The Effect of Levels of Relationship and Gender on Conformity

Running head: EFFECT OF LEVELS OF RELATIONSHIP & GENDER ON CONFORMITY 1

The Effect of Levels of Relationship and Gender on Conformity

Frances Chinee S. Bendijo

Brigitte Rose R. Niñonuevo

Jo Ann C. Ramos

EFFECT OF LEVELS OF RELATIONSHIP & GENDER ON CONFORMITY 2

Baliuag University


Abstract

This study investigates whether the levels of relationship

between individuals –close relationship, acquaintanceship or

being strangers, and gender has an effect on Conformity. Data

were collected from 180 undergraduate students from Baliuag

University. A 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to

analyse whether levels of relationship affects conformity as a

function of gender. The results of the experiment supports the

growing number of psychological literature that suggests women’s

conformity rates HIGHER than men and that people tend to conform

even to people they met for the first time for social acceptance.


Introduction

When we change our views, behaviors, or decisions because of

other people’s preferences, whether they are immediately present

or not, we are experiencing conformity. It may be neglected most

of the time but it sure does give social psychologist great

interest.

There are various reasons on why people conform. Several

researches such as Acsh’s and Sherif’s studies were done to be

able to determine these factors. Their studies have determined

two types of conformity. One being informational conformity and

the other one, normative. Informative conformity is often

observed when an individual is facing a situation or problem

wherein he is highly in doubt so he just decides to imitate what

others would do as they face the same situation he is in.

Normative conformity on the other hand is observed when an

individual conforms to others’ views, behaviors, or attitudes to

get a satisfying remark from them. This is mostly for social

acceptance.


Aside from those already stated, there are also other

factors or variables that may answer the question “Why do people

conform?” It may be because people are finding possible answers,

for them to fit in, to be liked, or because everybody else is

doing it. It may also be because they like the group they are

belonging to, because they feel that they are all similar so they

tend to go along with their decisions. Another thing is the size

of the majority. If in some point they have to decide, and an

individual finds himself alone in a stand, he may be forced to

conform to the majority’s decision even if it’s against his will.

Age may also be a factor but it is often neglected as one. Most

say that those who are older have lower rates of conformity than

those who are younger. The reason why they say this is probably

because older people are much more mature in making decisions and

are far more experienced than the younger ones.

Other factors that may also contribute on why an individual

conform is one’s gender and one’s relationship with the group.

Gender, like age, is also neglected most of the time. The effect

of gender in conformity may be because of the gender-role

expectations of the society on men and women. Most of the time,


people say that men should be the one that gets to decide and

that women should be the one who obeys. This practice has been

done for a long time already and most will say that there is no

reason to debate about it. But because of our changing culture,

concepts of equality arise and so this idea might also change.

As for the relationship of the individual to the majority,

we could say that people would rather go with those who he

belongs to than to those who are total strangers to him. The

reason behind this is possibly because of the acceptance the

individual is already experiencing with his so called group or

the similarities they have, and the individual’s doubt if he

would trust the group of strangers he is with on that moment.

This paper aims to find out if the levels of relationship

and/or gender have an effect on conformity. It also aims to

answer whether women would have higher rates of conformity than

men and if the individual’s relationship in the group one is with

would have a varying effect on conformity. Also, it also aims to

see if there is an interaction between the two factors when it

comes to conformity, whether women would conform more with her


friends or with strangers, and also if men would do so. Findings

on this paper could give additional contribution to previous

findings about conformity and the factors affecting it.


Review of Literature

Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change

in belief or behavior in order to fit in with a group. This

change is in response to real (involving the physical presence of

others) or imagined (involving the pressure of social norms /

expectations) group pressure. Conformity can also be simply

defined as “yielding to group pressures” (Crutchfield, 1955).

Group pressure may take different forms, for example bullying,

persuasion, teasing, criticism etc. Conformity is also known as

majority influence (or group pressure).

The first psychologist to study conformity was Jenness

(1932). His experiment was done by individually asking the

participants to estimate how many beans a glass bottle contained.

Jenness put the group in a room with the bottle, and asked them

have a group discussion regarding on how many the beans were.

After the discussion they were asked again to test whether their

initial answer was altered by the group discussion. The

experiment yielded a result with a high level of conformity.


People conform in order to follow social norms and to avoid

social exclusion. It can be readily observed, such as when people

engage in similar styles of dressing and speaking, similar

preferences in music and food, and similar patterns of political

beliefs. Studies show that people conform either because it is

hard to disagree from a group’s decision or because they thought

that what they have in mind is wrong (Asch, 1956; Crutchfield,

1955; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). Some studies also present that it

is more bothersome for people to go against a majority opinion

(Mugny, 1982; Nemeth &Wachtler, 1983) than minority opinions

because these minority opinions can be shrugged off with laughter

and derision (Asch, 1956; Schachter, 1951).

According to the study done by Deutsch & Gerard (1955),

people may conform for one of two reasons, both linked to a

distinct form of social influence. The first reason is that they

might have been concerned about social evaluation by others in

the group that they are belonging to. And second, they may have

used the other group members’ judgments as useful information to

guide them in an ambiguous task on which they had no previous

experience. These are known as normative and informational


influences respectively. Some studies show that normative

influence increases with: (a) group size, but at a diminishing

marginal effect (Bond, 2005; Gerard, Wilhelmy & Conolley, 1968),

(b) the importance of the group to the subject (Guimond, 1990;

Wolf, 1985), (c) if the group’s culture is collectivistic (Bond &

Smith, 1996; Milgram, 1961, 1977) and (d) if the subject has no

allies (Allen & Levine, 1969; Nemeth & Chiles, 1988).

Does relationship in the group affect conformity?

Conformity may vary due to the size of the group a person is

belonging to and it may also vary depending on who the people in

the group are. The group’s attractiveness may also have an effect

on its power to influence behavior, although the effects are not

consistent. We like people who are similar to us (Byrne, 1971),

and sometimes we take on the behaviors and affections of people

we want to emulate (Kelman’s 1958 concept of identification).

Accordingly, conformity is greater when friends are in the group

(Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950; Lott & Lott, 1961; Thibaut &

Strickland, 1956). Allen (1965) stated that the greater the

similarity between the individual and the majority, the greater


the level of conformity. Similarly, Turner (1991) has argued that

conformity will be higher when the majority is categorized as an

in-group rather than an out-group, and several studies support

these predictions (e.g., Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, Hogg, &

Turner 1990; Gerard, 1954).

Indeed, the social in uence literature is rife withfl

demonstrations of the positive relationship between our fondness

for a person and the likelihood of compliance with his or her

request (Cialdini & Trost 1998). For example, physical

attractiveness, a predictor of interpersonal liking, has been

demonstrated to in uence responding in a number of domains,fl

ranging from tip earnings (Lynn & Simons 2000) to the likelihood

of being asked for identi cation in bars (McCall 1997).fi

In contrast to these studies is a variation of S. E. Asch's

(1952) social influence paradigm to assess whether the tendency

to conform is the same in a group of close friends as in a group

of strangers. In 2 experiments, 48 naive undergraduates were

grouped with confederates, either friends or strangers, who

responded to visual and auditory perception tasks with mainly


wrong responses. Results demonstrate that Ss were more likely to

conform to incorrect norms with strangers. When paired with only

1 other person, Ss were no more or less likely to conform. Ss

were significantly more likely to conform among 5 strangers than

among 5 friends.

Does gender have an effect on the individual’s conformity?

Another factor that has been a concern of studies is the

effect of the individual’s gender on the rate of his or her

conformity. Most people would say that women tend to conform more

than men because it is more appropriate for women to be submissive

and for men to stand for his own decision. According to a meta-

analysis done by Eagly & Chrvala (1986), in group pressure

conformity experiments, women tend to conform more than men

(Cooper, 1979; Eagly 1978; Eagly & Carli, 1981; Maccoby &

Jacklin, 1974). In a review of the literature on conformity, Nord

(1969) concluded that it has been well established that women

conform more under almost all conditions than men. The usual

explanation for these assumptions was that these gender

differences between prescribed roles for men and women in the


culture. Early empirical studies in a variety of group-pressure

situations also appeared to support this supposition that women

would yield more to social pressure than men (e.g. Crutchfield,

1955; Endler & Hoy, 1966; Patel & Gordon, 1960; Tuddenham, 1958).

An example of social influence is women’s attempts to

conform to cultural definitions of an attractive body, where the

current fashion is to be extremely thin. Anderson, Crawford,

Nadeau, & Lindberg (1992) analyzed 54 different cultures’

perception of the ideal female body. Heavy female bodies were

considered the most beautiful in cultures with unreliable food

supplies; only in cultures where the food supply was very

reliable was the slender body valued. In all cultures except

those where the food supply was very reliable, the moderate-to-

heavy body range was preferred by the majority. What is

attractive has changed many times over the past 100 years, as an

analysis of models in women’s magazines indicates. Women learn

what standard is appropriate through informational social influence, but

normative social influence helps explain their attempts to create the

desired body through dieting and eating disorders. Research shows


that women tend to perceive themselves as overweight and as

heavier than they actually are, especially when they have just

been looking at media portrayals of thin women. These pressures

lead to an increase in eating disorders: recent statistics show

that one-third of 12-13 year-old girls are actively trying to

lose weight. Crandall (1988) examined normative social influences

on bulimia in two college sororities. He found that each sorority

had its own norm for the “right” amount of binge eating and that

popularity within the sorority was associated with adherence to

this norm. Although pledge’s friendships were not related to the

norm at first, they were by the end of the first year.

However, researches on female conformity are not without

contradictions. Research conducted by Allen & Levine (1969),

Goldberg (1974), and Hoffman & Maier (1966) show no conclusive

support that females conform more than males. Sistrunk and

McDavid (1971) have proposed an explanation to this controversy.

They believe that gender differences in conformity may be a

function of sex-oriented tasks that have been employed in the


experiments with certain tasks being more relevant to one sex

than the other.

There is little research when it comes to men’s body image

in conformity, but recent studies suggest that men are beginning

to come under the same pressure to achieve an ideal body that

women have experienced for decades. Other evidence suggests that

indeed the male ideal is now much more muscular. For example

Pope, Olivardia, Gruber, & Borowiecki (1999) found changes in the

musculature of G.I. Joe dolls, and in the percentage of ads

portraying men in some state of undress (while the percentage of

such ads for women has remained fairly stable). Other research by

these investigators shows that while men are accurate in

perceiving their own body mass, both their ideal and what they

believe women would find attractive has considerably more muscle.

Recent research indicates that 21 to 42 percent of young men have

altered their eating habits to gain muscle mass or weight and 12

to 26 percent have dieted to reduce body fat or weight.

Increasing numbers are also using steroids or ephedrine to

achieve a more muscular physique (Cafri, Thompson, Ricciardelli,

McCabe, Smolak, & Yesalis, 2005).


This study will test three hypotheses and explore two

research questions developed to garner additional insight

regarding the nature of the hypothesized relationships. Hypothesis

1: Women would tend to have higher scores of conformity than men.

Their conformity would be reflected on a 5-item verbal

comprehension test. Hypothesis 2: People would tend to conform more

to a majority they met for the first time than with those they

really know.

Method

Design

The current study used a 3 (close relationship vs

acquaintance vs strangers) × 2 (female vs male) Factorial ANOVA

design. The two (2) independent variables are Levels of

relationship and gender. Treatment levels for the independent

variables are: (a) close relationship, (b) acquaintance, and (c)

strangers group for the levels of relationship; and (a) female,

and (b) male for the gender. Shown below is the 3 x 2 factorial

design and the number of n (sample size per group).


Close

Relationship

Acquaintance Strangers

Female 30 30 30

Male 30 30 30

The dependent variable was conformity that is to be measured

by the number of times the participant agrees to the decision of

the confederates.

Participants

A total of 180 first to third year college students from

Baliuag University equally divided into 90 female and 90 male

students served as participants to the experiment. Sixty (60)

participants (30 female and 30 male) were randomly assigned to

each of the three (3) treatment levels of relationship – close

relationship, acquaintance, and strangers group. All participants

were treated in accordance to ethical guidance.

Materials


A five item test of verbal comprehension would be used by

the participant and the confederate. One copy goes to the

participant to be answered alone and another would be given to

him this time to be answered with the confederate. Mainly, the

questions are focused on the synonyms and antonyms of the given

word. A synonym is simply a word which is identical in sense and

usage with another, for example fast is a synonym of quick. An

antonym is a word which is of contrary meaning to another - hot

is an antonym of cold.

Procedure

The researchers asked permission from the Dean of School of

Information Technology Education for 180 students that would

accommodate the whole experiment. The participants were randomly

assigned to each of the treatment levels – close relationship,

acquaintance, and strangers group – with each level having 30

male and 30 female students. To formally start the experiment,

the participants were oriented that they would be answering a

short verbal comprehension test that would measure the verbal

comprehension level of the different courses in the university.


The present experimenters presented this motive by stating the

following:

“We would like to conduct a test with your participation to assess theverbal comprehension level of different courses here in Baliuag University.The test that will be given to you is has a total of five items. You will begiven approximately 15 minutes to answer all the questions.”

For those randomly assigned for the close relationship, they

were asked to pick out their closest friend in class, and for the

acquaintance group, they were asked to pick out someone they just

know by name. This was done before the experimenters proceeded to

the next steps. After they have picked their closest friend or

acquaintance, the experimenters assisted them to another room

where they would answer the 5-item verbal comprehension

questionnaire individually. This would serve as a checker test to

measure the frequency of conformity or the number of times that

the participant would change his original answers in accordance

to the confederate’s answers when it is their turn to answer the

test together. The test would take approximately 15minutes.

Without the knowledge of the participant, the experimenters would

talk to the selected close friends and acquaintances about their

task. They would be instructed to contradict the answers of the


participants in three (3) trials to try to persuade them to

change their answers. After the participants have answered the

test, their selected close friend or acquaintance would be

instructed to enter the room. This time, the experimenters would

explain to the participants that they would now have to answer

the same set of questions again, this time with their selected

close friend or acquaintance. It is explained that this is for

assessing the best answer for the test items. The test would be

given approximately 20 minutes for each group so that there would

be enough time allotted for the arguments of the participants and

the confederates (the close friend/acquaintances).

As for the stranger group, the participants were oriented in

the same manner as those in the close relationship and

acquaintance groups. The difference is that in the stranger group

setting, after the participants answered the questionnaire, he or

she was introduced to a carefully selected group of confederates

making sure that the participant does not know anyone from them.

The experimenters then explained to the participant that he/she

now has to answer the questionnaires again and that the group

would serve as his “consultants” for him to be able to pick out


the best answer. As described earlier, these “consultants”

already know their task to try to persuade him to change the

participants answer within three (3) trials.

Debriefing

After answering the tests, the participants were made aware of

the true nature of the study. This was done by the experimenters

by stating the following:

“We appreciate your participation in the test we conducted. The truenature of this experiment is to test whether gender differences and levelsof relationship has their effects on conformity compliance. Conformitymeans publicly acting in accord with social pressure while privatelydisagreeing. Any other questions that you want to be clarified will beanswered by our debriefers.”

All their questions and reactions were entertained and further

explanation was done if asked by the participants.


Results

The mean number of conformity for each treatment level of

relationship (close relationship, acquaintance, and strangers)

for male and female is illustrated in Table 1.A. It is seen that

the mean conformity of females that is M=3.1889 with SD= 1.42130

is significantly higher compared to the mean conformity of males

which is only M=2.6222 with SD=1.65969. The total mean values for

close relationship, acquaintance and strangers group is also

shown in Table 1.0, close relationship with M= 2.7167 with a

SD=1.74756; acquaintance level having a slightly higher M= 2.8833

with SD= 1.541142; and the strangers level having obviously

higher M= 3.1167 with a SD= 1.39115 compared to the close

relationship and acquaintance level means.

Table 1.A Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: ConformityGender

Levels of Relationship

Mean Std.Deviatio

n

N

Female

Close Relationship

2.9667 1.75152 30

Acquaintance 3.1667 1.26173 30Strangers 3.4333 1.19434 30Total 3.1889 1.42130 90


Male

Close Relationship

2.4667 1.73669 30


Total

Close Relationship

2.7167 1.74756 60



Table 2.B Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: ConformityLevels_of_Relationship Gender Mean

Std.Deviation N

Close Rel. female 2.9667 1.75152 30male 2.4667 1.73669 30Total 2.7167 1.74756 60

Acquaintance female 3.1667 1.26173 30male 2.6000 1.75381 30Total 2.8833 1.54142 60

Stranger female 3.4333 1.19434 30male 2.8000 1.51771 30Total 3.1167 1.39115 60

Total female 3.1889 1.42130 90male 2.6222 1.65969 90Total 2.9056 1.56675 180

As shown in Table 2.0, the results shows a significant main

effect of gender on conformity, F(216.75) = 0.005, p <.05. It

also shows a significant main effect in the levels of

relationship towards conformity, F(36.33) = 0.027, p<.05. On the

other hand, the interaction between gender and levels of

relationship does not give a significant effect F(.028) = 0.973,

p<.05.


Table 2.0 Tests of Between-Subjects EffectsDependent Variable: ConformitySource Type III

Sum ofSquares

df MeanSquare

F Sig.

InterceptHypothesis 1519.606 1 1519.606 627.36

0 .002

Error 4.844 2 2.422a

GenderHypothesis 14.450 1 14.450 216.75

0 .005

Error .133 2 .067b

Levels_of_Relationship

Hypothesis 4.844 2 2.422 36.333 .027

Error .133 2 .067b

Gender * Levels_of_Relationship

Hypothesis .133 2 .067 .028 .973

Error 419.967 174 2.414c

a. MS(Levels_of_Relationship)b. MS(Gender * Levels_of_Relationship)c. MS(Error)

A pairwise comparison with a Bonferroni correction to

maintain an alpha level of .05 was conducted to compare the means

of the three individual levels of relationship. As shown in the

table below, close relationship level and acquaintanceship level

have a mean difference of -.167 and .167, close relationship and

stranger level have a mean difference of -.400 and .400, and the

acquaintance level and stranger level have a mean difference of

-.233 and .233. Studying the presented comparisons, the highest

mean difference belongs to the comparison between close


relationship and stranger level, next is with the acquaintance-

stranger comparison, and the least was close relationship-

acquaintance level. This mean that the stranger relationship had

the highest and most significant mean and the least is the close

relationship level.


Table 3.0 Pairwise ComparisonsDependent Variable: Conformity

(I) Levels_of_Relationship

(J) Levels_of_Relationship

MeanDifference (I-

J)Std.Error Sig.a

95% ConfidenceInterval forDifferencea

LowerBound

UpperBound

Close Rel. Acquaintance -.167 .284 1.000 -.852 .519

Stranger -.400 .284 .481 -1.086 .286Acquaintance

Close Rel .167 .284 1.000 -.519 .852Stranger -.233 .284 1.000 -.919 .452

Stranger Close Rel .400 .284 .481 -.286 1.086Acquaintance .233 .284 1.000 -.452 .919

Based on estimated marginal meansa. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

The graphs below shows the interaction between the levels of

relationship and gender as functions of conformity. For Graph 1,

it shows that both male and female participants increased their

conformity as their relationship with others diminish, meaning

that they conform more to those whom they didn’t know. For Graph

2, it shows that in all levels of relationship, the close

relationship, acquaintance and stranger levels, female

participants conformed more than men.


Graph 1. Levels of Relationship * Gender Graph 2 Gender * Levels of Relationship

Discussion

The results from the study show that female tend to conform

more than men in all of the treatment levels of the experiment.

This supports the first hypothesis of the experiment. It also

supports the findings from Cooper (1979), Eagly (1978), Eagly &


Carli (1981), Maccoby & Jacklin (1974), Nord (1969), Crutchfield

(1955) Endler & Hoy (1966) Patel & Gordon (1960) and Tuddenham,

(1958). The study also shows that females and males tend to

conform more in a setting where they are faced to strangers. This

supports the second hypothesis of the experiment derived from the

study for the variation of S. E. Asch's (1952) social influence

paradigm to assess whether the tendency to conform is the same in

a group of close friends as in a group of strangers. In 2

experiments, 48 naive undergraduates were grouped with

confederates, either friends or strangers, who responded to

visual and auditory perception tasks with mainly wrong responses.

Results demonstrate that Ss were more likely to conform to

incorrect norms with strangers. When paired with only 1 other

person, Ss were no more or less likely to conform. Ss were

significantly more likely to conform among 5 strangers than among

5 friends.

Further research could be done to identify whether the

number of present significant others, acquaintances, and

strangers have varied effects on conformity. It would also be

possible to conduct a study regarding the effect of the presence


or absence of an observer on conformity. Effects of levels of

relationship and gender on conformity may also be examined in

other tasks such as mathematical or abstract comprehension.

References

Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg. M. A., & Turner,

J. C. (1990). Knowing what

you thing by knowing who you are: Self-categorisation and

the nature of norm formation,

conformity and group polarisation. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 29, 97-119.

Allen, V. L., & Levine, J. M. (1969). Consensus and conformity.

Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 5, 389-399l.

Allen, V.L. (1965). Situational factors in conformity. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in


experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 133-175). San Diego:

Academic Press.

Amini, M. & Stromsten, F. (2010). Conformity, gender and the sex

composition of the group.

Stockhom, SE: Stockholm School of Economics.

Anderson, J. L., Crawford, C. E., Nadeau, J., & Lindberg, T.

(1992). Was the Duchess of

Windsor right? A cross-cultural view of socio-biology of

ideals of female body shape.

Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 197-227.

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

minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological

Monographs, 70(9).

Bond, R. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes and

Intergroup Relations, 8, 331-

354.

Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-

analysis of studies using


Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin,

119, 111-137.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Cafri, G., Thompson, J. K., Ricciardelli, L., McCabe, M., Smolak,

L., & Yesalis, C. (2005).

Pursuit of the muscular ideal: Physical and psychological

consequences and putative risk

factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 215–239.

Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: social

norms, conformity, and

compliance. Retrieved October 4, 2013 from

http://www.ee.oulu.fi/cialdini98.pdf

Cooper, H. M. (1979). Statistically combining undependent

studies: A meta-analysis of sex

differences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social


Crandall, C. (1988). Social contagion of binge eating. Journal of

Personality and Social



Crutchfield, R. (1955). Conformity and Character. American

Psychologist, 10, 191-198.

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

informational social influences

upon individual judgement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,

51, 629-636.

Eagly, A. H., & Chrvala, C. (1986). Sex differences in

conformity: Status and gender role

interpretations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 203-220.

Eagly, A.H. (1978). Sex differences in influenceability.

Psychological Bulletin, 85, 86-116.

Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L. L. (1981) Sex of researchers and sex-

typed communications as


determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-

analysis of social influence studies. Psychology Bulletin, 90, 1-

20.

Endler, N. S., & Hoy, E. (1966). Conformity as related to

reinforcement schedules. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 175-180.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in

informal groups. New York:

Harper.

Gerard, H. B. (1954). The anchorage of opinions in face-to-face

groups. Human Relations, 7,

313-326.

Gerard, H. B., Wilhelmy, R. A., & Conolley, E. S. (1968).

Conformity and group size. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 79- 82.

Goldberg, C. (1974). Sex Roles, Task competence, and conformity.

Journal of Psychology, 86,


157-164.

Guimond, S. (1990). Attitude change during college: Normative or

informational social

influence? Social Psychology of Education, 2, 237-261.

Hoffman, L. R. and Maier, N. R. (1966). Social factors

influencing problem solving in

Women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 382-390.

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

regarding a matter of fact. The

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 279-296.

Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and

internalization: Three processes of

attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.

Lott, A. J., & Lott, B.E. (1961). Group cohesiveness,

communication level, and conformity.

Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 62, 408-412.


Lynn M., & Simons, T. (2000). Predictors of male and female

servers’ average tip earnings.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 241-252.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex

differences. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

McKelvey, W., & Kerr, N.H. (1988). Differences in conformity

among friends and strangers.

Psychological Reports, 62(3). doi: 10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.759

McLeod, S. A. (2007). What is Conformity? - Simply Psychology.

Retrieved October 4, 2013

from http://www.simplypsychology.org/conformity.html

Milgram, S. (1961, December). Nationality and conformity. Scientific

American, 205, 45-51

Milgram, S. (1977). The individual in a social world. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. London: Academic press.


Nemeth, C. J., & Chiles, C. (1988). Modeling courage: The role of

dissent in fostering

independence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 275-280.

Nemeth, C., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative Problem solving as a

result of majority versus

Minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 45-55.

Nord, W. R. (1969). Social exchange theory : An integrative

approach to social conformity.

Psychological Bulletin, 71, 174-208.

Patel, A., & Gordon, J. E. (1960). Some personal and situational

determinants of yielding to

influence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 411-418.

Pope, H. G., Olivardia, R., Gruber, A., & Borowiecki, J. (1999).

Evolving ideals of male body

image as seen through action toys. International Journal of Eating

Disorders, 26, 65-72.


Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication.

Journal of Abnormal and Social


Sistrunk, F., & McDavid, J. W. (1971). Sex variable in conforming

behavior. Journal of


Thibaut, J. W., & Strickland, L. H. (1956). Psychological set and

social conformity. Journal of

Personality, 25, 115-129.

Tuddenham, R. D. (1958). The influence of a distorted group norm

upon individual judgment.

Journal of Psychology, 46, 227-241.

Wolf, S. (1985). Manifest and latent influence of majorities and

minorities. Journal of


The Effect of Levels of Relationship and Gender on Conformity

Documents

Transcript of The Effect of Levels of Relationship and Gender on Conformity