rewarding in
and of itself. Bandura (1962, 1965) has taken a parallel
view. He presents an abundance of evidence indicating
I that imitative behavior may be learned according to the
I
postulates of learning theory. A number of investigators
(Estes 1944-; Dinsmoor 1954-, 1955; Mowrer 1960) have
263
considered the punishment situation as a type of avoidance
learning. They have postulated that the punishing stimulus
is a negative reinforcer which produces anxiety on the part
of the subject. Campbell (1961) points out that the more
!an individual is rewarded for nonconformity, the less he
!will conform; and the more he is punished for nonconformity,
the more he will conform. According to Mowrer's theory, in
a conformity situation the individual who has been punished
!for nonconformity would conform. That is, he would inhibit
nonconformity tendencies in order to avoid anxiety that
would accompany expressing this type of behavior. The
older individual of today may have experienced a greater
i
I degree of reward for conformity behavior and punishment
for nonconformity behavior than today's youth. Therefore,
the older individual would be more likely to conform in a
present conformity situation. For example, today's older
individual lived through the depression of the 1930's
during which time he had to conform if he was to retain
his job. Today, stress is placed on being individualistic.
This interpretation implies that the differences found in
each of the conformity experiments of this investigation
may have actually been a cohort or generational difference.
Although an eclectic approach has been taken here, this
explanation presently appears to be most promising. One
of the objectives of future research, in the area of age
and conformity, should be devoted to this question (Klein
264
1970).
Another explanation of conformity behavior stems
from considering the side effects of a conformity situ
ation. There is evidence that a centrally aroused state,
las measured by a variety of physiological indicators, and
;in part perhaps reflecting a state of anxiety in the
individual, is created by social influence situations.
There is also evidence that conforming in the social influ
ence situation serves to decrease the centrally aroused
state (Allen & Crutchfield 1963; Bogdonoff et al. 1961;
Hoffman 1957). Perhaps the older individual experiences a
i
I
jgreater degree of anxiety in a conformity situation than
I
!the younger individual. If this were the case, then by
j
[whatever means the conformity responses elicited by the
!older individual would become strengthened since they
would serve to reduce the anxiety being experienced. This
view would explain the general tendency of the older indi
vidual to be more conforming than the younger individual
regardless of the experimental task. That is, it is the
older individual1s motivation to reduce the anxiety experi
enced in any conformity situation that causes him to be
more conforming.
The literature which indicates that the older
individual is more cautious than the younger individual
(Korchin & Basowitz 1956; Bees & Botwinick 1971; Silverman
1963; Wallach & Kogan 1961; et cetera) could also serve to
265
explain the greater conformity expressed by the older
individual. That is, their cautiousness might dispose
jthem to conformity in order to avoid errors. Conformity is
!the safe and more cautious mode of behavior than is acting
I
jindependently. Weiner (1958, 1959) has indicated that
!there is a significant positive relationship between un
certainty and conformity. Mann (1965) has illustrated six
studies which demonstrated a high relationship between
conservatism and conformity. The older individual, due to
his cautiousness and uncertainty, may turn to others for
cues as to how to respond, which would lead to conformity.
Another explanation of conformity, that could
account for the age differences found in this investi
gation, relates to a developmental theory of small groups.
A developing theory in social psychology considers the
"economic man." That is, when two or more people interact,
each will behave in a manner which will maximize their
rewards (payoffs) and minimize their punishments (costs)
(Homans 1961). Thibaut and Kelley (1959) maintain that
almost any behavior is both rewarding and costly. They
emphasized the point that it is the balance of reward and
cost for a given behavior, in comparison with the reward-
cost balance for a potential alternative behavior, that
determines which behavior will be expressed. In a con
formity situation, a conformity response may be both
rewarding and costly. The primary cost of conforming would
266
be responding opposite to bow one actually believes. The
!rewards of conforming would include feeling a part of the
group, not appearing strange or different, et cetera.
Therefore, the older individual, having higher affiliation
ineeds (Koponen 1957; Spangler & Thomas 1962), would be
i
;expected to conform more readily in order to attain these
Jrewards (i.e., satisfy his affiliative needs). In other
words, whereas the costs of conforming appear to be the |
same for young and old, the rewards for conforming seem to j
be greater for the older individual (Klein 1970). j
The psychoanalytic literature offers another
!
|possible explanation of conformity behavior. The origin of
jconformity may rest in the individual's childhood experi-
I
ences with parents who are punitive, strict and dominating.
The child's experiences and attempts to gratify pleasurable
impulses are punished. He is prevented from exploring the
environment at his own rate. Rather, he is made to behave
in the way in which his parents feel appropriate, even
ithough it may be foreign to his own needs and beyond the
scope of his ability. This frustrating parental behavior
causes the child to make aggressive responses, whether
directed toward the parents or displaced. These responses
are punished in such a manner as to create anxiety and
feelings of guilt over the aggressive impulses. This guilt
is nurtured by the fact that it is these frustrating
parents who care for the child and who are his main source
of support. To avert these unpleasant guilt feelings the
child represses his aggressive impulses. The individual
I
!develops modes of behavior designed to foster repression
land thus alleviate this threat. Conformity may result as !
i I
I one such behavior mode. That is, the individual may J
!develop a very positive attitude toward, and a very strong j
| !
need to conform to all forms of authority. If authority
can be generalized to include the norms of the immediate
group in a conformity situation, there exists a basis of j
: I
a guilt-motivated need to conform (Hoffman 1953)* Based j
on the results of the questionnaire administered in this |
i
investigation, it was the older subjects who appeared to j
be reared in the authoritarian manner described above.
That is, the older subjects considered their parents more
i
!restricting and dominating than the younger subjects con
sidered their parents. Therefore, according to the psycho
analytic explanation of conformity behavior, it would
follow that the older individual would be more conforming.
This explanation also leads to the interpretation that
the age differences found in this investigation may actually
be due to cohort or generational differences.
A final explanation of conformity behavior can be
derived from the theory of social comparison, first pro
posed by Festinger (1954). There is a proposed "motivation
to be correct." The judgment of others is taken as evidence
to be considered in arriving at one's own judgment.
268
According to Secord and Backman (1964), the need to vali
date one's opinion is a basic human requirement. They
i
point out that, although clear information from the physical
environment contributes to satisfying this need, the
j expressed behavior of other individuals also provides a
j source of validation. Secord and Backman (1964) point out
!
that, ;
i
Particularly in situations where he is confused— where
he does not know how to react— a person can turn to
I the behavior of other persons to observe a stable
S world. This social reality provides him with a
I reference point for his own behavior.
j The conformity situations of this investigation typified
i
I this type of situation, especially when the stimuli were
;highly ambiguous (High Task Difficulty situation). Eosow
l
|(1967) suggests that older individuals are more disturbed
by ambiguity than younger individuals. Therefore, it
could be inferred from the above argument that older per
sons, as compared to younger persons, would seek the
j judgments of others more readily in an ambiguous conformity
I situation. This would lead to greater conformity by the
i
older individual. The result found in a majority of the
experiments conducted, which indicated that the increase
in conformity scores as task difficulty increased was
disproportionately greater for the older subjects, supports
this interpretation. The studies concerning an increase
in cautiousness with age, mentioned earlier, also support
the above explanation of conformity behavior. Also the
269
results of the questionnaire administered in this investi
gation, which indicated that the older subjects were less
confident of their responses, would lend support to this
|explanation. In an ambiguous situation, the older indi
vidual being more cautious and uncertain would seek more
!information in order to reduce his hesitancy toward
I
I
responding. In this case, the information available is
the judgments of the other subjects.
The question also arises as to why the older indi
vidual appears to be more privately accepting of the group
(norm. The answer may come from a consideration of an
i
'interesting variable in studies of social influence. This
variable pertains to the subject's "commitment" to a
particular position. When an individual makes a judgment
or expresses an opinion when confronted by social influ
ence, he has made a decision. That is, he has either
yielded to the group or has remained independent. Whichever
alternative he chooses, he may feel committed to that
idecision. Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger 1957)
I
would posit that after a decision is made, the attractive
ness of the chosen alternative (e.g., to conform) increases
and the attractiveness of the unchosen alternative de
creases. Gerard (1965) stated, in reference to the issue
of commitment, that "The initial decision, then, commits
the subject, although not irrevocably, to yield to the
group or be independent whenever the same two alternatives
270
present themselves on succeeding trials." In sum, this
reasoning implies that a group member who has committed
himself to a given position may maintain that position for
i
i
{some time. In this investigation the older subject was
I
{found to make the decision of "compliance" more often than
i i
{the younger subject. Therefore, based on%the above dis- j
cussion of commitment, it was not surprising to find that j
I
the older subject generally privately accepted the group
norm to a greater degree than the younger subject.
I
Sex
It was a hypothesis of this investigation that
!
females would be more conforming than males. It was further
posited that this hypothesis would hold in each of the five
experiments on a variety of tasks. The results of each of
the experiments conducted did not reveal a significant
I
difference between the conformity behavior (either com
pliance or private acceptance) of males and females, as
expected. These results are in opposition to earlier
|findings (Applezweig & Moeller 1955; Asch 1956; Beloff
!1958; Crutchfield 1955; Tuddenham, MacBride & Zahn 1958;
land others) that found females to be significantly more
conforming than males. These results do support the
findings of Ehelps (1966) and others, who did not find a
significant sex difference in conformity. Contrary to
expectations, males were found to be more conforming than
females in Experiment II and III of this investigation.
This result supports the finding of the field study of
Kahanna and Coe (1969) who also found males to he more
conforming. It is interesting that although the sex dif
ference was not significant in any of the experiments,
it was in the experiments concerned with auditory tasks
that resulted in the male subjects being slightly more
conforming.
| The results of this investigation do not provide
|support for the view that there is a general tendency for
'females to be more conforming than males. Rather, these
I
|results substantiate the position that there is not a
I
|significant difference between the conformity behavior of
I males and females regardless of the task employed. This
|result could have various implications when considered
J together with the explanations of conformity presented
I
above. For example, males and females may not be dif
ferentially disturbed by states of dissonance or imbalance
i created in a conformity situation (Festinger 1957; Brehm &
j
jCohen 1962); the act of conforming, by males and females,
may not result in a differential decrease in the centrally
aroused state created by a conformity situation (Allen &
Crutchfield 1965; Bogdonoff et al. 1961; Hoffman 1957);
the childhood experience of individuals, that may lead to
a later life behavior pattern of conformity (Hoffman 1953)»
may not have been different for males and females; and
I 272
Jbased on the theory of social comparison (Festinger 1954;
!Secord & Backman 1964), males and females may not posses
I differing needs to validate their opinions in uncertain
j situations.
i
i
i
j Task Difficulty
It was a hypothesis of this investigation that
there is greater conformity when the difficulty of the
task increases. It was further posited that this hypothesis
i i
!would hold in each of the five experiments on all of the j
experimental tasks employed. The results of each of the
five experiments, pertaining to both compliance and private j
jacceptance, confirmed this hypothesis. These results j
j i
[corroborate the earlier observations of Asch (1951 )i j
Chipman (1966), Hunter (1968) and others, who have found
conformity to increase as the stimulus of the task becomes
more ambiguous. Generally, these results indicate that if
an individual is certain of the correct answer, he is more
able to resist influence being exerted by being able to
respond on the basis of internal cues. It is worth noting,
that these results fit well with Festinger's (1954) theory
of social comparison. The theory postulates that we turn
to others to validate our opinions. The more difficult the
task, the less able we are to rely on the physical reality;
consequently the more likely we should turn to the opinions
of others in order to validate our own. It is interesting
to note, that the effect of task difficulty reached the
highest level of significance of all the effects tested in
each of the five experiments. It also reached the highest
jlevel of significance in the analyses based on the combined
idata of the five experiments.
I
i
i
1 Nature of the Task
i
! The hypothesis of this investigation, that there
is an increase in conformity as the nature of the tasks
proceed from an objective to a social frame of reference,
;was given support from the results which combined the data
I
I
jof the five experiments. It was found that conformity in-
i
jcreased from Experiment I to Experiment V. The subjects
i
i tested on the tasks that were concerned with perceptual
1
judgments were found to be most resistant to conformity
pressure; whereas, the subjects tested on the task of
social attitudes were found to be most subject to social
influence. This finding can also be explained by
Festinger's (1954-) social comparison theory. The theory
!
jpostulates that individuals are "motivated to be correct."
j
[However, on the task that involved a social frame of
reference (Experiment V), as opposed to the tasks involving
an objective frame of reference (Experiments I, II, and
III), there is no way to be "correct." The issue of
right or wrong does not pertain to social attitudes, but
rather "correctness" is defined by others. It was not
surprising, therefore, that on this task the subjects
turned_to others more readily in order to validate their__
274-
opinions.
The results of the post hoc comparisons made
between various combinations of experimental tasks provided
Jinteresting outcomes. It was found that although the degree
of conformity expressed by the subjects increased from
Experiment I to Experiment II, there was not a significant
difference in conformity between these two perceptual |
i
tasks. This indicated that tasks that are similar in j
!nature (e.g., judgment tasks) produce similar degrees of j
| i
jconformity. It was also found that there was not a sig- j
nificant difference between the auditory tasks (Experi- j
ments II and III). However, there was a significant dif- !
I
|ference between the average of the auditory tasks and the
jvisual task. This indicated that the sense modality with
|
which a task is concerned can result in varying degrees
of conformity. It also indicated that tasks that differ
in nature (e.g., in sense modality) produce different
|degrees of conformity. The task of problem solving was
i
I
ifound to be significantly different from the auditory
detection task and also significantly different from the
average of the three perceptual tasks. In the task of
problem solving, the correct answer is never presented to
the subject; whereas, in the perceptual tasks the true
state of affairs is presented. Significant results were
found when comparing the social attitudes task to the
average of the three perceptual tasks. It is clear that
275
was important in reference to the degree of conformity
expressed by the subjects. There was also a significant
!
i difference between Experiment IV (problem solving) and
|Experiment V (social attitudes) on the test of private
!acceptance after one week. It appears that subjects
tested on tasks with a social frame reference are not
only most subject to social influence, but they continue
to retain the group1s norm even after the influence has
ibeen alleviated over a period of time.
Extremeness of the Norm
In Experiment II and IV, the discrepancy of the
I contrived background report was investigated as a tangential
j j
iissue. It was found that conformity (compliance and pri-
Ivate acceptance) increased significantly as the reported
responses of the contrived group approached the correct
answers. In Experiment II (auditory judgment) conformity
was greatest when the contrived report of the group was
|discrepant by one click from the actual number of clicks
|sounded. Conformity decreased linearly as the contrived
[report of the group became discrepant by two, three, and
four clicks. These results generally confirm the results
of studies in the past which were concerned with this
issue. Hovland and Pritzer (1957) and Eestinger (1957)
have hypothesized that subjects may discredit, influence
which is too extreme. This position has been supported by
the findings of Asch (1956) and Johns on (1964-). Eestinger_
(1954-) states, "The tendency to compare oneself with some
other specific person decreases as the difference between
his opinion or ability and one's own increases." There
i
ihave been some contradictory findings, however. Olmstead
|
iand Blake (1955)» using a metronome click counting task,
!
Ivaried the contrived group norm by one, two, or three
clicks from the actual answer. Generally, it was found
that there was most conformity when the contrived report
was discrepant by one click. However, the lowest amount
i
of conformity was found at the middle level of discrepancy j
i(two clicks). This result was not confirmed by the results J
i
of an investigation by Schroder and Hunt (1958) or by the j
results of Experiment II of this investigation. Goldberg J
(1954-) and Tuddenham (1961) have found greater conformity
i
|to highly discrepant group norms than to group norms that
are moderately discrepant.
The results of the.studies, including the present
one, that have found more conformity as the group norm
approaches the actual answer, can perhaps be explained in
terms of "assimilation" and "contrast" effects (Hovland,
Harvey & Sherif 1957). That is, when the group norm is
slighltly discrepant, subjects tend to see their own
position as closer to that of the others than it is; when
the group norm is highly discrepant, subjects tend to see
their own position as more distant from the others than it
is. It may also be that conformity to near and distant
group norms involve different psychological processes.
jThat is, when the contrived discrepant reports are small,
the subjects' concern and conformity may be primarily
j
jrelated to "obtaining the correct answer." However, when
Ithe contrived discrepant reports are distant from the
l
;actual answer, the subjects' concern and conformity may
be related to "not appearing different from the group
jmembers." Olmstead and Blake (1955) and Schroder and
i
Hunt (1958) have considered this possibility.
General Tendency vs. Trait
The hypothesis of this investigation, that older
j individuals are more conforming than younger individuals
I regardless of the experimental task, was confirmed (re
ported above). That is, the older subjects of this
‘ investigation were found to be more conforming (compliant
and privately accepting) than the younger subjects in each
of the five experiments including a variety of tasks.
These results lend support to the studies that have found
a generality of conformity (Blake, Helson & Mouton 1958;
Harper & Tuddenham 1964; Nakamura 1958; Rosner 1957; Sears
1963; Vaughn 1964), and they argue against those studies
that have posited the specificity of conformity (Goldberg
1954; Hollander & Willis 196?; Linton 1955)• question
arises as to whether these results demonstrate that the
older individual possesses a personality "trait" of high
conformity. The issue is remindful of the previous one
2?8
about leadership attributes (Cowley 1928; Mann 1959;
Stogdill 194-8; etc.). Social psychology was concerned
I
jwith searching for the general traits of leaders. This
!
I search proved to be generally unavailing, which led to an
i
|arrant reevaluation of thought on the topic. Situational
! determinants of leadership— the group's task, its
structure and other contextual features— then received the
great majority of consideration for a period of time
I
'(Carter, Haythorn, Shriver & Lanzetta 1954; Cartwright &
i
Zander 1960; Hemphill 194-9; Hollander & Julian 1967)*
|Presently, a more moderate position has been adopted by
/
I
|the majority of social psychologists. That is, stress
|
continues to be placed on the importance of the situation,
however, personal attributes (temperamental, physical, and
intellectual) also receive recognition. Regardless of the
issue, leadership or conformity, it may be better under
stood by considering the interaction between the character
of the individual and the situation. Hunt (1965) bas
I
said,
Thus, it is neither the individual differences among
subjects, nor the variations among situations that
produce the variations in behavior. It is, rather,
the interactions among these which are important.
! Although this investigation found the older indi
vidual to be more conforming in five separate situations,
there may be one or more situations, yet to be tested,
that would find the young more conforming. To speak in
terms of a "trait” of the old to be highly conforming______
279
is perhaps premature. It seems more appropriate to
consider these results as supportive of a "general tendency"
i
|for older individuals to he more conforming than younger
individuals. Another reason for avoiding the use of
"trait," at this point in research on conformity and age,
is due to the myriad of settings outside the laboratory in
which the relationship between age and conformity have yet
to be investigated. Still another reason to temper the
view of "traits" of conformity, based on the results of
this investigation, stems from the possibility that the
age differences found here may actually be better explained
I
|in terms of generational or cohort differences (this
I
jpossibility was mentioned above.)
j
j Future Research
j This investigation was an inquiry into a relatively
1
small area of a wide region of social influence. Although
the fact of social influence and a general tendency for the
|old to be more conforming than the young is beyond doubt,
the understanding of the responsible processes has not been
completely accomplished. One aim of future research, in
this area, would be to explore the ways group behavior
become forces in the psychological field of individuals.
Further, to study the forces within individuals that
cooperate with or withstand those actuated by the group
environment.
280
The results of this investigation found that the
young and old subjects not only complied to the group norm,
i
I
jbut also privately accepted it on a number of occasions.
i
jThe question as to what factors contributed to the adoption
l
f
'of the group norm will have to be answered by future
|
I research. One factor might be the negative evaluation, by
j j
the group members and the subject himself, for being incon- j
j
sistent in his responses. Another factor may be that |
consistently responding as one did initially helps diminish
post-decision dissonance. Even if these two factors, or
other factors, were found to underly private acceptance,
|future investigation will have to consider if there is an j
| |
j interaction between these factors and age. j
i j
| Another area of future concern should center around i
I
I the conditions of the conformity situation under which the
response is given. It would be of special interest to
determine if there is an interaction between age and the
|response conditions of the conformity situation. For
example, Deutsch and Gerard (1955) studied conformity in
two situations varying in amount of privacy. In one
condition, subjects announced their judgments aloud; in
another condition subjects responded by pushing a button
and were prevented from seeing each other because of
partitions. More conformity was found in the less private
condition than in the more anonymous condition. Similar
results have been found by Asch (1956), Houton et al. (1956)
281 '
and Olmstead and Blake (1955)• should be a concern of
future research to ascertain whether the anonymity of the
jconformity condition would have an effect on the relation-
i
ship between conformity and age consistently found in this
investigation. In all five of the experiments of this
jinvestigation the response conditions were basically pri-
i
vate. That is, there were partitions between subjects
and the subjects did not respond verbally. In a less pri
vate situation, the age differences in conformity may prove
i
to be similar or discrepant from those obtained here.
The attraction the group holds for the individual
Jis an interesting variable that has been investigated in
!
Iconformity studies during the past thirty years. Generally,
i
Jthe results of these investigations have found greater con-
jformity where the group is attractive to the subjects
(Festinger 1950; Festinger 1952; Gerard 1954-; Jackson &
Saltzstein 1958; Lott & Lott 1961; Scott 1956). There
have been a few investigations, however, that have not
ifound attractiveness of the group to be a significant
i
factor (Harper 1961; Wilson 1960). The issue that arises
for future investigation concerns the interaction between
attractiveness of the group and age. That is, would varying
the attractiveness of the group affect the conformity
behavior of young and old individuals differently? In the
ipresent investigation no attempt was made to vary the
attractiveness of the group. It remains a task for future
282
research to determine if the age differences found in
Experiments I through V, of this investigation, would
increase, decrease, or remain the same if group attractive
ness was experimentally varied.
Another issue, that has been empirically investi
gated by a few researchers, deals with the size of the j
group in the conformity situation opposing an individual.
Some investigators have found conformity to increase from
I
|one to three opponents, with this trend either reaching a j
plateau or decreasing with further additions to the size
iof the opposing group (Asch 1956; Rosenberg 1961). Other
i
I investigators have found the trend of increased conformity,
j
jwith an increase in group size, to continue to five
i
opponents (Gerard, Wilhelmy, & Conolley 1968). Still
others have not found a significant relation between group
size and conformity. It is clear that future research is
warranted to clarify these contradictory findings. More
germane to the primary issue of this investigation, the
j following question arises: Ta/hat would happen to the age
j
|relationship found in this investigation if the size of
!the opposing group were varied? This is a question that
remains to be answered through future research.
Other variables that have been investigated in
reference to conformity, but have yet to be investigated
in terms of the interaction between these variables and
age in relation to conformity, include: status of the group
283
members, self concept of the group members, cohesiveness
of the group, competitiveness of the group, interdependence
Jof the group, et cetera. Future research should ascertain
|the effect manipulation of these variables would have on
I the age-conformity relation observed in this investigation.
• Technological advancement and refinement in the
measurement of conformity is another target area at which
future research should be directed. This would include
I '
|devising new types of conformity apparatus, experimental
techniques and procedures and conformity situations. In
order to further the work of pioneering investigators,
j such as Sherif, Asch and Crutchfield, future investigators
|will have to concern themselves with the development of
!innovations in the area of conformity research.
i
} Future research should also investigate, in greater
detail, the processes underpinning conformity behavior.
Cognitive processes, in particular, should receive the
majority of this attention. For example, it would be of
j
|interest to determine if there is an age difference in the
|
j degree to which conformity is due to a process of cognitive
I
dissonance reduction.
The role of the experimenter is another aspect of
conformity investigation that deserves future investi
gation. The issue of "demand characteristics" (Ome 1959,
1962) in a social influence situation is one that has
received little attention. The conformity found in social
284-
influence situations may be partially attributed to the
I subject's perception (whether correct or not), of pressure
j
jbeing exerted by the experimenter. It would be of special
i
■interest to determine if "demand characteristics" are
imore or less intertwined in the conformity behavior of
i
older individuals than in the conformity behavior of
younger individuals.
Finally, it should be the goal of future research
to determine if the general tendency for the older indi
vidual to be more conforming than the younger individual
occurs across situations outside the laboratory. While a
great deal of future research should continue in the
i
jlaboratory, as discussed above, there also needs to be
| research which offers the experimenter the opportunity of
I controlling and manipulating variables under realistic
operating circumstances.
!
Ethical Concerns
j The question of ethics must be considered. There
j
are definite ethical issues involved in psychological
research when deception procedures are employed. The
deception used in experimentation often results in mis
informing the subjects, embarrassing them and even, per
haps, harming them. Generally, there is a sound reason
for deceiving subjects. In many cases if the subject knew
the purpose of the investigation, the experimenter would
obtain a distorted picture of the phenomena he was_________
285
concerned with. This would have been the case in the
present experiment if the minimal degree of deception was
jnot employed. However, even in these situations the
ethical issues cannot be avoided. Kelman (1966) has stated,
"How can we strike a proper balance between the interests
jof science and the considerate treatment of people who
make themselves available as the raw material of research?"
In the present investigation it was felt that alternative
iprocedures would not have been as effective in the attempt
to study conformity. Therefore, the problem was to obtain
the "proper balance" to which Kelman referred. After the
I investigation was over, each subject in this investigation
jwas fully informed regarding what actually took place and
jconcerning the purpose of the experiment. These expla
nations were designed to be meaningful and instructive.
Not a single subject when questioned, after being informed
of the deception, felt he had been ethically mistreated
during the experiment. The majority of the subjects felt
that the experiment was a valuable and educative experience.
CHAPTER X
SUMMARY- AND CONCLUSION
This investigation focused on determining whether
j
jthe greater degree of conformity expressed by older sub- j
i
|ijects in a visual perceptual Judgment situation (Klein
1970) was unique to that situation, or whether it is a
general tendency for the older person to be more con
forming regardless of the experimental task. This investi- j
gation also studied sex differences in conformity behavior j
and variation in conformity behavior due to ambiguity of j
the stimulus in a search for general tendencies of con- J
|
formity behavior. As a secondary concern, this investi-
jgation was directed at determining if the degree of
conformity expressed varies due to the nature of the
experimental task. In order to answer these questions,
a series of five conformity experiments were conducted on
a variety of experimental tasks.
A review of the literature on conformity, directly
related to each of the independent variables, was pre
sented. Pour hypotheses were tested in the general
investigation by measuring degree of social conformity in
terms of compliance and private acceptance. The first
portion of hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were also separately
tested in each of the five experiments of the general
286_ __________________
287
inve stigation:
The hypotheses were:
i 1) Informational social influence is greater upon
the judgments or opinions of older individuals than upon
ithe judgments or opinions of younger individuals. Further, j
(this hypothesis will hold in each of the sub-experiments j
Jon all five tasks employed. }
! I
! 2) Informational social influence is greater upon j
ithe judgments or opinions of females than upon the judg- i
ments or opinions of males. Further, this hypothesis will
hold in each of the sub-experiments on all five tasks
employed.
j 3) Informational social influence is greater upon
|the judgments or opinions of the subjects as the stimulus
lof the task becomes more ambiguous (i.e., as the task
(becomes more difficult). Further, this hypothesis will i
(hold in each of the five sub-experiments on all five tasks j
I employed. j
I 4) Informational social influence is greater upon (
(the judgments or opinions of the subjects as the nature I
jof the experimental tasks proceed from an objective to a
isocial frame of reference there will be an increase
i in conformity from Experiment I to Experiment V.
A group of sixty young subjects (17 to 24 years)
were compared to sixty old subjects (60 to 81 years) re
garding susceptibility to informational social influence.
!
iThere were twenty-four subjects (half young and half old,
j
ihalf male and half female) in each of the five sub-experi
ments. Using one of three types of conformity apparatus
(Klein 1970* Mathie 19591 Deutsch & Gerard 1955)» the
subjects in each of these experiments were subjected to
contrived group pressures toward erroneous judgments or
opinions. Experiments I through V were all interested in
age, sex, and task difficulty as predictors of social
288
conformity. Below are listed the five conformity experi
ments including the task performed in each.
I Experiment I: Visual perceptual judgment task— the
isubject's task was to judge which of two circular discs was
|largest in size.
| Experiment II. Auditory perceptual judgment task—
ithe subject's task was to judge the number of metronome
: clicks heard. {
i l
Experiment III. Auditory signal detection task— the|
subject's task was to report whether he heard a pure tone |
plus noise, or noise alone in his right ear while sometimes i
|receiving additional information in his left ear. j
; I
! Experiment IV: Problem-solving task— the subject's j
task was to solve one-operation arithmetic problems. i
Experiment V: Social attitude task— the subject's ;
itask was to rate statements on nationalism as to whether |
ihe agreed or disagreed with them. j
I |
; The five experiments followed an identical research j
design, which provided measures of both compliance and
j
private acceptance as two distinct measures of social
conformity. The following describes the research design
for each of the sub-experiments: First, individual per-
jformance was evaluated under "alone" conditions. The
isubject was then tested in a "conformity" situation where
he experienced contrived social influence. The subject's
behavior was then again measured under the alone condition
after the conformity pressures were relieved. Finally,
the subject's behavior was again measured under the alone
condition one week later.
Analysis of variance designs were used in each
experiment, and in the analyses combining the data of the
289
five experiments, to determine if there were significant
effects present. The primary results of the analyses of
|each experiment, and of the combined analyses, are pre-
jsented below:
! Experiment I: (a) Older subjects conformed (com
pliance) significantly more often than the younger sub
jects; (b) there was not a significant sex difference in
conformity behavior; (c) conformity occurred significantly i
more frequently as task difficulty increased (compliance,
1st test of private acceptance).
Experiment II: (a) Older subjects were more con-
!forming than younger subjects, although, the difference
iwas not quite statistically significant; (b) there was
{not a significant sex difference in conformity behavior;
I(c) conformity occurred significantly more frequently as
jtask difficulty increased ^compliance, 1st and 2d test of
private acceptance); (d) conformity occurred significantly
I more often as the contrived report of the group approached
•the correct answer (compliance, 1st and 2d test of private j
Jacceptance). I
Experiment III: (a) Older subjects conformed sig-
jnificantly more often than younger subjects (compliance);
(b) there was not a significant sex difference in con
formity behavior; (c) conformity occurred significantly
more frequently as task difficulty increased (compliance,
1st and 2d test of private acceptance).
Experiment TV: (a) Older subjects conformed signi
ficantly more often than younger subjects (compliance,
1st test of private acceptance); (b) there was not a
isignificant sex difference in conformity behavior; (c)
jconformity occurred significantly more frequently as
jtask difficulty increased (compliance, 1st and 2d test of
private acceptance); (d) conformity occurred significantly
more often as the contrived report of the group approached
the correct answer (compliance, 1st and 2d test of private
acceptance).
Experiment V: (a) Older subjects conformed signi
ficantly more often than younger subjects (compliance,
1st and 2d test of private acceptance); (b) there was not
a significant sex difference in conformity behavior; (c)
conformity occurred significantly more frequently as task
difficulty increased (compliance, 1st and 2d test of
private acceptance).
290
Combined Analyses: (a) Older subjects were found
to conform significantly more often than younger subjects
!when the data of the five experiments were combined, and
iolder subjects were more conforming in each experiment
Incompliance, 1st and 2d test of private acceptance);
!(b) there was not a significant sex difference in conformity
|based on the combined data; (c) conformity was found to
I occur significantly more often as task difficulty increased
I when the data of the five experiments were combined (com-
jpliance, 1st and 2d test of private acceptance); (d) con-
|formity occurred more frequently as the nature of the
jtask proceded from an objective to a social frame of
I reference (i.e., conformity increased from Experiment I
! through Experiment V) (compliance, 1st and 2d test of
(private acceptance).
! Some implications of the general tendency for older i
i
individuals to be more conforming than younger individuals
were discussed. The question as to why older indi ^duals
i
• are more conforming was raised. An attempt was made to I
! j
jbetter understand this finding by considering "age” in j
irelation to some of the theoretical explanations of con-
j
!formity behavior. Generational differences regarding
reward and punishment and concomitant anxiety of conformity
and nonconformity, was considered the most promising
explanation. Other explanations included: conformity as
a strategy of reducing the dissonance or "imbalance"
created in a conformity situation; conformity as a strategy
of decreasing the centrally aroused state and concomitant
I
j
anxiety which is created in a social influence situation;
a consideration of the "rewards" and "costs" of conforming
as opposed to nonconforming; a psychoanalytic explanation;
and a social comparison theory explanation where the
individual turns to others to validate his opinions.
291
The use of traits versus general tendencies of
conforming was discussed. The position was taken, that to
speak in terms of a "trait" for the old to he highly con- j
forming, would perhaps inappropriately finalize the re- |
lationship. The results were considered to support the
|view that there is a general tendency for older individuals
t
I !
!to he more conforming than younger individuals.
j
I Although this investigation demonstrated a general
'tendency for older individuals to he more conforming than i
i
younger individuals, age differences on a number of issues j
within the rubric of social conformity remain to he in- j
i
jvestigated. Suggestions for future research were offered I
j I
j including: determing if there is an interaction between j
I age and the response conditions of the conformity situ
ation, the attractiveness of the group, the size of the
group, status of the group members, self concept of the
group members, cohesiveness of the group, and inter
dependence of the subjects in relation to conformity; the
|development of technological innovations in the area of
i
j
conformity research; investigations of the processes,
especially cognitive, underlying conformity behavior;
determining if "demand characteristics" are more or less
intertwined in the conformity behavior of older individuals
than in the conformity behavior of younger individuals;
and determining if the general tendency for the older
individual to be more conforming occurs across situations
292
outside the laboratory.
The ethical considerations of employing deception
I
jprocedures in psychological research were discussed.
Emphasis was placed on maximizing scientific output while
minimizing the negative effects deception may have on the
subjects.
L
APPENDIX
295
APPENDIX
POSTEXPERIMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
(GIVEN IN EACH EXPERIMENT)
Age Sex_____
1. How confident of your ratings were you?
2. If something important depended on your ratings, if
this were a matter of practical consequence, would
have you responded in the way you did?
3. When you gave a response that differed from the
other members of the group, who do you suppose was
right?
4. Did you ever respond opposite to your true feelings?
5. Did you consider the ratings of the other group
members in making your ratings?
6. Did you notice a divergence between your responses
and those of the group?
7. Did you always keep the instructed task in mind?
8. Were you at all puzzled, or confused during any part
of the experiment? If yes, in what way?
9. Explain what you think the experiment was about—
On the questions below you will be asked to make ratings.
Please make an X on the line in the place that best
applies to your ratings.
10. How would you rate your parents on their attempts to
dominate you as a child?
parents never
attempted
to dominate
parents
extremely
dominating
295
11. How would you rate your parents in regard to letting
you solve your own problems as a child?
. ^ extremely
no restraints-------------------- restraining
12. Compared with individuals of your age and circum
stance, how would you rate yourself on success in
life?
successful ....... ■ — unsuccessful
13. How would you rate your childhood family atmosphere?
friendly and unfriendly and
tolerant . ■ intolerant
14. How would you rate yourself on shyness?
not shy extremely
at all -------------------- shy
15- How satisfied are you with your way of life?
extremely extremely
satisfied ■ - ■ .... dissatisfied
16. How happy a person do you consider yourself to be?
an unusually an extremely
happy person — 1 ■ ■" ■ ■ ■ ■ ' ■ ■ ■ --- unhappy persoz.
17. How would you rate your parents on their attitude
toward you?
accepting --------------------- rejecting
18. How would you rate yourself on self consciousness?
not self very
conscious --------------------- self
at all conscious
19. In general, how would you rate yourself as an
individual?
favorably --------------------- unfavorably
296
20. How would you rate yourself on cautiousness?
not cautious very
at all --------------------- cautious
21. How would you rate yourself on the way you approach
problems?
actively --------------------- passively
297
Description of Attitude Scale
; The attitude scale utilized was the Worldmindedness
I
iScale developed by Sampson and Smith (1957)* It is a !
i Likert-type scale consisting of 32 items. The scale is i
I
i designed to measure nationalistic-internationalistic j
; i
! attitudes. Sampson and Smith referred to it as a "social i
i ;
| attitudes questionnaire." The items appearing in the '
i i
| final scale were selected from a pool of 60 items on the j
I basis of an item analysis. The items are arranged so that
I every eighth item pertains to the same dimension in the
i |
; following order: religion, immigration, government, j
i economics, patriotism, race, education, and war. j
| |
j The reliability of this scale is exceptionally i
| high. Based upon the responses of 56 college students, j
j split-half reliabilities were found to be .93* A test-
I
! retest reliability of .93 was obtained for the students
| after a twenty-eight day interval (Sampson and Smith
! 1957). This scale has also been used successfully by
! Garrison (1961), Allman (1961) and by Smith (1955)*
i
!
j Sampson and Smith suggested that the internal consistency
i
of the scale argued for its validity. However, they did
provide some empirical evidence. Scale scores correlated
-.71 with an 11-item form of the Ethnocentrism Scale
(Levinson 194-9).
298
TABLE 89
CONDITIONS OP VISUAL PERCEPTUAL
JUDGMENT TASK— EXPERIMENT I
Eevel of Actual figure Reported
Trial Difficulty Larsest Pigure as Larsest
1 Medium-TD Right Eight
2 Low-TD Left Left
*3
High-TD Right Left
*4 Low-TD Left Eight
5
High-TD Right Right
*6 High-TD Right Left
*7
Low-TD Right Left
*8 High-TD Left Right
9
Medium-TD Right Right
*10 Medium-TD Left Right
*11 Medium-TD Right Left
12 High-TD Left Left
*13 High-TD Left Right
*14 High-TD Left Right
15
Low-TD Left Left
*16 Low-TD Left Right
*17 Low-TD Right Left
*18
Medium-TD Right Left
19
High-TD Right Right
*20 Medium-TD Left Right
*21 Low-TD Right Left
*22 Medium-TD Left Right
23
Medium-TD Left Left
*24 Low-TD Left Right
*25
High-TD Right Left
26 Low-TD Right Right
*27
High-TD Left Right
28 High-TD Left Left
*29
Low-TD Right Left
*30 Medium-TD Left Right
*31
Medium-TD Right Left
52
Medium-TD Left Left
*33
High-TD Right Left
*34 Low-TD Left Right
35
Low-TD Right Right
*36 Medium-TD Eight. Left
•These designate "critical" trials. (tihat is, trials on
which the contrived peer judgments were incorrect. All
other trials were innocuous, where contrived peer judg-
ments were correct.
Low-TD=radii of the circular discs in the ratio of 16 to 10.
Medium-TD=radii of the circular discs in the ratio of 16 to
14.
High-TD=radii of the circular discs in the ratio of 16 to
15.
299
Noise Gen.
Model 901B
_L
Waveform
Tektronix Type 162
m Tec. Type 161
Grason Stadler
Model 829E
V C y
Electronic
Electronic
Noise
Switch
Switch
osc
.fMixer j .
T
Gen. Radio
#1313
Oscilloscope
Tek. 3type 502 A
Amp ex
Ag 440
Figure 67
Equipment Set-Up Used in Making
Auditory Stimulus— Experiment III
TABLE 90
CONDITIONS OF THE AUDITOR!
JUDGMENT TASK— EXPERIMENT II
300
Trial
Level
Difficulty
Actual
Clicks
Sounded
Contrived
Majority
Report
Degree of
Discrepancy
1 Medium-TD 22 22 0
2 Low-TD 26 26 0
*3
High-TD
23
21 2
*4 Low-TD 24
27 3
5
High-TD 28 28 0
*6 High-TD
27 25
2
*n
Low-TD
29 25
4
*8 High-TD 24
27 3
9
Medium-TD 24 24 0
*10 Medium-TD 24
■27
3
*11 Medium-TD
29 25
4
12 Medium-TD 22 22 0
*13
High-TD
25
21 4
*14 High-TD 28
31 3
15
Low-TD 28 28 0
*16 Low-TD 28
31 3
*17 Low-TD
23
21 2
*18 Medium-TD
27 25
2
19
High-TD 26 26 0
*20 Medium-TD 26
27
1
*21 Low-TD 22
23
1
*22 Medium-TD 22 23
1
23
Medium-TD 28 28 0
*24 Low-TD
25
21 4
*25
High-TD
29 25
4
26 Low-TD 22 22 0
*27
High-TD 22 23
1
28 High-TD 24 24 0
*29
Low-TD 26
27
1
*30 Medium-TD 28 31 3
*31
Medium-TD
23
21 2
52 Medium-TD 26 26 0
*33
High-TD 26
27
1
*34 Low-TD
27 25
2
35
Low-TD 24 24 0
*36 Medium-TD _ 25 29 4
*These designate "critical" trials. That is, trials on
which the contrived peer judgments were incorrect. All
other trials were innocuous, where contrived peer judgments
were correct.
Low-TD=Rate of click presentation was 138 per minute.
Medium-TD=Rate of click presentation was 184 clicks per
minute.
High-TD=Bate of click presentation was 224 clicks per
minute.
301
TABLE 91
CONDITIONS OF THE AUDITORY DETECTION
TASK— EXPERIMENT III
Level of Actual Auditory Contrived
Trial Difficulty Presentation Majority Reoort
1 Medium-TD Noise + Tone Noise + Tone
2 Low-TD Noise Noise
*3
High-TD Noise Noise + Tone
*4.
Low-TD Noise + Tone Noise
5
High-TD Noise + Tone Noise + Tone
*6 High-TD Noise Noise + Tone
*7
Low-TD Noise Noise + Tone
*8 High-TD
Medium-TD
Noise + Tone Noise
9
Noise + Tone Noise + Tone
*10 Medium-TD Noise + Tone Noise
*11 Medium-TD Noise Noise + Tone
12 High-TD Noise Noise
*13
High-TD Noise + Tone Noise
*14 High-TD Noise + Tone Noise
Low-TD Noise Noise
*16 Low-TD Noise + Tone Noise
*17 Low-TD Noise Noise + Tone
*18 Medium-TD Noise Noise + Tone
19
High-TD Noise + Tone Noise + Tone
*20 Medium-TD Noise + Tone Noise
*21 Low-TD Noise Noise + Tone
*22 Medium-TD Noise + Tone Noise
23
Medium-TD Noise Noise
*24 Low-TD Noise + Tone Noise
*25
High-TD Noise Noise + Tone
26 Low-TD Noise + Tone Noise + Tone
*27
High-TD Noise + Tone Noise
28 High-TD Noise Noise
*29
Low-TD Noise Noise + Tone
*30 Medium-TD Noise + Tone Noise
*31
Medium-TD Noise Noise + Tone
32 Medium-TD Noise Noise
*33
High-TD Noise Noise + Tone
*34
Low-TD Noise + Tone Noise
35
Low-TD Noise + Tone Noise + Tone
*36 Medium-TD Noise Noise + Tone
*These designate "critical" trials. That is, trials on
which the contrived peer judgments were incorrect. All
other trials were innocuous, where contrived peer judgments
were correct.
Low-TD=No information presented in the left ear of the
subject.
Medium-TD=Digits presented to the left ear of the subject.
The subject is instructed to ignore the digits.
High-TD=Digits presented to the left ear of the subject.
The subject is instructed to pay attention to the digits.
302
TABLE 92
CONDITIONS OF THE PROBLEM SOLVING TASK
(POE THE YOUNG SUBJECTS)— EXPERIMENT IV
Level of Actual Reported Degree of
Trial Problem Difficulty Answer Answer Discrepancy
1
7.4+9.9
Medium-TD 17.30 17.30 . none
2
8.9-4.3
Low-TD 4.60 4.60 none
*3
17.29+14.82 High-TD 32.11 31.11
mild
*4.
2.9-1.7
Low-TD 1.20 1.90 mild
5
82/4 High-TD 20.50 20.50 none
*6
17-84-16.99
High-TD
.85 .75
mild
*n
4.8-3.2 Low-TD 1.60 2.60 high
*8 92.4/7
High-TD 13.20 11.20 mild
9 24.2-7-1
Medium-TD 17.10 17.10 none
*10 16x11 Medium-TD 176.00 193.00 high
*11 148/4 Medium-TD 37.00 35*00 mild
12 21.4x8.2 High-TD 175-48 175-48 none
*13 9.47+28.86 High-TD
38.33 43.33
high
*14
40.5/4.5
High-TD 9.00 12.50 high
15 13x9
Low-TD 117.00 117.00 none
*16 12x7
Low-TD 84.00 86.00 mild
*17
98/7
Low-TD 14.00 15.00 mild
*18 12.1+7.9
Medium-TD 20.00 21.00 mild
19 24.23+11.47
High-TD 35.70 35.70 none
*20 18x12 Medium-TD 216.00 224.00 Mild
*21 14x4 Low-TD 56.00 60.00 high
*22 232/8 Medium-TD 29.00 24.00 high
23 29x5
Medium-TD 145.00 145.00 none
*24
57/3
Low-TD 19.00 15.70 high
*25 14.72-11.99
High-TD
2.73
4.88 high
26
4.3+2.3
Low-TD 6.60 6.60 none
*27 37.14 High-TD 518.00 418.00 high
28 25.21-21.32 High-TD
3.89 3.89
none
*29 1.7+2.3
Low-TD 4.00 3.00 high
*30
13.8-8.9
Medium-TD 4.90 4.70 mild
*31 19.4+7.8 Medium-TD 27.20 38.20 high
32 48.6/3
Medium-TD 16.20 16.20 none
*33 18x13
High-TD 234.00 254.00 mild
*34 1.7+9.2 Low-TD 10.90 11.70 mild
35
36/4 Low-TD 9.00 9.00 none
*36 18.2-7.1
Medium-TD 11.10 10.30 mild
*These designate "critical" trials. That is, trials on
which the contrived peer judgments were incorrect. All
other trials were innocuous, where contrived peer judgments
were correct.
Low-TD=Problem answered correctly by more than 75% of "the
young standardizing group.
Medium-TD=Problem answered correctly by less than 75% but
by more than 25% of the young standardizing group.
High-TD=Problem answered correctly by less than 25% of the
young standardizing group.
303
TABLE 93
CONDITIONS OF THE PROBLEM SOLVING TASK
(FOR THE OLD SUBJECTS)— EXPERIMENT IV
Level of Actual Reported Degree of
Trial Problem Difficulty Answer Answer Discrepancy
1
7-4+9-9
Medium-l)D 1/.50 17.30 none
2 8.9-4.3
Low-TD 4.60 4.60 none
*3
8.8+7.6 High-TD 16.40 18.80 mild
*4-
2.9-1.7
Low-TD 1.20 1.90 mild
5 81/3
High-TD 27.00 27.00 none
*6 11.8-2.9
High-TD 8.90 9.80 mild
*7
4.8-3.2 Low-TD 1.60 2.60 high
*8 96/6 High-TD 19.00 16.00 mild
9 24.2-7-1
Medium-TD 17.10 17.10 none
*10 18x5
Medium-TD 90.00 60.00 high
*11 112/8 Medium-TD 14-. 00 13.00 mild
12 16x11 High-TD 176.00 176.00 none
*13 6.7+18.9
High-TD 25.60 32.80 high
*14- 14-8/4 High-TD 37.00 43.00 high
15
9x8 Low-TD 72.00 72.00 none
*16 12x7
Low-TD 84.00 86.00 mild
*17
64/4 Low-TD 16.00 18.00 mild
*18 12.1+7-9
Medium-TD 20.00 21.00 mild
19
23.8+4.6 High-TD 28.40 28.40 none
*20 13x9
Medium-TD 117.00 127.00 mild
*21 14x4 Low-TD 56.00 60.00 mild
22 98/7
Medium-TD 14.00 22.00 high
23 29x5
Medium-TD 145.00 145.00 none
*24
57/3
Low-TD 19.00 23.00 high
*25 23.8-16.9
High-TD 6.90 10.00 high
26
4.3+2.3
Low-TD 6.60 6.60 none
*27
18x12 High-TD 216.00 240.00 high
28
28.2-15-7
High-TD 12.50 12.50 none
*29 1.7+2.3
Low-TD 4-. 00 3.00 high
*30
13.8-8.9
Medium-TD 4-.90 4.70 mild
*31
19.4+7.8 Medium-TD 27.20 38.20 high
32 232/8 Medium-TD 29.00 29.00 none
*33 18x13
High-TD 234.00 254.00 mild
*34- 1.7+9.2 Low-TD 10.90 11.70 mild
35
36/4 Low-TD 9.00 9.00 none
*36 18.2-7.1
Medium-TD 11.10 10.30 mild
*These designate "critical" trials. That is, trials on
which the contrived peer judgments were incorrect. All
other trials were innocuous, where contrived peer judgments
were correct.
Low-TD=Problem answered correctly by more than 75% of the
old standardizing group.
Medium-TD=Problem answered correctly by less than 75% but
by more than 25% of the old standardizing group.
High-TD=Problem answered correctly by less than 25% of the
old standardizing group.
304
THE WOKLDMINDELNESS SCALE
(SAMPSON AND SMITH 1957)
USED IN EXPERIMENT V
1. Our country should have the right to prohibit certain
racial and religious groups from entering it to live.
2. Immigrants should not be permitted to come into our
country if they compete with our own workers.
3. It would be a dangerous procedure if every person in
the world had equal rights which were guaranteed by
an international charter.
4. All prices for exported goods and manufactured goods
should be set by an international trade committee.
i 5* Our country is probably no better than many others.
6. Race prejudice may be a good thing for us because it
i keeps many undesirable foreigners from coming into
| this country.
i
I 7» It would be a mistake for us to encourage certain
j racial groups to become well educated because they
J might use their knowledge against us.
I
| 8. We should be willing to fight for our country without
questioning whether it is right or wrong.
9. Poreigners are particularly obnoxious because of their
religious beliefs.
10. Immigration should be controlled by an international
organization rather than by each country on its own.
11. We ought to have a world government to guarantee the
welfare of all nations irrespective of the rights of
any one.
12. Our country should not cooperate in any international
trade agreements which attempt to better world economic
. conditions at our expense.
13. It would be better to be a citizen of the world than
of any particular country.
14. Our responsibility to people of other races ought to
be as great as our responsibility to people of our
own race.
305
15- An international committee on education should have
full control over what is taught in all countries
about history and politics.
I
Jl6. Our country should refuse to cooperate in a total
j disarmament program even if some other nations agreed
I to it.
I 17. It would be dangerous for our country to make inter
national agreements with nations whose religious [
| beliefs are antagonistic to ours. i
i
18. Any healthy individual, regardless of race or j
religion, should be allowed to live wherever he wants j
to in the world.
!19. Our country should not participate in any inter-
j national organization which requires that we give up
any of our national rights or freedom of action.
20. If necessary, we ought to be willing to lower our
standard of living to cooperate with other countries
j in getting an equal standard for every person in the
i world.
i
21. We should strive for loyalty to our country before we |
can afford to consider world brotherhood.
22. Some races ought to be considered naturally less
intelligent than others.
25. Our schools should teach the history of the whole
world rather than of our own country.
|24. An international police force ought to be the only
j group in the world allowed to have armaments.
25. It would be dangerous for us to guarantee by inter
national agreement that every person in the world
should have complete religious freedom.
26. Our country should permit the immigration of foreign
peoples even if it lowers our standard of living.
27. All national governments ought to be abolished and
replaced by one central world government.
28. It would not be wise for us to agree that working
conditions in all countries should be subject to
international control.
306
29. Patriotism should be a primary aim of education so
our children will believe our country is the best in
the world.
30. It would be a good idea if all the races were to
intermarry until there was only one race in the
world.
31. We should teach our children to uphold the welfare of
all people everywhere even though it may be against
the best interest of our own country.
32. War should never be justifiable even if it is the only
way to protect our national rights and honor.
307
TABLE 94-
CONDITIONS OF THE SOCIAL ATTITUDE TASK
(FOE THE YOUNG SUBJECTS)— EXPERIMENT V
Contrived Item
Level of Majority Report of Report Attitude
Trial Difficulty Standardizing Group Given Ss Scale
1 Medium-TD Disagree Disagree 1
2 High-TD Disagree Disagree 2
3
High-TD Disagree Disagree
3
*4.
High-TD Disagree Agree 4 -
*5
High-TD Agree Disagree
5
*6 Low-TD Disagree Agree 6
*7
Low-TD Disagree Agree
7
*8 Low-TD Disagree Agree 8
*9
Low-TD Disagree Agree
9
*10 Low-TD Disagree Agree 10
*11 High-TD Disagree Agree 11
12 High-TD Disagree Disagree 12
13
High-TD Disagree Disagree
13
*14- Medium-TD Agree Disagree 14-
*15
Low-TD Disagree Agree
15
*16 High-TD Disagree Agree 16
*17 Medium-TD Disagree Agree
17
*18 Medium-TD Agree Disagree 18
19
Medium-TD Agree Agree
19
*20 High-TD Disagree Agree 20
*21 High-TD Agree Disagree 21
22 Low-TD Disagree Disagree 22
*25
Medium-TD Agree Disagree 25
*24- Medium-TD Disagree Agree 24-
*25
Medium-TD Disagree Agree
25
*26 High-TD Disagree Agree 26
*27
Low-TD Disagree Agree
27
*28 High-TD Agree Disagree 28
*29
Medium-TD Disagree Agree
29
30 Medium-TD Disagree Disagree 30
*51
Low-TD Agree Disagree
31
*52 Medium-TD Disagree Agree 32 _
*These designate "critical" trials. That is, trials on
which the contrived peer judgments were incorrect. All
other trials were innocuous, where contrived peer judgments
were correct.
Low-TD=90% (or more) of the standardizing group agreed or
disagreed with the attitude statement.
Medium-TD=Between 75% and 90% of the standardizing group
agreed or disagreed with the attitude statement.
High-TD=Between 55% and 75% of the standardizing group
agreed or disagreed with the attitude statement.
TABLE 95
CONDITIONS OP THE SOCIAL ATTITUDE TASK
(POE THE OLD SUBJECTS)— EXPERIMENT V
308
Trial
Level of
Difficulty
High-TB
High-TD
High-TD
Low-TD
High-TD
Low-TD
Low-TD
High-TD
Low-TD
Low-TD
Medium-TD
High-TD
Low-TD
Medium-TD
Low-TD
High-TD
Medium-TD
Medium-TD
High-TD
High-TD
High-TD
High-TD
Medium-TD
High-TD
Medium-TD
High-TD
Low-TD
High-TD
High-TD
Medium-TD
High-TD
Medium-TD
Majority Eeport of
Standardizing Group
Contrived
Report
Given Ss
[tern oJ
Attitude
Scale
T
2
5
*4
*5
*6
*rf
8
*10
*11
12
*13
*14
*15
*16
*17
*18
*19
*20
21
*22
*23
24
*25
*26
*27
*28
*29
*30
31
*32
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
V
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
2 L .
*These designate "critical1 trials. That is, trials on
which the contrived peer judgments were incorrect. All
other trials were innocuous, where contrived peer judgments
were correct.
Low-TD=90% (or more) of the standardizing group agreed or
disagreed with the attitude statement.
Medium-TD=Between 75% and 90% of the standardizing group
agreed or disagreed with the attitude statement.
High-TD=Between 55% and 75% of the standardizing group
agreed or disagreed with the attitude statement.
TABLE 96
EXPERIMENT I
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) FOR THE YOUNG,
OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH OE THE
THREE LEVELS OE TASK DIEEICULTY. (SCORES
AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY COULD
RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young Old
Male Female_______Male_____Female
Low Task
Difficulty 0.000 0.166 0.166 0.166
Medium Task
Difficulty
0.333 0.333
0.500 0.666
High Task
Difficulty 0.666 0.666 1.500 2.166
3lo~
TABLE 97
EXPERIMENT I
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) FOR
THE YOUNG, OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH
OF THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY.
(SCORES AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY
COULD RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young
Male Female
Old
Male Female
Low Task
Difficulty- 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Medium Task
Difficulty 0.166 0.166 0.000 0.166
High Task
Difficulty 0.500 0.500
0.835
1.000
311
TABLE 98
EXPERIMENT I
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) FOR
THE YOUNG, OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH
OF THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY.
(SCORES AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY
COULD RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young Old
Male Female______ Male_____Female
Low Task
Difficulty- 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Medium Task
Difficulty 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.166
High Task
Difficulty 0.000 0.166 0.166
0.333
312
TABLE 99
EXPERIMENT II
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) FOR TEE YOUNG,
OLD, MALE AND PEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH OF THE
THREE LEVELS OE TASK DIFFICULTY. (SCORES
AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY COULD
RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young Old
Male Female______ Male Female
Low Task
Difficulty
0.333
0.166
0.333 0.166
Medium Task
Difficulty 0.666 0.500 1.000
0.833
High Task
Difficulty
1.333
1.000 2.666 2.166
313
TABLE 100
EXPERIMENT II
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) FOR
THE YOUNG, OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH
OF THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY.
(SCORES AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY
COULD RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young
Male Female
Old
Male Female
Low Task
Difficulty 0.000 0.000 0.166 0.166
Medium Task
Difficulty
0.333 0.333 0.333
0.166
High Task
Difficulty
0.833
0.666 1.500
1.333
314-
TABLE 101
EXPERIMENT II
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) FOR
THE YOUNG, OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH
OF THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY.
(SCORES AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY
COULD RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young Old
Male Female_______Male_____Female
Low Task
Difficulty 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Medium Task
Difficulty 0.166 0.000 0.166 0.166
High Task
Difficulty
0.333
0.166
0.333 0.333
315
TABLE 102
EXPERIMENT III
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) POR THE YOUNG,
OLD, MALE AND EEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH OP THE
THREE LEVELS OP TASK DIFFICULTY. (SCORES
AT EACH LEVEL OP DIFFICULTY COULD
RANGE PROM 0 TO 8.)
Young Old
Male Female_______Male_____Female
Low Task
Difficulty
0.333 0.333
0.500 0.500
Medium Task
Difficulty
0.833
0.666 1.666 1.500
High Task
Difficulty 1.500 1.500 3.000 2.666
316
TABLE 103
EXPERIMENT III
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) FOR
THE YOUNG, OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH
OF THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY.
(SCORES AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY
COULD RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young
Male Female
Old
Male Female
Low Task
Difficulty 0.000 0.166 0.166 0.500
Medium Task
Difficulty
0.335
0.500 0.666 0.500
High Task
Difficulty
0.833
1.000 2.166 2.000
317
TABLE 104
EXPERIMENT III
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) FOR
THE YOUNG, OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH
OF THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY.
(SCORES AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY
COULD RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young
Male Female
Old
Male Female
Low Task
Difficulty 0.000 0.000 0.166 0.000
Medium Task
Difficulty 0.166 0.166 0.333
0.166
High Task
Difficulty
0.333 0.333
0.500
0.333
TABLE 105
EXPERIMENT IV
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) FOR THE YOUNG,
OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH OP THE
THREE LEVELS OP TASK DIFFICULTY. (SCORES
AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY COULD
RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young Old
Male Female_______Male_____Female
Low Task
Difficulty-
0.333 0.833 0.833
1.000
Medium Task
Difficulty 0.666
1.333
1.666 2.666
High Task
Difficulty 1.500 .266 3.500 4.666
319
TABLE 106
EXPERIMENT IV
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) FOR
THE YOUNG, OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH
OF THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY.
(SCORES AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY
COULD RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young Old
Male Female Male_____Female
Low Task
Difficulty 0.166
0.333
0.500
0.833
Medium Task
Difficulty
0.333
1.000 1.000
1.833
High Task
Difficulty 1.000
1.333
2.500 3.666
320
TABLE 107
EXPERIMENT IV
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) FOR
THE YOUNG, OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH
OF THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY.
(SCORES AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY
COULD RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young Old
Male Female_______Male_____Female
Low Task
Difficulty- 0.166 0.166
0.333 0.333
Medium Task
Difficulty- 0.166 0.500 0.666 1.000
High Task
Difficulty 0.500 0.666 1.666
2.333
321
TABLE 108
EXPERIMENT V
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (COMPLIANCE) FOR THE YOUNG,
OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH OF THE
THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY. (SCORES
AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY COULD
RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young Old
Male Female_______Male_____Female
Low Task
Difficulty
0.833 0.833 0.833
1.000
Medium Task
Difficulty 1.166 1.500
1.853
2.666
High Task
Difficulty 2.000 2.500 4.000 5.000
TABLE 109
EXPERIMENT V
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (1st PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) FOR
THE YOUNG, OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH
OF THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY.
(SCORES AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY
COULD RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young Old
Male Female_______Male_____Female
Low Task
Difficulty 0.500
0.333 0.853
1.000
Medium Task
Difficulty 0.666 1.000
1.333
2.000
High Task
Difficulty
1.333 1.833 2.833
4.166
323
TABLE 110
EXPERIMENT V
MEAN CONFORMITY SCORES (2d PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE) FOR
THE YOUNG, OLD, MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS AT EACH
OF THE THREE LEVELS OF TASK DIFFICULTY.
(SCORES AT EACH LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY
COULD RANGE FROM 0 TO 8.)
Young Old
Male Female Male Female
Low Task
Difficulty
0.333 0.333
0.500 0.666
Medium Task
Difficulty 0.500 0.666 0.833 1.333
High Task
Difficulty
0.833
1.500 2.000 3.166
BIBLIOGRAPHY
324
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abelson, R. P., & Lesser, G. S. The measurement of per-
suasibility in children. In I. L. Janis & C. I.
Hovland (Eds.), Personality and persuasibility.
New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1959*
Allen, V. L., & Crutchfield, R. S. Generalization of
experimentally reinforced conformity. J. abnorm.
soc. Psychol., 1963, 67, 326-333.
Allman, R. W. A study of the social attitudes of college
students. J. soc. Psychol., 1961, 53, 33-51*
Applezweig, M. H., & Moeller, G. Conforming behavior and
personality variables. Tech. Rep. No. 8, Contract
No. NR 996 (02), Connecticut College, New London,
Conn., 1958.
Asch, S. E. The doctrine of suggestion, prestige and
imitation in social psychology. Psychol. Rev.. 194-8,
55, 250-277.
Asch, S. E. Effects of group pressure upon the modificatior
and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.),
Groups, leadership, and men. Pittsburgh: The
Carnegie Press, 1y51«
Asch, S. E. Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall,1952.
Asch, S. E. Studies of independence and conformity. A
minority of one against a unanimous majority.
Psychol, rionogr., 1956, 70, No. 9 (Whole No. 4-16).
Atkin, S. Discussion of the paper by M. R. Kaufman, Old
age and aging: the psychoanalytic point of view.
Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 194-0, 10, 79-83.
Back, K. W., & Davis, K. E. Some personal and situational
factors relevant to the consistency and prediction
of conforming behavior. Sociometry, 1965, 28,
227-240. ----------
Bandura, A. Social learning through imitation. In M. R.
Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska,' 196£.
325
326
Bandura, A. Influence of model's reinforcement contin
gencies on the acquisition of imitative responses.
J. pers. soc. Psychol., 1965, 1, 589-595*
Barch, A. M., Trumbq, D., & Nangle, J. Society setting and
conformity to a legal requirement. J. ahnorm. soc.
Psychol., 1957, 55, 396-398.
Barron, F. Some personality correlates of independence
of judgment. J. Pers., 1953, 21, 287-297*
Basowitz, H., & Korchin, S. J. Age differences in the
perception of closure. J. ahnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1957, 54, 93-97*
Bass, B. Conformity, deviation, and a general theory of
interpersonal behavior. In I. Berg, & B. Bass
(Eds.;, Conformity and deviation. New York:
Harper, 1961.
Beloff, H. Two forms of social conformity: Acquiescence
and conventionality. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1958, 56, 99-103*
Bendig, A. W. Age differences in the interscale factor
structure of the Guilford-Zikmerman Temperament
Survey. J. Consult. Psychol.. 1960, 24, 134—138.
Berenda, R. W. The influence of the group on the .judgments
of children! Hew York: King's Crown iPress, 1950.
Berg, I., & Bass, B. (Eds.), Conformity and deviation.
New York: Harper, 1961*
Berkowitz, L., & Cottingham, D. R. The interest value and
relevance of fear arousing communications. J.
abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1960, 60, 37-43*
Birren, J. E. Toward an experimental psychology of aging.
Amer. Psychol.. 1970, 25, 124-135*
Blake, R. R., Berkowitz, A., Bellamy, R. Q., & Mouton,
J. S. Volunteering as an avoidance act. J. abnorm.
soc. Psychol.. 1956, 53, 154-156.
Blake, R. R., & Brehm, J. W. The use of tape recording
to stimulate a group atmosphere. J. abnorm. soc.
Psychol.. 1954, 49, 311-313*
327
Blake, R. R., Helson, H., & Mouton, J. S. The generality
of conformity behavior as a function of factual
anchorage, difficulty of task, and amount of social
j pressure. J. Pers.. 1956, 25, 194—305.
iBlake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. Conformity, resistance and
! conversion. In I. Berg & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Conformity
i and deviation. New York: Harper, 1961. j
| |
jBogdonoff, M. D., Klein, R. E., Estes, E. H., Jr., Shaw, !
| D. M., & Back, K. W. The modifying effect of con- {
forming behavior union lipid responses accompanying j
CNS arousal. Clin. Res.. 1961, 9, 135 (Abstract). j
Botwinick, J. Research problems and concepts in the study |
of aging. Gerontologist. 1964, 4, 121-129- |
I
Botwinick, J. Cautiousness in advanced age. J. Gerontol.. I
1966, 21, 347-353-
Botwinick, J., Brinley, J. E., & Robbin, J. S. The inter
action effects of perceptual difficulty and stimulus
exposure time on age differences in speed and
accuracy of response. Gerontologia. 1958, 2, 1-10.
Bovard, E. W., Jr. Social norms and the individual.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1948, 43, 62-69.
Bray, D. W. The prediction of behavior from two attitude
scales. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1950, 45, 64-84.
Brehm, J. W., & Cohen, A. R. Explorations in cognitive
dissonance. New York: Wiley, 1962.
Broadbent, D. E., & Gregory, M. Division of attention
j and the decision theory of signal detection.
Proc. Roy Soc. B.. 1963, 158, 222-231- '
Brown, R. Social psychology. Hew York: Eree Press, 1965-
Burt, H. E. Sex differences in the effect of discussion.
J. exp. Psychol.. 1920, 3, 390-395-
Campbell, D. T. Conformity in psychology's theories of
acquired behavioral dispositions. In I. Berg &
B. Bass (Eds.), Conformity and deviation. New York:
Harper, 1961.
Cardno, J. A. The notion of attitude: An historical note.
Psychol. Rep.. 1955, 1, 345-352.
328
Carter, L. F., Haythom, W., Shriver, E., & Lanzetta, J.
The behavior of leaders and other group members.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1951, 4-6, 589-595*
jCartwright, D. C., & Zander, A. (Eds.), Group dynamics:
j Besearch and theory (2nd ed.), Evanston, 111.: Sow,
i Peterson, 1960*
J
IChampney, H. The variables of parent behavior. J. abnorm.
| soc. Psychol., 194-1, 36, 525-54-2. j
! I
!Chipman, A. Conformity as a differential function of j
social pressure and judgment difficulty. J. soc. i
Psychol.. 1966, 70, 299-311* j
Christie, E., & Lindauer, Florence. Personality structure, j
! In P. E. Farnsworth (Ed.), Annual review of psychology. ;
Vol. 14, Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, 1963,
201-230.
Clark, H. The crowd. Psychol. Monogr.. 1916, 21, 26-36.
|Coch, L., & French, J. E. P., Jr. Overcoming resistance
i to change. Human Belations. 1958, 11, 4-1-53* j
I Coffin, T. E. Some conditions of suggestion and sus- !
| ceptibility. Psychol. Monogr.. 194-1, 53, Ho. 4
(Whole No. 241TT
Cohen, A. E. Some implications of self-esteem for social
influence. In I. L. Janis & C. I. Hovland (Eds.),
Personality and persuasibility. New Haven: Tale
t/niver. Press, 1959*
Coleman, J. F., Blake, E. E., & Mouton, J. S. Task diffi
culty and conformity pressures. J. abnorm. soc.
| Psychol.. 1958, 57, 120-122.
Converse, P., & Campbell, A. Political standards in
secondary groups. In D. Cartwright, & A. Zander
(Eds.), Group dynamics. New York: Harper and Eow,
1968.
Cowley, W. H. Three distinctions in the study of leaders.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1928, 23, 144-157*
Craik, F. I. M. The effects of age and the experimental
situation on confidence behaviour. Bull. Brit.
Psychol. Soc.. 1962, 47, (abstract).
329
Craik, F. I. M. An observed age difference in responses
to a personality inventory. British Journal of
I Psychology. 1964, 55, 4-53-462.
i Craik, P. I. M. Age differences in confidence and decision
j processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
j University of Liverpool, 1965.
I
! Crutchfield, E. S. Conformity and character. Amer.
| Psychologist, 1955, 10, 191-198.
Cummings, E., & Henry, W. E. Growing old. New York:
Basic Books, 1961.
Darley, J. M. Pear and social comparison asdeterminants
of conformity behavior. J. ners. soc. Psychol.,
1966, 4, 73-78.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. A study of normative and
informational social influence upon individual judg
ment. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 5^, 629-636.
Dinsmoor, J. A. Punishment: I. The avoidance hypothesis.
Psychol. Bev., 1954, 61, 34-46.
Dinsmoor, J. A. Punishment: II. An interpretation of
empirical findings. Psychol. Bev.. 1955, 62, 96-105.
Dittes, J. E. & Kelley, H. H. Effects of different
conditions of acceptance upon conformity to group
norms. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1956, 53, 100-107.
Di Vesta, P. J. Effects of confidence and motivation on
susceptibility to informational social influence.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1959, 59, 204-209.
Dunker, K. Experimental modifications of children's food
preferences through social suggestion. J. abnorm.
soc. Psychol., 1938, 33, 489-507-
Eisdorfer, C., Axelrod, S., & Wilkie, P. L. Stimulus
exposure time as a factor in serial learning in an
aged sample. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1963, 67,
594-600.
Endler, N. S. Social conformity in perception of the auto-
kinetic effect. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1960,
61, 489-490.
530
Endler, N. S. The effects of verbal reinforcement on
conformity and deviant behavior. J. soc. Psychol.,
1965, 66, 147-154.
iEstes, W. K. An experimental study of punishment.
| Psychol. Monogor., 1944, 57, No. 3*
I !
Ferguson, L. W. An analysis of the generality of j
suggestibility to group opinion. Charact. and Pers.,
1944, 12, 257-243. j
jFestinger, L. Informal social communication. Psychol.
| Rev., 1950, 57, 271-292.
jPestinger, L. An analysis of compliant behavior. In
| M. Sherif & M. 0. Wilson (Eds.), Group relations at
i the crossroads. New York: Harper, 1953-
' j
|Pestinger, L., Gerard, H. B., Hymovitch, G., Kelley, H. G.,
i & Raven, B. The influence process in the presence of
I extreme deviates. Human Relations. 1952, 5, 327-346.
Pestinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes. !
Human Relations. 1954, 7, 117-140. j
' I
jPestinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, !
Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1957*
j
jPestinger, L., & Thibaut, J. Interpersonal communication
j in small groups. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1951,
I 46, 92-99.
!
Pisher, S., Williams, H. L., & Lubin, A. Personal pre
dictors of susceptibility to social influence.
Amer. Psychologist. 1957, 12, 360 (Abstract).
Poskett, J. M. Social structure and social participation.
Amer. sociol. Rev.. 1955, 20, 431-438.
Freed, A., Chandler, P. J., Mouton, J. S., & Blake, R. R.
Stimulus and background factors in sign violation.
J. Pers., 1955, 23, 499-
Freeman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. Compliance without
pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique. J. pers.
soc. Psychol., 1966, 4, 195-202.
French, J. R. P., Jr. Organized and unorganized groups
under fear and frustration. Studies in topological
and vector psychology. III. Studies in Child Welfare.
Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1944.
331
French, J. E. P., Jr., & Baven, B. E. The bases of social
power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social
•power. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social
j Eesearch, 1959*
I
■Frye, E., & Bass, B. M. Social acquiescence and behavior
in groups. In I. Berg & B. Bass (Eds.), Conformity
and deviation. New York: Harper, 1961.
Gardner, J. W. Self-renewal. New York: Harper, 1963*
Garrison, K. C. Worldminded attitudes of college students
in a southern university. J. soc. Psychol.. 1961,
54, 14-7-153.
Gavron, E. F. Changes in Edwards personal preference
| schedule needs with age and psychiatric status.
| J. Clin. Psychol.. 1965, 21, 194—196.
Gerard, H. B. The anchorage of opinions in face-to-face
groups. Human Eelations. 1954, 7, 3*13—326.
Gerard, H. B., Wilhelmy, E. A., & Conolley, E. S; Con
formity and group size. J. ners. soc. Psychol..
1968, 8, 79-82.
*
Giedt, F. H., & Lehner, G. F. J. Assignment of ages on
the Draw-a-Person Test by male neuropsychiatric
patients. J. Pers.. 1951, 19, 440-4-48.
Goldberg, S. C. Three situational determinants of
conformity to social norms. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1954, 49, 325-329.
Gordon, E. L. Interaction between attitude and the
definition of the situation in the expression of
opinion. Amer. sociol. Bev., 1952, 17, 50-58.
Graham, D. Experimental studies of social influence in
simple .-judgmental situations. J. soc. Psychol..
1962, 56, 245-269.
Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. Signal detection theory and
psychophysics. New York:" Wiley, 1966.
Grosser, D., Polansky, N., & Lippitt, E. A laboratory
study of behavioral contagion. Human Eelations. 1951,
4, 115-142.
332
Hardy, K. R. Determinants of conformity and attitude
change. J. ahnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 54, 245-269*
Harper, F. B. W., & Tuddenham, R. D. The sociometric
composition of the group as a determinant of yielding
i to a distorted norm. J. Psychol.. 1964, 58, 307-311*
[Heider, F. Attitudes and cognitive organization,
j J. Psychol.. 1946, 21, 107-112.
Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations.
Hew York! Wiley, 1958.
Helson, H., Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., & Olmstead, J. A.
Attitudes as adjustments to stimulus background and
I residual factors. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1956,
; 52, 314-522.
I Hemphill, J. K. Situational factors in leadership. Educ.
j Res. Monogr., Ohio State Univer., 1949, Ho. 32.
!
j Henry, W. E., & Cumming, E. Personality development in
adulthood and old age. J. pro,j. Tech., 1959, 25,
385-390.
Hilgard, E. R., Lauer, Lillian W., & Melei, Janet P.
Acquiescence, hypnotic susceptibility & the MMPI.
J. consult. Psychol., 1965.
Hochbaum, G. M. The relation between group members' self-
confidence and their reactions to group pressures to
uniformity. Amer. sociol. Rev.. 1954, 19, 678-687*
Hoffman, M. L. Some psychodynamic factors in compulsive
conformity. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1953, 48,
383-393*
!
jHoffman, M. L. Conformity as a defense mechanism and as
j a form of resistance to genuine group influence.
J. Pers., 1957, 25, 412-424.
Hollander, E. P. Leaders, groups, and influence.
Hew York: Oxford tlhiver. Press, 1964.
Hollander, E. P. Principles and methods of '•social
psychology. Hew York: Oxford tJniver. Press, 1967*
Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. Leadership. In E. F.
Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of
personality theory and research. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 196?.
333
Hollander, E. P. & Willis, E. H. Some current issues in
the psychology of conformity and nonconformity.
Psychol. Bull.. "1967, 68, 62-76.
Homans, G. C. Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
Hew York: Harcourt Brace, and World, 1961.
Horwitz, M., Piana, G. M., Goldman, D. M., & Lee, P. J.
i Veridicality of attitudes toward authority and J
effects on learning. Amer. Psychologist. 1955, 10, j
336 (Abstract). |
Hovland, C. I., Harvey, 0. J., & Sherif, M. Assimilation |
and contrast effects in reactions to communication
and attitude change. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
I 1957, 55, 24-4-252.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. Communication
and -persuasion. Hew Haven, Conn.: Yale tfniver. Press,
1953.
i
;Hovland, C. I., & Pritzker, H. A. Extent of opinion change j
j as a function of amount of change advocated. !
| J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1957, 54, 257-261. |
j '
(Hunt, J. McV. Traditional personality theory in the
i light of recent evidence. American Scientist., 1965,
53, 60-96
Hunter, K. R. The effects of insecurity, task ambiguity,
and sex on conformity. Dissertation Abstr., 1968,
29 (6-B).
Insko, C. A., Arkoff, A., & Insko, V. M. Effects of high
and low fear-arousing communications upon opinions
I toward smoking. J. exp. soc. Psychol., 1965, 1,
! 256-266.
Israel, J. Experimental change of attitude using the
Asch-effect. Acta Sociol.. 1963, 7, 95-104-.
Jackson, J. M., & Saltzstein, H. D. The effect of
person-group relationships on conformity processes.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1958, 57, 17-24.
Jahoda, M. Conformity and independence. Human Relations.
1959, 12, 99-120.
Janis, I. L. Anxiety indices related to susceptibility to
■persuasion. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 51,
665-667.
334
Janis, I. L., & Field, P. B. Sex differences and per
sonality factors related to persuasibility. In
I. L. Janis & C. I. Hovland (Eds.), Personality
and persuasibility. New Haven, ConnTi Yale Univer.
Press, 1959*
Janis, I. L., & Hovland, C. I. (Eds.), Personality and
persuasibility. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univer.
Press, 1959*
iJenness, A. The role of discussion in changing opinions
j regarding a matter of fact. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
| 1932, 27, 279-296.
Johnson, H. H. Some effects of discrepancy level on
responses to adverse information about one's self.
j Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer. of Illinois,
1964.
Kahana, E., & Coe, M. Dimensions of conformity: a multi
disciplinary view. J. Gerontol.. 1969, 24, (1),
76-81.
i
iKanareff, V. P., & Lanzetta, J. P. The acquisition of
imitative and opposition responses under two
conditions of instruction induced set. J. exp.
Psychol., 1958, 56, 516-528.
Kanareff, V. P., & Lanzetta, J. P. Effects of task
definition and probability of reinforcement upon the
acquisition and extinction of imitative responses.
J. exp. Psychol.. 1960, 60, 340-348.
Kassarjian, W. M., & Kassarjian, H. H. Conformity of
judgment in a group situation. Psychol. Rep.. 1962,
10, 491-494.
Kaufman, M. R. Old age and aging: the psychoanalytic
point of view. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat.. 1940, 10,
73-79.
Kelley, H. H., & Lamb, T. W. Certainty of judgment and
resistance to social influence. J. abnorm. soc.
Psychol., 1957, 55, 137-139.
Kelley, H. H., & Shapiro, M. M. An experiment on
conformity to group norms where conformity is detri
mental to group achievement. Amer. sociol. Rev.,
1954, 19, 667-677-
335
Kelley, H. H. & Volkart, E. H. The resistance to change
of group-anchored attitudes. Amer. Sociol. Bev.,
1952, 17, 4-53-465.
I
| Kelman, H. C. Effects of success and failure on
I "suggestibility" in the autokinetic situation,
j J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1950, 4-5, 267-285-
[Kelman, H. C. Processes of opinion change. Publ. Opin.
j Quart.. 1961, 25, 57-78.
j Kelman, H. C. Deception in social research. Transaction,
I 1966, 5, 20-24-. i
I 1
[Kidd, J. S., & Campbell, D. T. Conformity to groups as j
1 a function of group success. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.J
| 1955, 51, 390-393- I
i I
Kiesler, C. A. Conformity. Philippines: Addison-Wesler
Pub. Co., 1969- !
i ' )
I
Kiesler, C. A., Zanna, M., & DeSalvo, J. Deviation and !
j conformity: opinion change as a function of commit-
I ment, attraction, and presence of a deviate. J. pers.
| soc. Psychol.. 1966, 3, 4-58-467.
| Kirkpatrick, C. An experimental study of the modification
! of social attitudes. Amer. J. Sociol., 1936, 41,
| 649-656.
Klein, R. L. Age, sex, and task difficulty as predictors
of social conformity. Unpublished master's thesis,
j University of Southern California, 1970.
Knower, E. H. Experimental studies of changes in atti-
j tudes I. A study of the effect of oral arguments on
i changes of attitudes. J. soc. Psychol., 1935, 6,
| 315-347.
Koponen, A. The influence of demographic factors on
response to the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University,
1957.
Korchin, S. J., & Basowitz, H. Age differences in verbal
learning. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 54, 64-69.
Krebs, A. M. Two determinants of conformith, age of
independence training and n achievement. J. abnorm.
soc. Psychol., 1958, 56, 130-131-
336
Krech, D., Crutchfield, E. S., & Ballachey, E. L.
Individual in society. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.
Kuhlen, E. G. Aging and life-adjustment. In J. E. Birren
(Ed.) Handbook of aging and the individual.
Chicago": tfniver. Chicago Press, 1959*
Kuhlen, E. G. Developmental changes in motivation during
the adult years. In J. E. Birren (Ed.). Eelations
of development and aging. Springfield, 111.:
Charles C. Thomas, 1964.
Kuhlen, E. G., & Johnson, G. H. Changes in goals with
increasing adult age. J. Consult. Psychol.. 1952,
16, 1-4.
LeBon, G. Psychologie des Eoules. Paris: Pelix Alcan,
1895* (English translation, London: T. Eisher Unwin,
1896. )
League, B. J., & Jackson, D. N. Conformity, veridicality
and self-esteem. J. pers. soc. Psychol., 1964, 68,
113-115-
Lehner, G. P. J., & Gunderson, E. K. Height relationships
on the Draw-a-Person Test. J. Pers., 1953, 21,
392-399.
!Lehner, G. P. J., & Silver, H. Age relationships on the
Draw-a-Person Test. J. Pers.. 17, 199-209.
Leventhal, H., & Niles, Patricia. A filed experiment on
fear arousal with data on the validity of question
naire measures. J. Pers.. 1964, 459-479.
Leventhal, H., Singer, E. P., & Jones, S. H. The effects
of fear and spcificity of recommendation upon
attitudes and behavior. J. pers. soc. Psychol.,
1965, 2, 20-29.
Levinson, D. J. An approach to the theory and measure
ment of ethnocentric ideology. J. Psychol.. 1949,
28, 19-39.
Lewin, K. Pield theory in social science; selected
theoretical •papers. New York: Harpers, 'T95'l.
Linton, Harriet. Dependence on external influence:
correlates in perception, attitudes, and adjustment.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 51, 502-507.
I
337
Linton, Harriet, & Graham, Elaine. Personality correlates
of persuasibility. In I. L. Janis & C. I. Hovland
(Eds.), Personality and persuasibility. New Haven,
Conn.: Yale Univer. Press, 1959-
London, P., & Lim, H. Yielding reason to social pressure:
task complexity and expectation to conformity.
J. Pers.. 1964, 52, (1), 75-89.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E., Group cohesiveness, communi
cation level, and conformity. J. abnorm. soc. Psy
chol., 1961, 62, 408-412.
Luchins, A. S. On agreement with anothers judgments.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 1944, 97-111*
j
jLuchins, A. S. Social influence on perception of complex
i drawings. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1945, 21, 257-
274.
Luchins, A. S. A variational approach to social influence
! on perception. J. soc. Psychol., 1955, 42, 113-119-
!Luchins, A. S., & Luchins, Edith H. On conformity with
true and false communications. J. soc. Psychol..
1955, 42, 283-304.
MacBride, P. D. The influence of confidence upon
resistance to perceptual judgments to group pressure.
Tech. Sept. 10, Contract NR 170-159, Univer. of
California, 1958.
Mahler, I. Yeasayers and naysayers: a validity study.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1962, 64, 317-318.
Mann, R. D. A review of the relationships between
•personality and performance in small groups. Psychol.
Bull.. 56, 241-270.
Mason, Evelyn P. Some correlates of self-judgments of
the aged. J. Gerontol., 1954, 9, 224-237-
Mathie, J. Conformity apparatus. In S. A. Smith,
Conformity in cooperative and competitive groups.
J. soc. Psychol.. 1965, 65, 337-350.
Mausner, B. The effect of one partner's success in a
relevant task on the interaction of observer pairs.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1954, 49, 557-560.
Mayo, S. C. Age profiles of social participation in rural
areas of Wake County, North Carolina. Rural Sociol.,
1950, 15, 242-251.
McClelland, D. C. The achievement motive. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953*
McConnell, J. V., & Blake, R. R. A methodological study
of tape recorded synthetic group atmosphers. Amer.
Psychologist. 1953, 8, 395 (.Abstract).
McDavid, J. W. Personality and situational determinants
of conformity. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1959, 58,
241-246.
McDavid, J. W. Effects of ambiguity of environmental cues
upon learning to imitate. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1962, 65, 381-386.
McDavid, J. W. Effects of ambiguity of imitative cues
upon learning by observation. J. soc. Psychol.,
1964, 62, 165-174.
iMead, M. Cooperation and competition among -primitive
! peoples. New ‘ York: McGraw-flill, 1939*
t
jMilgram, S. Nationality and conformity. Scientific
| American. 1961, 205, (6), 45-51*
Miller, G. R., & Tiffany, W. T. The effects of group
pressure on the judgments of speech sounds. J.
speech hear. Res., 1963, 6, 149-156.
Milner, A. D., Walker, V. J., & Beech, H. R. Obsessional
behavior and decision-making— a signal-detection
j approach. Cited by P. I. M. Craik, Paper presented
to the N.A.T.O. advanced study meeting on decision
making and age, Thessaloniki, August, 1967-
Moeller, G., & Applezweig, M. H. A motivational factor
in conformity. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 55,
114-120.
Mouton, J. S., Blake, R. R., & Olmstead, J. A. The
relationship between frequency of yielding and the
disclosure of personal identity. J. Pers., 24,
339-347.
339
Mowrer, 0. H. Authoritarianism vs. "self-government" in
the management of children's aggressive (anti-social)
reactions as a preparation for citizenship in a
democracy. J. soc. Psychol.. "1939, 10, 121-126.
Murphy, G., Murphy, Lois G., & Newcomb, T. M. Experimental
social psychology. New York: Harper, " 1 937-
Mussen, P. H., & Kagan, J. Group conformity and per
ception of parents. Child Development, 1958, 29,
57-60.
Musterberg, H. Beitragezur. Experimentellen psychologie.
in R. W. Berenda CEd»), The influence of the group
on the .judgments of children. New ‘ York: Rings
Crown Press, 1950.
Nakamura, C. Y. Conformity and problem solving. J.
abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1958, 56, 315-320.
Neugarten, Bernice L., & Gutman, D. L. Age-sex roles in
personality in middle age: a thematic apperception
study. Psychol. Monogr., 1958, 72, No. W?0.
Newcomb, T. M., Turner, R. H., and Convers, P. E. Social
psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
1965.
Norman, R. D. Concealment of age among psychologists:
evidence for a popular stereotype. J. Psychol.,
194-9, 30, 127-135.
Olmstead, J. A., & Blake, R. R. The use of simulated
groups to produce modifications in judgments.
J. Pers.. 1955, 25, 335-345.
Olsen, I. A., & Elder, J. H. A word-association test of
emotional disturbance in older women. J. Gerontol.,
1958, 13, 305-308.
Orae, M. T. The nature of hypnosis: artifact and
essence. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1959, 58, 277-
299.
Orne, M. T. On the social psychology of the psychological
experiment: With particular reference to demand
characteristics and their implications. Amer.
Psychologist. 1962, 17, 776-783.
Packard, V. P. The status seekers. New York: McKay, 1959«
340
Phelps, R. E., & Meyer, E. Personality and conformity,
and sex differences. Psychol. Hen.. 1966, 18
(3), 730.
Powell, M., & Eerraro, C. D. Sources of tension in
married and single women teachers of different ages.
J. Educ. Psychol.. 1960, 51, 92-101. I
Haven, B. H. Social influence on opinions and the communi- j
cation of related content. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., !
1959, 58, 119-128. |
!
jHaven, B. H., & Rietsema, J. The effects of varied
! clarity of group goal and group path upon the
I individual and his relation to his group. Human
j Relations, 1957, 10, 29-45-
IHees, J. H., & Botwinick, J. Detection and decision
{ factors in auditory behavior of the elderly. J.
! Gerontol. 1971, 26, 133-136.
! I
jReisman, D. The lonely crowd. Hew Haven, Conn.: Yale j
j Univer. Press, 1950. I
! j
•Riopelle, A. J. Complex processes. In E. H. Waters,
| D. A. Eethlingshafer, & W. E. Caldwell (Eds.), <
I Principles of comparative -psychology. Hew York:
McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Eohrer, J. H., Baron, S. H., Hoffman, E. L., & Swander,
D. V. The stability of autokinetic judgments.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1954, 49, 595-597-
Rosen, J. L., & Heugarten, Bernice L. Ego functions in
the middle and later years: a thematic apperception
study of normal adults. J. Gerontol., 1960, 15,
62-67.
Rosenbaum, M. E. The effect of stimulus and background
factors on the volunteering response. J. abnorm.
soc. Psychol., 1956, 53, 118-121.
Rosenberg, L. A. Group size, prior experience, and con
formity. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1961, 63, 436-
437-
Rosner, S. Consistency of response to group pressures.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1957, 55, 145-146.
Rosow, I. Social integration of the aged. Hew York:
The Pree Press, 1967-
341
Samelson, P. Conforming behavior under two conditions of
conflict in the cognitive field. J. abnorm. soc.
Psychol.. 1957, 55, 181-187.
j
Sampson, D. L., & Smith, H. P. A scale to measure world-
minded attitudes. J. soc. Psychol., 1957, 45, 99-
106.
Sampson, E. E. (Ed.), Approaches, contests, and •problems
of social psychology. New' Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
1964.
I
Schacter, S., & Hall, R. Group-derived restraints and
audience persuasion. Human Relations, 1952, 5,
397-402.
!
jSchaie, I. W., and Strother, C. R. The psychological
i functioning of superior normal old adults. In
S. M. Chown, & K. Riegel (Eds.), Psychological
functioning in the normal aging and senile aging.
Basle: Karger, 1968.
Scheffe, H. The analysis of variance. New York: Wiley,
1959.
Schonbar, R. A. The interaction of observer-pairs in
i judging visual extent of movement. Arch. Psychol.,
1945, 41, No. 299.
Schroder, H. M., & Hunt, D. E. Dispositional effects upon
conformity at different levels of discrepancy.
J. Pers.. 1958, 26, 244-258.
Scott, S. A. Eactors affecting the learning of personal
values through social reinforcement. Amer. Psy
chologist. 1956, 11, 407-408, (Abstract).
Sears, R. R. Dependency motivation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),
Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln:
Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1963.
Secord, P. P., & Backman, C. W. Social psychology.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Seward, K. Age and mental ability in superior man.
Amer. J. Psychol.. 1945, 58, 443-470.
Shahksmith, G. A. Conformity behavior on a Zebra crossing:
an activity sampling analysis. Papers in Psychology,
1967, 1 (2), 56-58.
342
Shanan, J., & Sharon, M. Personality and cognitive
functioning of Israeli males during the middle
years. Human Dev., 1965, 8, 2-15*
Sherif, M. A study of some social factors in perception.
Arch. Psychol., 1935, 27, No. 187.
Sherif, M. An outline of social psychology. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1948.
Silverman, I. Age and the tendency to withhold a response,
j J. Gerontol., 1963, 18, 372-375-
I Smith, H. P. Do intercultural experiences affect atti-
j tudes? J. ahnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 51, 469-477*
iSpangler, D. P., & Thomas, C. W. The effects of age, sex,
and physical disability upon manifest needs. J.
Couns. Psycho1., 1962, 9 (4), 315-319*
Stogdill, E. M. Personal factors associated with leader
ship. J. Psychol., 1948, 25, 35-71*
Swets, J. A., Tanner, V. P., & Birdsall, T. G. Decision
processes in perception. Psychol. Rev., 1961, 68,
301-340.
I
Tallent, N., & Lucas, L. Socialization of the aged.
Geriatrics. 1956, 11, 266-272.
Tarde, G. Les Lois de 1'limitation. Paris: Felix Alcan,
1890. (English translation, New York: Holt, 1903*)
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. The social psychology of
groups. New York: Wiley, 1959.
Thibaut, J. W., & Strickland, L. H. Psychological set
and social conformity. J. Pers., 1956, 25, 115-129*
Thorndike, R. L. The effect of discussion upon the
correctness of group decisions when the factor of
majority influence is allowed for. J. soc. Psychol.,
1938, 9, 343-362.
Thrasher, J. Interpersonal relations and gradations of
stimulus structure as factors in judgmental
variation: an experimental approach. Sociometry.
1954, 17, 228-341.
343
Tuddenham, R. D. The influence upon judgment of grossly
distorted norm. Tech. Sept. 2, Contract NR 170-159*
Univer. of California, 1957*
Tuddenham, R. D. The influence of a distorted group norm
upon individual judgment. J. Psychol., 1958, 46,
227-241.
Tuddenham, R. D. The influence upon judgment of the
apparent discrepancy between self and others. J. j
soc. Psychol., 1961, 53, 69-79* !
Tuddenham, R. D., & MacBride, P. D. The yielding experi
ment from the point of view of the subject. Tech.
Rent., 9 Contract NR 170-159, Univer. of California,
1?58*
I Tuddenham, R. D., MacBride, P. D., & Zahn, V. The sex
composition of the group as a determinant of
yielding to a distorted norm. Tech Rept., 4,
Contract NR 170-159, Univer. of California, 1958.
j Vaughn, G. M. The trans-situational aspect of conformity
j behavior. J. Pers., 1964, 32, 335-354. j
I
Veroff, J., Atkinson, J. W., Feld, Sheila, & Gurin, G.
The use of thematic apperception to assess motivation
in a nationwide interview study. Psychol. Monogr.,
74 (12, Whle No. 499), 1960.
Vidulich, R. N., & Kaiman, I. P. The effects of information
source status and dogmatism upon conformity behavior.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1961, 63, 639-642.
Wagner, E. E. Differences between old and young
executives on psychological test variables. J.
Gerontol., 1960, 15, 296-299*
Walker, E. L., & Heyns, R. W. An anatomy for conformity.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1062.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. Aspects of judgment and
decision-making: interrelationships and changes
with age. Behav. Sci.. 1961, 6, 23-36.
Walters, R. H. & Karol, P. Social deprivation and verbal
behavior. J. Pers.. 1960, 28, 89-107.
Walters, R. H., Marshall, W. S., & Shooter, J. R.
Anxiety, isolation, and susceptibility to social
influence. J. Pers., 1960, 28, 518-529.
344
Whyte, W. H., Jr. The organization of man. New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1956.
Wiener, M. Uncertainty of judgment as a determinant
of conformity behavior. Amer. Psychologist. 1956,
11, 407, (abstract).
Wiener, M. Certainty of judgment as a variable in con
formity behavior. J. soc. Psychol., 1958, 48, 257-
Wiener, M. Some correlates of conformity responses.
J. soc. Psychol.. 1959, 4-9, 215-221.
Wiener, M., Carpenter, Janet, & Carpenter, B. External
validation of a measure of conformity behavior.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1956, 52, 421-422.
Welford, A. T. Skill and age: an experimental approach.
London: Oxford Univer. Press, 1951-
jWillis, R. H. Descriptive models of social response.
| Tech. Rep.. 1964, Washington University, Nonr 816(12),
I Office of Naval Research.
Wilson, R. S. Personality patterns, source attractive
ness and conformity. J. Pers., 1960, 28, 186-199*
Zborowski, M., & Eyde, L. E. Aging and social partici
pation. J. Gerontol., 1962, 17, 424-430.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Audience Effect And Age Differences On Tasks Of Increasing Complexity
PDF
Age, sex, and task difficulty as predictors of social conformity: A search for general tendencies of conformity behavior
PDF
Changes In Memory As A Function Of Age
PDF
Age Differences In Serial Reaction Time As A Function Of Stimulus Complexity Under Conditions Of Noise And Muscular Tension
PDF
Psychomotor Performance And Change In Cardiac Rate In Subjects Behaviorally Predisposed To Coronary Heart Disease
PDF
Some Behavioral Consequences Of Career Success: A Synthesis Of Reward Andbalance Approaches
PDF
An Exploration Of Interpersonal Behavioral Possibilities And Probabilities
PDF
Dissonance and Self-Perception Analysis of "Forced Compliance": When Two Theories Make Competing Predictions
PDF
Non-Specific Treatment Factors And Deconditioning In Fear Reduction
PDF
The Subjective Utility Function As An Estimator Of Optimal Test Weights For Personnel Selection
PDF
Aggression As A Function Of Arousal And Friendship Ties
PDF
Stimulus and response generalization of classes of imitative and nonimitative behavior as a function of reinforcement, task, cues, and number of therapists
PDF
A Multidimensional Scaling Of Mood Expressions
PDF
Differential effects of epinephrine and propranolol on shuttle box avoidance learning in rats of different ages
PDF
A Cognitive Dissonance Analysis Of Conformity Behavior, As Applied To The full Denture Patient
PDF
A Monte Carlo Evaluation Of Interactive Multidimensional Scaling
PDF
Mental Imagery As A Function Of Muscular Tension And Suggestion
PDF
Electrophysiological Properties Of Reaction Time And Aging
PDF
Factorial Stability As A Function Of Analytical Rotational Method, Type Of Simple Structure, And Size Of Sample
PDF
A Monte Carlo Evaluation Of A Computer-Interactive Extended Transitivity Dominance Scaling Model
Asset Metadata
Creator
Klein, Ronald Lawrence
(author)
Core Title
Age, Sex, And Task Difficulty As Predictors Of Social Conformity: A Search For General Tendencies Of Conformity Behavior
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Psychology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, general
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Birren, James E. (
committee chair
), Bengtson, Vern L. (
committee member
), Cliff, Norman (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-552817
Unique identifier
UC11363136
Identifier
7206077.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-552817 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7206077.pdf
Dmrecord
552817
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Klein, Ronald Lawrence
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
psychology, general