The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
It's unethical as you decieve them with the fact you don't tell them the other participants are stooges, but if you didn't decieve them if wouldn't work. That might get you through ethics :smile:
Reply 2
Yeah I remember writing loads of essays on how the deception was justified or something, and it was the nature of this type of experiment etc- but i also remember writing how tey may never trust a psychologist again etc!

I'll have to have a good look back through my notes and see what the conclusion on that one was, but something tells me it's a no go area.

I think it was Moscovici that was ethical, and asch def. wasn't?
Reply 3
Actually I think I've changed my mind- if I d'm going to do this:

An adaptation of Jenness' beans in jar experiment

Investigation into conformity in an ambiguous situation- Basically what I'm going to do is fills a jar with pennies (an ambiguous stimulus) and ask people to provide estimates on an answer sheet. One answer sheet will have low estimates, and the other will have high estimates. The idea is that the participants in each condition should differ in their mean estimates as a consequence of conforming to the estimates they see.

No idea how to actually carry it out though- will probably use students, half girls and half boys (as apparently women are more conformist!)

Could somebody tell me what type of experiment this is? I was thinking it might be a lab exp- but it's not very controlled, although the IV (2 sheets with high and low estimates) is being manipulated to change the DV. Could anyone shed any light?

Also, I'm stumped as to what confounding variables might crop up- although maybe this will become more clear well I start the experiment?

Could I say that a potential confounding varaible is that you tend to conform more with people you know- so I avoided this by not having names on the sheets, also answers?

I'm actually really looking forward to this coursework, have got the mark scheme and spec annotated and will work by that religiously until I'm sure I've got full marks!
Reply 4
It's still a laboratory experiment. With non-experimental designs, there is no direct manipulation of an independent vatiable. Whenever the Independent Variable is adjusted, it is usually a laboratory experiment and you are still permitting an element of control. If the participants are going through both conditions, you may want to employ a counter balancing technique so that the first condition doesn't affect the second and vice versa. Generally you are supposed to maintain anonymity within your investigation. This can be done by assigning codes or numbers to each participant, rather than using actual names.

Why don't you replicate Muzafer Sherif's (but change it slightly) experiment? There are no ethical concerns here.
Reply 5
smoothie
Actually I think I've changed my mind- if I d'm going to do this:

An adaptation of Jenness' beans in jar experiment

Investigation into conformity in an ambiguous situation- Basically what I'm going to do is fills a jar with pennies (an ambiguous stimulus) and ask people to provide estimates on an answer sheet. One answer sheet will have low estimates, and the other will have high estimates. The idea is that the participants in each condition should differ in their mean estimates as a consequence of conforming to the estimates they see.

No idea how to actually carry it out though- will probably use students, half girls and half boys (as apparently women are more conformist!)

Could somebody tell me what type of experiment this is? I was thinking it might be a lab exp- but it's not very controlled, although the IV (2 sheets with high and low estimates) is being manipulated to change the DV. Could anyone shed any light?

Also, I'm stumped as to what confounding variables might crop up- although maybe this will become more clear well I start the experiment?

Could I say that a potential confounding varaible is that you tend to conform more with people you know- so I avoided this by not having names on the sheets, also answers?

I'm actually really looking forward to this coursework, have got the mark scheme and spec annotated and will work by that religiously until I'm sure I've got full marks!



I adapted Jenness' experiment. One jar of beans ambiguously filed and one ambiguously filled - then, instead of real-life confederates, I gave my participants and answer sheet with a series of read written answers and went to see if they would conform when they wrote their answer down.
Reply 6
That sounds pretty much the same as what I'm doing Jasundie!

Do you mean you did one unambiguous jar of beans (as oppose to ambiguous?). How would you do that? Use fewer beans?
Reply 7
NViasko
It's still a laboratory experiment. With non-experimental designs, there is no direct manipulation of an independent vatiable. Whenever the Independent Variable is adjusted, it is usually a laboratory experiment and you are still permitting an element of control. If the participants are going through both conditions, you may want to employ a counter balancing technique so that the first condition doesn't affect the second and vice versa. Generally you are supposed to maintain anonymity within your investigation. This can be done by assigning codes or numbers to each participant, rather than using actual names.

Why don't you replicate Muzafer Sherif's (but change it slightly) experiment? There are no ethical concerns here.


Hi Nviasko.

It feels like ages since psychology AS so I'm a bit rusty, but I can't see how a repeated measures design would work in this experiment?? There's only one jar of beans.

I'm going to have to do independent groups design, or matched partcipants design.

However if you can suggest a feasible way of doing a repeated measures design I'm all ears!
Reply 8
Hi baby.

I think you mean matched pairs design and independent measures design. When you said "that the participants in each condition" I assumed you were going to have more than one jar with a different number of pennies (to increase the reliability) thus meaning that each partipant would have to go through both conditions. You could mention about some participants taking less notice of the estimates written down (possibly due to boredom or lack of interest) which may distort results, if any anomalies crop up.

As for a repeated measures, you could have two jars (with different objects in - one with lots of pennies and another with like 10 big stones), one that is easier to estimate than the other, and set the hypothesis accordingly. It is said that people are more conforming and rely on others when the answer is ambiguous.

Also, where did you get the idea that women are more conforming from? If a person is unfamiliar with the nature of the task or its setting, their conformity levels will generally be higher as they will look to others.
Reply 9
smoothie
That sounds pretty much the same as what I'm doing Jasundie!

Do you mean you did one unambiguous jar of beans (as oppose to ambiguous?). How would you do that? Use fewer beans?


Yeah, made a typo. In the unabmiguous, I put four beans, and then on the answer sheet said that everyone put three. In the ambiguous just filled it to an impossible level, we counted it afterwards and we had like four hundred beans in there, but on the answer sheet we said everyone put one hundred and fifty. We used a repeated meausures design, with each participant looking at both jars.
Reply 10
NViasko- I came across some research in my text book that found women tend to be more conformist than men, so just to be sure I think I'll go half and half. Jasundie, did you take into account gender at all? I googled Muzafer Sherif but it didn't come up with much. you must have had a different book to me! I kind of want to stick to what I know when emulating/adapting to make my own exp, if that makes sense?

When I said two conditions I meant one sheet of paper with low estimates, and one sheet of paper with high estimates. My hypothesis was that participants in each condition (ie low estimates and high estimates on the answer sheet) should differ in their mean estimates as a consequence of conforming to what they see on the paper. However, I think my proposal is flawed, because I'd have to use different people, because I couldn't exactly get them to write their estimates down again using a different sheet of paper, could I?!

Like you say, it's more reliable to use repeated measures to control participant variables, which is why my idea is appearing to me more and more naff by the minute, lol. Am I making sense here btw?


Jasundie- From what I can gather yours is very 'ambiguous/unambiguous' based. When I mentioned 'Jenness' the only similairities in my propsed experiment was the jar of beans (or pennies, which I'd prefer to use!), it was irrespective of the ambiguous/unambiguous issues.

Finally, Nviasko- Can I ask why you think putting a different object (ie stones) in the second jar would be desirable? I would have thought keeping the object the same for both jars would control any variables, ie stones are bigger so easier to count? ETA: Actually, just realised this is the point- to make it very unambiguous- doh!

Apologies for the very waffly and unstructured post- my brain hurts, I've definitely had too long a break from college this summer! (why do they give us so long?!)
Reply 11
Jasundie- how many other answers did you put on the answer sheet?

I think tis is all getting too complicated- might just leave it until i get back to college and ask my teacher if an Asch replication would be feasible.
Reply 12
smoothie
Jasundie- how many other answers did you put on the answer sheet?

I think tis is all getting too complicated- might just leave it until i get back to college and ask my teacher if an Asch replication would be feasible.


I put like five beforehand.

My study was bascially to test if the differing level of ambiguity changed conformity levels as I had found a mass of background research for it. I didn't take in to account gender as I did not have any background research on the area. However, when discussing areas for further research I did mention that gender differences may be an interesting extention to my study.

On your point about a straight replication of Asch: you are simply not allowed. It's too unethical as many of Asch's participants reported high anxiety levels from the perceived pressure to conform. All conformity experiments either have to be written answers or reported individually, for example, everyone discussing then giving their answer on their own, with no one else around.
Reply 13
Ah, your study is very ambiguity/Jenness based then.

I guess the background research for that would be quite easy- because Asch was an unambiguous task wasn't it? Also Muzafer Sherif- te autokinetic effect-we didn't do that one in class though, so i'd have to look through it properly.

Background research isn't worth that many marks though is it? Just checked and it says it's worth 5 marks in the intro and 3 marks in the discussion on how your findings relate to background research.

I think it was Eagly and Carli who found women were more conformist. On the mark scheme it says you have to identify a potential confounding variable and how you dealt with it- Could I say that women may be more conformist- so I used both men and women equally to prevent any distortions?

ETA: I did consider doin Asch, not with real people but with cards showing different line lengths, then sample answers at the side (to take the place of the confederates) but it would be too time consuming I think drawing all the cards out etc!
Reply 14
Also- did you let people discuss? (ala Jenness?)
Reply 15
Well, if your study is looking into gender, then you can't really say it's a confounding variable, as, technically, you're trying to prove that it is a confounding variable in a conformist-demanding situation. I'd use stuff like presence of the experimenter or the order effect; maybe even world events (Perrin and Spencer, for example, explained their inability to replicate high conformity levels experienced in Asch's study due to the current cultural climate -Asch was during Cold War America, where, one would expect, a high conformity level).

Finally, no, I didn't let people discuss, as one of my testing areas was when people were not really in a social situation, such as Crutchfield (I think it was, anyway). When designing our study, me and my group developed our procedures from several previous studies, bringing them all in to create a new method.
Reply 16
Thanks again for the help Jasundie. Interesting to hear you worked in a group- I'd realy like to work in a small group for mine- but there's noone who's hardworking enough or bothered about the grade they get!

ETA: I don't think my study will be looking into Gender- ie comparing the results, I just thought I could use half girls and half boys just in case?
Reply 17
Your statement "Women are more conforming than Men" is totally and utterly inaccurate and if you write this you will lose out. The research that compared gender differences using Eagly and Carly's experiment has been argued by critics that the gender differences in said conformity were due to the task being more masculinised and that women were not familiar with the nature of the task or its setting. You should already know that using a mixture will eliminate the ramifications of gender bias.
Reply 18
Oh I know I'm not going to write "women are more conforming than men".

So you're saying I should use a mixture but not mention anything about it in my CW? Just take it as read that you have to use a mixture anyway?
Reply 19
Oh and final question Jasundie- did you do a direct or indirect hypothesis?

I'm kind of leaning towards just doing a really simple replication of a memory task now- just looking in my book to see if there are any good ones!