Christy Macdonald

The Effects of Conformity within Gender and Relationships

Introduction

The effects of conformity within gender and relationships. Examines how gender and relationship closeness affect conformity, using a modified Asch task. No significant impact of relationship type or gender on individual conforming behavior was found.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to test whether closeness of relationships is related to conformity in individuals. The focus of this study was gender and the closeness of relationships as related to a variation on the Asch line task. 40 participants were to complete a short trivia survey that was used to obtain data and then was given another completed survey by a hypothetical friend or stranger. Participants were allowed to change their answers after viewing the answers that were hypothetically from a friend or a stranger. The study was a 2X2 ANOVA between-subjects design. The researcher was interested in finding out if the level of relationship altered the participant’s answers. It was hypothesized that those is the stranger group would conform more than those in the close friend group based on Social Comparison Theory (ccc,22). It was also predicted that males would conform less than females. Neither main effect nor the interaction was significant.

Review

This study addresses an interesting and relevant topic concerning the interplay of social relationships, gender, and conformity, which are central themes in social psychology. The clear objective—to examine how relationship closeness influences conformity—is commendable. The methodological approach, utilizing a variation of the classic Asch line task paradigm, provides a strong conceptual foundation for measuring conformity behavior in a controlled setting, and the 2x2 ANOVA between-subjects design is appropriate for testing the stated hypotheses regarding main effects of relationship closeness and gender, as well as their interaction. Despite the merits of its conceptual framework, the study suffers from significant methodological limitations that likely compromise the validity and interpretability of its findings. Most notably, the sample size of 40 participants is critically small, yielding only 10 participants per cell in the 2x2 design. This severely underpowers the study, making it highly improbable to detect genuine effects if they exist, thus rendering the non-significant results inconclusive rather than indicative of an absence of effect. Furthermore, the reliance on a "hypothetical friend or stranger" to manipulate relationship closeness might lack the ecological validity and emotional salience required to fully activate the social psychological processes underlying conformity. The abstract does not sufficiently elaborate on how this hypothetical relationship was established or perceived by participants, nor how the trivia task itself was designed to elicit social comparison, which is central to one of the hypotheses. Consequently, while the research question is valuable, the current study's findings, or lack thereof, cannot be confidently interpreted or contribute meaningfully to the existing literature on conformity, gender, or relationships. For future research, it is strongly recommended to substantially increase the sample size to achieve adequate statistical power. Additionally, researchers should consider implementing more robust and ecologically valid manipulations of relationship closeness, perhaps involving actual interactions or pre-established relationships, to enhance the study's generalizability and impact. Refining the experimental task to more directly evoke social comparison processes and elaborating on the theoretical mechanisms beyond a simple prediction would also strengthen future iterations of this potentially insightful research.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.