I}!
M

ml

\
l

1

ill.

I

’lHl

l
i
i

I

«I:

 

CCINFCIRIWTY EN CQQPERATNE AND
CQM?ETi‘.‘l\’E GRQUPS

Thesis {or Hug Degree of M. A.
MICHEGAN STATE UNEVERSITY

Stanley A. Smith
1961

nst[mmmummmum“:WWW:nu L». 3

3 1293 10539 8261

 

L I B R A R Y
Michigan State
University

 

MSU

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
P1ace in book drop to

 

mamas remove this checkout from
“ your record. FINES M”
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
'flybl kt " I 3;, H

 

 

CONFORMITY IN COOPERATIVE AND COMPETITIVE GROUPS

BY

Stanley A . Smith

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the College of Science and Arts
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1961

Approved CFM19{61
a I

Stanley A. Smith

ABSTRACT

This investigation reports an experiment designed to find the
effects of varying set, in terms of different degrees of competition and
cooperation, upon conformity. In other words, under what conditions
of competition and c00peration is conformity more strongly represented?

Three groups of subjects were tested on an aptitude-type test
in which the experimental situation was designed to produce conformity.
The three groups involved were a C00perative, Competitive and Control
Group A. A fourth group (Control Group B) took the test independently.
This eliminated all possibility of conformity, and made known the
objective level of clarity or ambiguity (difficulty) of the test items.

The major findings of this experiment are as follows:

1. The hypothesis has been supported that people in a

Cooperative Group setting (i. e. working towards a common
goal) will conform more than people in a Competitive Group
setting (i. e. working for an individual goal).

2. People are generally competitive when placed in a group

setting. Individuals in the CooPerative Group were also
found to compete to some extent. Competition in the
CooPerative Group was probably not directed at others, but
towards some personal standard, e. g. , doing well.

~ Competition for Control Group A was evidenced by the fact
that the means of the correct answers for both the Com-
petitive Group and-Control Group A. were almost identical.

3. Individuals who knew an answer to a particular question

gave it, while individuals who were not sure or did not know

an answer to a particular question tended to go along with

Stanley A. Smith

the group answer. This tendency was found in all experi-
mental situations (i. e. , regardless of rewards, and group
atmosphere).

. When subjects did not know an answer to a question, there
was a greater incentive to follow the group in the'COOperative
setting, and a lesser incentive to follow the group in the

c ompetitive s etting .

CONFORMITY IN COOPERATIVE AND COMPETITIVE GROUPS

By

Stanley A . Smith

A THESIS

Submitted to the College of Science and Arts
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1961

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to the
chairman of his committee, Dr.‘ Charles F. Wrigley, for his
invaluable professional assistance, and generously giving of his
time and effort in seeing this thesis to a speedy completion.

The author is also indebted to Dr. Earl R.‘ Carlson, for his
many helpful suggestions and constant encouragement, and for
suggesting to the author the main hypothesis of this thesis.

A debt of gratitude is owed to Mr. James Mathie, a fellow
graduate student, who devised and built the apparatus and graciously

loaned it to the author.

. The author would also like to express his appreciation to
Dr. Gerald F. King for serving as a committee member.

ii

Dedication

To my beautiful and loving wife Carole,
whose encouragement, patience and under--
standing have contributed much in seeing
this endeavor through to its completion,
this thesis is dedicated. - Now Jodi can get
to know her father.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page
1. INTRODUCTION .................... 1
Organization of the Thesis ......... . . . . 1

2. FACTORS AFFECTING THE DISPLAY OF

COMPETITION AND COOPERATION ....... 5
Effects of COOperative and Competitive Sets . . . 6
Hypothesis .................. . . . 7
3. METHODOLOGY ............. . ...... 8
Experimental Changes in Instructions ....... 9
Apparatus . ...... . .............. 9
Procedure ............... . ..... 11
4. RESULTS . . . . ............ . . ..... 13
Analysis of Results ....... ’ .......... 16
5. DISCUSSION .................... . . 21
Limitations of the Study .............. 24
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............ 25
REFERENCES .......................... 27
APPENDICES .......................... 30
A - Instructions ....... . . . . ........... 31
B - Answering Positions of Subjects . . . . ....... 34

C - Frequency Distribution of Individual Scores for the
Forced Critical Items ...... . ...... . . . 35
D - Test Questions . . .................. 36
E - Answer Sheet . . . .................. 40

iv

'LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page
1. Mean and Standard Deviation for the Critical Items. . 14

2. Answers Given to All Items Broken Down into Their
Respective Groups of Subjects ............. 15

3. Means of Correct Answers of the Twenty Critical
Items .......................... 17

4. Critical Items Ranked in Terms of Difficulty ..... 18

5. Means for the Ten Easier and the Ten Harder
Questions ........................ 19

6. Answering Positions of Subjects ............ 34

7. . Frequency Distribution of Individual Scores for the
Forced Critical Items ....... . ...... . . . 35

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This investigation reports an experiment designed to find the
effects upon conformity of varying subjects'set, in terms of different
degrees of competition and cooperation. . The aim is to find under
what conditions of competition and c00peration, conformity is the
more strongly represented.

‘ Conformity is defined as the tendency of members of a group to
shift in attitudes and behavior in the direction of the majority or
modal or statistically most usual behavior.

‘ Set is defined as the readiness to reSpond in a certain way, due
to the individual's stimulation by a variety of external and internal
factors e. g. , motivation and attitude.

. COOperation is defined as work performed together for a group
goal.

- Competition is defined as behavior intended to show oneself

superior to other group members.

Organization of the Thesis

 

The present chapter concerns itself with analyzing conformity
in terms of stimulus ambiguity, group goals and motivational factors.
The following chapter presents the factors affecting the display of
competition and cooperation. Chapter 3 presents the methodology
employed in the present investigation. The questioning method,

apparatus, procedure and subjects are contained therein. .Chapters

4 and 5 present the results and discussion, respectively, of this
investigation. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the major findings.

Conformity phenomena demonstrate that groups exert pressure
upon their members to conform to their practices and policies. The
question that arises now is: Under what circumstances is conformity
more likely to occur?

Cartwright and Zander (1960 p. 173) summarize the evidence
by stating:

. the tendency of a person to accept others' opinions is
stronger where the following conditions are present. . . .
(a) the quality of the evidence presented by others is convinc-
ing . . . (b) the quality of the evidence being judged is unclear
or involves ambiguous distinctions; (c) the discrepancy between
his own Opinion and opinions of others is large (but not too large);
(d) the confidence he has in the correctness of his own per—
ception is low; and (e) he knows that others are aware that his
opinions differ from theirs.

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) agree with Asch (1956) that conformity
is more likely to occur when a person is required to state his views
publicly rather than privately, when a member of a group rather than
a non-member, and when he is not urged by others to hold on to his
own beliefs.

Samelson (1956) demonstrated that subjects who were given the
opportunity of explaining their cognitive conflict showed less conformity.

Jackson and Saltzstein (1958) state that conformity behavior is
greater where group members are interdependently working toward a
common goal, rather than a situation in which there is no common goal,
or the task is not relevant to group achievement.

Kidd (1955) has shown that the more successful the members of
the group in reaching a group goal, the greater will be the conformity.

Sherif (1936), Asch (1956) and Crutchfield (1955) pioneered in
devising laboratory techniques for the measurement of conformity.

Sherif (1936) showed how a subject's reports of the movement of a

pinpoint of light (actually stationary), could be altered by his hearing
other subjects' judgments of the same autokinetic effect. Asch (1956)
reports a series of experiments in which groups were given the task of
comparing the lengths of successive sets of lines. All the members
except one were instructed by the experimenter to reSpond erroneously.
The single uninstructed member was then confronted by a situation in
which all other members of the group were perceived to be in error.
Two-thirds of the uninstructed subjects gave the correct response even
though in a minority, and one-third of the subjects gave responses
which corresponded with the erroneous reports of the unanimous
majority. A main deficiency of Asch's procedure was the need for the
experimenter and also his confederates to devote an hour or so to the
testing of each subject.

. Crutchfield (1955) devised equipment to dispense with the confed-
erates, and to enable a set of five subjects to be exposed to group
pressure simultaneously. The defect of his technique is the expense
involved in building the electronic equipment.

Mathiel devised cheaper equipment, financially within the reach
of almost any experimenter, which would serve the same function as
Crutchfield' s .

- It is difficult to isolate all variables dependent upon conformity.
The ambiguity of the stimuli, the motivations of the individual and the
group task (e. g. group goals) are among the more important, and these
will be considered in turn.

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) in studying conformity have distinguished
between normative and informational social influences. A normative
social influence may be defined as an influence to conform with the

positive expectations of another. An informational social influence may

 

lUnpublished study, 1959. The apparatus is described in
Chapter 3.

be defined as an influence to accept information obtained from another
as evidence about reality. Using normative and informational influence
as a guide we can better understand the experiments that were conducted
in conformity.

Sherif's (1936) study falls under the heading of informational
influence. The subjects in this investigation were willing to accept the

judgments of others as valid. The subjects were motivated to be

 

accurate. The stimulus was highly ambiguous, namely, that of a pinpoint
of light in a pitched black room. In other words, this was clearly an
unstructured situation.

On the other~hand, Asch's (1956) investigation falls under the
heading of normative influence. Subjects were influenced to conform
with the positive expectation of other group members. The stimuli were

unambiguous, namely, lengths of pairs of lines. Subjects were motivated

 

to be accepted by other subjects as well as the experimenter.

 

Conformity as evidenced from the work of Asch (1956) and Sherif
(1936) can be produced under a variety of circumstances. Group goals
and the motivations of an individual are among the more important
related variables. With this in mind we can turn our attention to the

motivations and group goals associated with cooperation and competition.

CHAPTER 2

FACTORS AFFECTING THE DISPLAY OF
COMPETITION AND COOPERATION

What makes people cooperative or competitive is partly a function
of individual personalities, partly a function of cultural expectencies,
and partly a function of the social situation, with all three interrelated
(Stendler, 1951).

Philp (1940) lists three interweaving factors that determine with
whom people will as a rule compete or cooperate:

(a) The degree of likeness of the individuals concerned;

(b) Their knowledge of each others' skills;

(c) The general conditions under which competition and

cooperation occur.
One of her major findings was that children are more quiet when compet-
ing or cooperating with strangers.
. Greenberg (1932) suggests four factors affecting the display of
competition in children:

(1) The degree of the child's understanding of the idea of excelling;

(2) The degree of the child's ability to dominate the material;

(3) The educational factors in the situation;

(4) The individual temperament as a competitive factor.

Deutsch (1949b) states that personal needs can function only if
they are relevant to the objective situation. Competing behavior involves
seeing the objective situation as relevant to the personal need to win or

for prestige. Only personal activities, therefore, can be satisfactory

(Lewis 1944).

Cooperative groups have been shownto be more highly task
motivated than competitive groups (Deutsch, 1949b). . The term
"promotively interdependent" is used to describe the individual in the
cooperative groups. His results indicate that these interdependent
subjects were more highly motivated toward the assigned group task
than the less promotively interdependent members of the competitive
groups. It has been hypothesized that individuals will cooperate
rather than compete when cooperation is perceived as a means toward

achieving shared goals (Allport, Murphy and May, 1937).

Effects of Cooperative and Competitive Sets

 

Cooperative and competitive sets could have differential effects
on both the extent to which group members will accept the judgments of
older members as valid, and the motivation to comply with the expecta-
tions of others. The effects will tend to supplement each other in lead-

ing to greater conformity in cooPerating than competing groups.

Effects on the perception of group members: In the C00perative

 

Group the goal is dependent upon the actions of others as well as him-
self. The instructions specify that effective coordination amongill
members is required for sucpess.‘ Since competence of others is
required for success, then each group member in the cooperative
setting is motivated (by induction) to achieve the group goal. Hence the
member is likely, selectively to perceive the judgments of others dur—
ing the course of the early task judgments and to come up with an
impression of others as relatively competent and accurate. ‘ In the
competitive situation, the subject is rewarded only if the others are
not competent. Therefore, his need for success could lead to selective

interpretation during the early judgments of others as less competent

and accurate.

Effects on the motivation to comply: In the Cooperative Group a

 

member knows that he will be accepted by others if he "helps, " and
rejected if he "hinders" the group. When all other group members
answer in an identical fashion, the member may be hypothesized to

be not only less certain of his own judgment, but also to face the likeli-
hood of rejection if incorrect. ‘ If he conforms and is incorrect, on

the other hand, he does not risk rejection. Thus, the COOperative
Group member, as contrasted with the Competitive Group member both
is more strongly motivated for acceptance, and risks less through

conforming.

Hypothesis

 

The hypothesis of the present study is accordingly as follows:
' People in a cooperative group setting (i. e. where a common
group goal is stressed) will conform more than people in a competitive

group setting (i. e. where an individual goal is stressed).

CHAPTER3

METHODOLOGY

The general scheme of the experiment was to try to change the
subjects' set toward cooperativeness or competitiveness by varying
the instructions, and then to find the effects of this in an aptitude test
situation designed to induce and measure conformity behavior. The
four experimental groups were:

1. The C00perative Group. A group of .30 53, tested in sub-

 

groups of five, was told that the group with the highest percentage of
correct answers in the test situation would win a prize. The intention
was to induce a cooPerative set in the SS.

2. The Competitive Group. Another group of 30 55 was told

 

that the person with the highest percentage of correct answers would
receive a prize, in the hOpe of inducing a competitive set.

. 3. Control Group A. ,This group of 30 88 took the aptitude test

 

under the same conformity conditions as the two preceding groups.
~ However, no prize was offered to these 55, i. e. , no attempt was made
to induce any particular set. I

4. Control Group B. Each member of this group of 86 Ss

 

answered the aptitude test items independently, i. e. , without exposure
to the conformity-producing situation, and with no possibility of being
influenced in responses by others... The purpose of testing this group
was to determine the level of objective clarity or ambiguity (difficulty)
of the test items.

'All 58 in the experiment were volunteer male students enrolled

in psychology classes. By restricting 53 to males, it seemed that the

subgroups would be more homogeneous and sex differences in con-
formity would be eliminated. (For sex differences, see Beloff (1958),

Crutchfield (1955), Mouton (1957), and Nakamura (1958).

Experimental Changes in Instructions

 

The oral instructions for the COOperative Group included the
following paragraph:

It is important that you do well as a group. I am running other
groups in this experiment that are similar to this one. The

group with the highest percentage of correct answers will receive
a prize. The prize will consist of $5. 00, which will be divided
equally among the members of the winning group. ‘It is important
to remember that this is an experiment in group dynamics, and
therefore, the group as a whole must do well. "It is not important
how well each of you does as an individual. What is important once
again is that as a group you do well.

The oral instructions for the Competitive Group included the
following paragraph:

It is important that each of you does your very best. I am
running other groups in this experiment that are similar to this
one. The individual with the highest percentage of correct
answers will receive a prize. The prize will consist of $5. 00..
For this reason it is to your benefit to do as well as you can
because one of you might receive the sum of $5. 00 for your
participation in this experiment.

Apparatus

 

The apparatus for inducing conformity was designed by Mathie. 1
It consists of five cubicles arranged on tables in a straight line.2
One subject is instructed to sit in each cubicle. Before each subject
is an answer sheet, and a pack of fifty numbered index cards, with a

question and five answer choices, lettered A through E, on each card.

 

1James P. Mathie. Unpublished study, Michigan State University,
1959.

2Reference is made to Figure 1.

___ 11:;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

msumummfiw .H 0&9th

11

On each card a number in the upper right hand corner instructed each
‘5 upon the order in which he is to answer each question.

'A series of plywood squares with the letters A through E, one
letter being on each square, is connected by hinges to the front end of
the cubicle, which faces the experimenter. On another table, in front
of the experimenter, but facing the SS is a rack, and twenty plywood

lettered squares, viz. , four for each letter A through E.

Procedure

 

The E announces, "Question one. " The S designated to respond
first for question one, i. e. , the S with a "1" on the upper right hand
corner on his index card, raises the plywood lettered square which
corresponds with what in his opinion is the best answer to the question.
This response can be seen by E but not by other 58. E then places 83
reSponse on his rack, where all 83 can see it, and the first S to respond
quietly lowers his card, so that no one but he and E know who has
answered.

When all 83 have answered the first question they are instructed
to check their answer on the answer sheet in front of them. .Therefore,
S may have showed E one letter, but have recorded a different letter
on his answer sheet. 'It is not important what letter S raises. What
matters is the letter which‘S indicates on his answer sheet.

The remaining 88 see this 53 answer on the rack facing them,
but they do not know who has answered. The S designated to answer
second then raises a lettered sauare which in his Opinion is the best
answer to that question. The third, fourth and fifth S follow in similar
manner.

' In the instructions it has been stated that since no one follows
the fifth S to answer, his response is not to be placed in the rack with

the other four. - No problems were found in connection with this

12

instruction. After the four 58 responded, and saw their responses
placed in the rack facing them, E waited for the fifth S to answer, and
then E cleared the rack, and said, "Question two. "

Each 8 remained in his answering position for a few trials. For
example: The S in number one position remained there for four
questions, and then switched to number four position for a further six
trials. This was done so that 85 would get used to being in the same
position for a period of time. The first twenty-five questions were
not relevant to the conformity results since each S was in a different
answering position, namely one through five.

The conformity part of the experiment started with the 26th
question. ' All 53 were now in the fifth or last answering position. By
looking around indiscriminately, E put up four answers as before, but
in this case there was no one answering in these positions. 'All four
answers were identical (i. e. four A's, four B's, etc. ), but were wrong.

The issue in these critical items was whether 83 would give what
they considered to be the generally accepted answer, even though it was
wrong. 6

‘Items twenty-seven through thirty-five and forty-one through
fifty proceeded‘in a similar manner. 'Items thirty- six through forty
were neutral items in which 58 once again returned to having various
answering positions. -For these twenty critical items, each S was faced
with the situation in which all four other 53 appeared to have answered
identically but erroneously. .Conformity was measured by the extent

to which each 5 accepted these psuedo—conformist responses.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Mean conformity scores for the four groups are given in Table l.
The hypothesis that subjects with a cooperative set would conform more
than those given a competitive set was confirmed. 7 Mean conformity
scores were 11. 53 and 7. 30 respectively. The difference is significant
at the . 01 level. ‘ Since the standard deviation for the Cooperative Group
was only 4. 76, it will be seen that means differ by nearly one SD, so
that a test of significance was hardly needed. ~ From Table .2 it will
be seen that for every critical item the Cooperative Group conformed
more than the competitive one.

Control Group A had been expected to conform less than the
Competitive Group, but the mean difference of . 10 was not significant,
and indeed was in the opposite direction from that anticipated.

Inclusion of the instructions ”to do your very best" does not seem to
have made any difference. In other words, the uninstructed S seems

to approach the task with much the same attitude as the one Specifically
encouraged to be competitive.

A third comparison of interest is that between the two control
groups. ' In Control Group B, with no pressure to conform, there was
a mean score of 2. 60 in the ”conformity reSponses“ to the 20 critical
items. These represent guesses and random item responses, or items
in which S believes the error response selected by other groups for
conformity to be the right one. ' In Control Group A, the mean score
is 7.40. This highly significant difference represents the effect of

the confo rmity situation.

13

14

Table 1--Mean and Standard Deviation for the Critical Items

 

 

CODtI'Ol Control COOperative Competitive

Group A Group B Group Group
Mean 7.40 2.60 11.53 7.30
Standard Deviation 3 . 70 l. 71 4. 76 3. 75

 

>'.<
The t—values are: 3. 81 (Cooperative Group vs.- Competitive Group);

3. 72 (Cooperative. Group vs. Control Group A);
0.10 (Competitive Group vs. Control Group A);
6. 76 (Control Group A vs. Control Group B).

 

A t-value of 2. 58 is significant at . 01 level.

 

15

 

 

 

ON MN we m m . ON N H >N O O wN om
MN MO OH OH MN N. N OH OH 3 3 m we
Om ON w MN m O OH O eN OH > h we
wO 2 N. wN w O N n 2 S O e we
HM me OH M Ma NH M N. ON O MN O Ow
Om MN N. S e O : M OH OH O 5 me
OM OM m: ON e ON m H wN e N wN we
ON MM MN 0 O MN O O m; w m ea Me
OM ew M MN NH m w 2 : OH OH O Ne
MN. m O OH H MN OH O ON ON M NH He
MN Om N. M .2 NH O : OH O O MN mM
ON MO N O OH O O eN OH OH OH e eM
mM HM ON NH N. 3 w m HN O M Ma MM
be ON OH NH O OH e M MN NH O OH NM
MN mm O O ON w H ON : M HN O HM
NN mO O N. ON N. N ON MN O OH OH OM
ON mm. 2 e 5 : H OH wN N OH O ON
me NM e O 3 MN m e 3 MN m NH ON
OH HO OH e NH wN N MN OH > ea 0 hN
OH em NN w o NL H w HN N Na ON ON
mo>flm SoounoO poouoh mo>flm poohpoO, eoouoh oozed “09:00 Ooopoh mo>flm goonnoU Ooonoh
1:33. Lemma?» ushofieu nanoujw
nosuO quOO .350 .3330
m 95.20 Noun—GOO QSOHO o>SEoQEOO neponO o>flmuomooO < QSOHO HonusoO

 

muooflnrdm mo mmdouu o>fioommom Sosa. oi: GBOQ GoMOHM maofi Sea 3 anti—U whoa/95w..- N 03mm.

16

These results are corroborated by consideration of the correct
responses. Table 3 gives means for correct answers for the 20 critical
items. Control Group B, answering without pressure to conform, had a
mean score of 9.47 correct responses. This score fell to 6. 73 and 6. 33
for the Competitive Group and Control Group A (a non-significant
difference) and to 5. 26 for the Cooperative Group. This decline in
correctness of response is attributable to conformity pressure.

‘ Answers given by Control Group B may be assumed to indicate the
difficulty of the items under "neutral" conditions. 'In Table .4 the
critical items are ranked in terms of difficulty.

Table 5 gives means for the ten easier and the ten harder questions.
Since all t's were significant at the . 01 level this confirmed the expecta-
tion that people who knew an answer gave it whereas those who did not

know an answer went along with the group answer for all experimental

 

groups. In other words, forcing was much more effective with the
difficult items (as established by Control Group B) than with the easier

items. 1

Analysis of Results

 

1. The Cooperative Group provided slightly fewer correct answers

 

than either the Competitive Group or Control Group A. The big difference
seems to have been with the answers not known for in this instance there
was a greater incentive to follow the group.

2. The Competitive Group showed less incentive to follow the group

 

when the answers were not known.

3. Control Group A, like the Competitive Group showed no observ-

 

able difference in regard to being influenced by the group. Evidently

the addition of prize money made no difference. This reduced incentive

 

1Reference is made to Table 4.

17

Table 3 --Means of Correct Answers of the Twenty Critical Items

 

 

Cooperative Group 5. 26
Control Group A 6. 33
Competitive Group 6. 73

Control Group B 9. 47

 

18

Table 4-—CriticaI Items Ranked in Terms of Difficulty

Item

Control

Cooperative

Competitive

*2:

Control Group A

 

Ranks Number GroupB Forced Correct Forced Correct Forced Correct

 

l.
1.

OOWKIO‘U'Ii-hwmm

34
30
27
29
31
35
26
49
46
42

44
28
43
33
32
48
45
47
50
41

65
65
61
59
58
56
54
53
45
44

38
37
35
31
29
26
23
15
13

8

10
13
16
14
11
19

2.].

18
20
ll

24
18
19
21
23
14
16
ll
27
20

14
15
13
15
18
ll

8
10

p—a
o—oNI

OHNWO‘WU‘O‘IPH

6
7
14
ll
4
12
17
7
12
5

16
13
15
ll
10

9

9

8
20
13

15
16
12
15
20
15

r—tU'ICDi-bmmxlO‘HhF

y—a

i—Ii—t
UixomO‘UJO‘OOOO-F

16
15
14
19
21

9
12
ll
13
10

woxom'slmme'IN

 

 

19

Table 5--Means for the Ten-Easier and the TenHarder Questions

 

 

 

Mean of Mean of

Easier 10 _Harder 10 *

Questions Questions t Values
Cooperative Group 4. 06 1. 20 5. 54
Control Group A 4. 66 l . 66 5. 82
Competitive Group 4. 66 2. O6 5. 54
Control Group B 6. 51 2. 96

 

:9:
A t-value of 2. 58 is significant at . 01 level.

20

of the Competitive Group was more characteristic of subjects without
set than the increased incentive of the Cooperative Group.

4. Control Group B answered more of the items correct than any

 

other group, because they allowed themselves to be forced only 2. 6 of
the choices as compared with Control Group A, and the Cooperative

Group who allowed themselves to be forced 7.4 and 11. 53 respectively.

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The results demonstrate that people placed in a situation believed
to encourage c00peration conform more than those who believe them-
selves to be in a competitive situation.

Since the mean of conformity for the Competitive Group was almost
identical with that for Control Group A (where no prize was involved
although the experimental situation was identical), two explanations are
possible. One, is that people tend to compete with one another when
placed in a group atmosphere, even when not specifically instructed to do
so. Another explanation is that E did not induce a competitive set.

The first explanation appears more likely for the following reason.
Competition may involve competing against others or competing against
some personal standard (e. g. doing well). ‘In other words, the Ss in
Control Group A might not have actually competed against each other,
but rather due to a personal standard tried to do as well as they possibly

could. This would explain the fact that regardless of the experimental

 

group an individual is in, if he knows an answer to a particular question
he is likely to record it as such on his answer sheet. If he does not know
the answer, then he will go along with the group answer.

It would seem logical for an individual in the C00perative Group
who knows a correct answer to record it than to follow his group in
recording a wrong answer, which will obviously hinder rather than help
the group. ‘ In other words, putting down a wrong answer will reduce the
percentage of right answers. Yet, of the 30 subjects in the C00perative
Group hardly anyone seems to have approached the situation from such

a logical point of view. These subjects could not give E an explanation

21

22

for their conforming, especially when conformity in this case (to an
answer they knew was wrong) would hinder the group. By the same token,
it can be said that if most people thought of this possibility, there might
well have been no significant difference.

In the competitive situation if an individual does not know an
answer, his taking the group answer which he believes four other individuals
have agreed upon would not give any one individual an edge on that particu-
lar question. They would either all get it right, or all get it wrong.
However, if an individual not sure of an answer dissented from the group
answer he might be right, the group might be right or neither he nor the
group .might be right. Therefore, he has a greater incentive to gamble
in this situation by selecting his own answer, which will place him at an
advantage over his competitors if it happens to be the right one.

Since the mean of correct answers for the Cooperative Group was
quite close to the mean of either the Competitive Group or Control
Group A (no prize involved), it is reasonable to conclude that subjects
who knew an answer gave it, rather than succumbed to the group answer
they knew was wrong. That is to say, subjects in the Cooperative Group
were competing with each other to a certain degree. Since the mean for
the correct answers for the Competitive Group and Control Group A
were similar (M = 6. 73 and M = 6. 33 respectively), these two groups
both adapted a relatively competitive set. ‘In other words, when placed
in a group situation individuals tend to try to do well. This analogy also
holds true for the C00perative Group, but to a lesser degree, since
the mean of 5. 26 is not as close to the mean of 6. 73 as the mean of
6. 33 is for Control Group A.

This point of view was also presented by Coleman, _e_t _a_1. , (1958),
and many other researchers. Their contention is that an individual
will be better able to resist conformity pressure from the group if he is

certain of the correct answer. External information (looking at other

23

people's answers) will become important only when the individual is
unfamiliar with the correct answer. ‘ If an individual is certain of the
correct answer, he will be better able to respond in terms of internal
cues (aptitudes, motivations, etc.) rather than rely on external infor-
mation such as c0pying someone elses answer in the face of uncertainty.

During the course of the experiment it was disclosed to E that
sometimes people knew the right answer to a particular question, but
nevertheless, went along with the group answer even though they knew
the group was wrong. This phenomenon occurred in all groups except
Control Group B who took the test independently. This is one explanation
why Control Group B answered correctly more of the critical items than
the other three groups. The Ss inControl Group B were comparable to
the Ss in the other groups, so this would discount the fact that 53 in
Control Group B were of a different population.

This finding seems to contradict an earlier assertion that correct
answers will be recorded correctly in any group. However, the finding
that when S knew an answer he gave it, and when S did not know the
answer he tended to follow the group answer is supported by the results.
Therefore, the verbal reports of 85 must not be taken as a fact that can
be statistically verified. -In other words, what 58 said they did was not
corroborated with the results of what they actually did.

‘ A discussion of the time element involved in the testing situation
is now in order. , Control Group B handed their papers in when they
were finished. - No time limit was enforced. Most 85 in this group took
the test home and handed it to E the following day.

Control Group A, the Cooperative Group and the Competitive
Group also had ample time, with no limit enforced, for taking the test
in the experimental situation. .For the first 25 items the Ss in these
three groups answered the items at their own speed. . For the remaining

critical items E used as a guide the time it took for that particular group

24

to answer questions 1 through 25. For example: If a given group took
half an hour to answer questions 1 through 25, E allowed at least another
half hour to answer the remaining 25 questions. ‘ Indeed, since the re-
maining 25 questions were more difficult, E usually allowed an extra

ten to fifteen minutes beyond that. Upon questioning the 53 after the
experiment, hardly anyone reported having been rushed. The average
time for a group of five 85 taking the test in the experimental situation
was an hour and fifteen minutes, with a range from fifty minutes to an

hour and a half.

Limitations of the Study

 

The statistical testing indicates that the results can be generalized
to other comparable groups with relatively small risk. However, the
results can not be generalized to non-comparable groups. Another
limitation of the study involves the stimulus material. The degree of
ambiguity of the test items must be considered in regard to generalization.
Different questions involving different degrees of ambiguity might give

an investigator quite different results.

CHAPTER 6

SUMMAR Y AND CONC LU SIONS

Three groups of 30 subjects each were tested on an aptitude—like
test in an experimental situation intended to produce conformity behavior.
It was assumed that a person's set could be changed by varying the
instructions by so doing inducing in the subject a Spirit of either co-
operativeness or competitiveness. The ‘three experimental groups were
therefore (a) the C00perative Group, (b) the Competitive Group, and
(c) Control Group A (tested in the conformity situation with no Specific
set induced). A fourth group Control Group B, consisted of 86 subjects.

The major findings of the thesis are as follows:

1. The hypothesis has been supported that peeple in a Cooperative
Group setting (i. e. working towards a common goal) will conform more
than people in a Competitive Group setting (i. e. working for an individual
goal).

2. PeOple are generally competitive when placed in a group setting.
It was found that individuals in the Cooperative Group were competing to
some extent. Competition for the Cooperative Group was probably not
directed to others, but directed to a personal standard, e. g. , doing well.
, Competition for Control Group A was evidenced by the fact that the means
of the correct answers for both the Competitive Group and Control Group
A were almost identical.

3. Individuals who knew an answer to a particular question gave it,
while individuals who were not sure or did not know an answer to a
particular question went along with the group answer. This was true

regardless of the experimental situation the individual was in (i. e. ,

 

regardless of rewards, instructions and group atmosphere).

25

26

4. When 55 did not know an answer to a question there was a.
greater incentive to follow the group in the c00perative setting, and a

lesser incentive to follow the group in the competitive setting.

REFERENCES

Allport, G., Murphy, G., 81 May, M. Memorandum on-research in
competition and €00peration. New York: Social Science Research
Council, 1937.

 

 

Asch, S. ~Studies of independence and conformity: l. A minority of one
against aunanimous majority. Psychol. Monogr., 1956, 70, No. 9
(Whole No. 416).

 

Bass, B. Leadership, psychology and organizational behavior. ~New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1960.

 

'Beloff, H. Two forms of social conformity: Acquiescence and
Conventionality. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1958, 56, 99-104.

 

Cartwright, D., 81 Zander, A. Group dynamics. (2nd ed.) Evanston,
Illinois: Row, Peterson and Co., 1960.

 

Coleman, Janet F., Blake, R., & Mouton, J. Task difficulty and
conformity pressures. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1958, 57,
120-122.

 

Crutchfield, R. S. Conformity and character. 'Amer. Psychologist,
1955, 10, 191-198.

 

De Charms, R. Affiliation motivation and productivity in small groups.
J. abnorm. soc.-Psychol., 1957, 55, 222-226.

 

Deutsch, , M. A theory of co-operation and competition. Hum. -Relat. ,
1949, 2, 129-152 (a).

 

~ Deutsch, M. An experimental study of the effect of cooperation and
competition upon group process. Hum. -Relat. , 1949, 2,
199-231 (b).

Deutsch, M. , 81 Gerard, H. -A study of normative and informational
social influences upon individual judgment. J. abnorm. soc.
Psychol. , 1955, 51, 629-636.

 

 

Greenberg,- P. J. .Competition in children: an experimental study.
Amer. J. Psychol., 1932, 44, 221-248.

 

27

28

Grossack, M. M. Some effects of c00peration and competition upon
small group behavior. J. abnorm. soc.'Psychol., 1954, 49,
341-348.

 

Hardy, K. R. The influence of affiliative motivation and social support

upon conformity and attitude change. — Dissertation Abstracts, 1954,
14, 1106-1107.

 

Jackson, J. M., 81 Saltzstein, H. D. The effect of person-group
relationships on conformity processes. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1958, 57, 17-24.

 

Kidd, J. S. , 81 Campbell, D. .Conformity to groups as a function of
group success. J. abnorm. soc.»Psychol., 1955, 51, 390-393.

 

Lewis, H. B. An experimental study of the role of ego in work:
I. The role of ego in cooperative work. J. exp.“ Psychol. , 1944,
34, 113-126.

 

Maller, J. B. Cooperation and competition: An experimental study in
motivation. New York: Teachers Coll. , Columbia Univer. ,
No. 384, 1929.

 

 

Mizuhara, Taisuke 81 Tamai, Syusuke. -Experimental studies of
c00peration and competition. Jap. J.- Psychol. , 1952, 22,
124-127. (Psychol. Abstr., 27:p. 519)

 

 

Mouton, J. Psychological aspects of conformity behavior of men and
women. Dissertation Abstracts, 1957, 17, 2697-2698.

 

Nakamura, C. Y. Conformity and problem solving. J. abnorm. soc.
Psychol., 1958, 56, 315-320.

 

Phillips, B. N., 81 D'Amico, L. A. Effects of cooperation and
competition on the cohesiveness of small fac‘e-to-face groups.
J. educ. Psychol., 1956, 47, 65-70.

 

Philp, Alice. Strangers and friends as competitors and c00perators.
J. genet.-Psychol., 1940, 57, 249-258.

 

Samelson,. F. Group pressure and incongruity in the cognitive field
as determinants of conformity., Dissertation Abstracts, 1956,
16, 2541-2542.

 

29

Sherif, M. The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper,
1936.

 

Stendler, Celia, Damrin, Dora and Haines, Aleyne. Studies in co-
operation and competition: I. The effects of working for group
and individual rewards on the social climate of children's groups.
J. genet. Psychol., 1951, 79, 173-197.

 

Stogdill, R. M. Individual behavior and group achievement. New York:
Oxford University, 1959.

 

Whittemore, I. C. The influence of competition on performance:
An experimental study. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1924, 19,
236-253.

 

APPENDICES

30

APPENDIX A

Instructions

 

This is an experiment in group dynamics. Each of you has a set
of 50 index cards, each card having one question and five possible
answers. The possible answers are lettered A through E.

‘1 will first read out the number of the question. The question
number is found at the bottom of the index card.

In the upper right hand corner you will find a number indicating
the order in which you are to answer that particular question.

- At the front of your box you will find the letters A through E to
correspond with the possible answers.

After I have read the question number, the person with the number
one in the upper right hand corner of his index card will quietly lift the
letter in front of him which corresponds to the letter of his answer.
This is done to show me what his answer is. 1 will then put his answer
up in this rack. - After I have put his answer in the rack he will quietly
lower his letter. Then the person with number two will answer and I
will put his answer in the rack. Then number three, four and five will
respond in the same manner. ~ Since there is no one more to answer
after the fifth person, I will not place his answer on the rack.

You must be very quiet when you raise and lower your letter so
that no one will know who has answered. You will know the answers of
those who answered before you, but will not know who gave the answer.
Similarly, others will know what you answered but will not know that
it was you who gave the answer.

- After all five‘people have answered I will clear this rack. -At this
time you will record your answer on the answer sheet in front of you by

placing an X after the letter correSponding to your answer.

31

32

Please do not try to discover who is giving whichenswerand please
do not talk during the experiment. Your answers will be kept strictly
confidential. No one will see your answer sheets.

- If a question arises during the experiment, please raise “your hand
and'I will come to you.

Do not mark up or do any figuring on the question cards.

* It is important that you do well as a group. I am running other
groups in this experiment that are similar to this one. The group with
the highest percentage of correct answers will receive a prize. The
prize will consist of $5. 00, which will be divided equally among the
members of the winning group. It is important to remember that this is
an experiment in group dynamics, and, therefore, the group as a whole
must do well. It is not important how well each of you doesfi‘as an individual.
What is important once again is that as a group you do well.

. Are there any questions ?

The only change of instructions for the Competitive Group is found
in the last paragraph, marked by an asterisk. - All other instructions
remain identical.

* It is important that each of you does your very best. I am running
other groups in this experiment that are similar to this one. The individual
with the highest percentage of correct answers will receive a prize. The
prize will consist of $5. 00. . For this reason it is to your benefit to do as
well as you can because one of you might receive the sum of $5. 00 for your
participation in this experiment.

- Are there any questions 7

The instructions for Control Group A were identical to the instruc-
tions for the Cooperative and the Competitive Groups except for the last
paragraph. . Neither paragraph as marked by an asterisk was included in

the instructions for Control Group A, since no prize was involved for

33

this group. The last few sentences of instruction for Control Group‘A
are as follows:

Please do not try to discover who is giving which answer and
please do not talk during the experiment. Your answers will be kept
strictly confidential. No one will see your answer sheets. 'If a question
arises during the experiment, please raise your hand] and I will come to
you. VDo not mark up or do any figuring on the question cards. Are
there any questions?

No formalized set of instructions was given to Control Group B.
~ Subjects were instructed to answer the questions given to them on
mimeographed Sheets as best they could. They were told that the ques-
tions were previously used in an experiment, and it was their task to
answer them truthfully and independently, so that a level of difficulty

could be ascertained from their answers to the questions.

APPENDIX B

Table 6 --Answering Positions of Subjects

 

w

 

Question Numbers
1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50

 

1 5 3 3 l l 5 5 4 5 5
2 3 5 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5
Subjects 3 2 2 5 4 4 5 5 2 5 5
4 4 4 4 5 3 5 5 1 5 5
5 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 3 5 5

 

Table 6 shows the number of times each of the five subjects remained
in their reSpective answering positions. . The question numbers are found
at the top of the table. The numbers 1 through 5 representing the five
subjects are found at the left of the table. For questions 26 through 35,
and questions 41 through 50 all subjects were in the fifth or last answering

position. - All other positions were distributed randomly.

34

APPENDIX C

Table 7 -- Frequency Distribution of Individual Scores for the Forced
Critical Items

__‘
__-

Competitive . Cooperative . Control ‘ Control

 

 

Group Group Group A Group B A
20 0 l 0 0
19 O 3 O 0
18 0 0 O 0
17 0 l O 0
l6 1 1 l 0
15 0 l 1 0
l4 0 2 l 0
13 2 4 O O
12 O 1 O 0
ll 4 4 2 0
10 2 4 4 0
9 2 1 2 0
8 2 1 3 0
7 4 1 4 0
6 5 1 0 5
5 1 2 3 l7
4 2 1 6 ll
3 l 0 1 24
2 2 0 l 18
1 l 1 1 12
O l 0 0 9
N=30 N=30 N=30 N=86

 

35

D-'

10.

11

12.

13.

14.

APPENDIX D

. 2isto4as4isto

(A) 8 (B) 10 (C) 12 (D) 4 (E) 5

.. Cub is to bear as calf is to

(A) leg (B) horse (C) cow (D) panda (E) deer

. Tall is to short as die is to

(A) dye (B) cast (C) live (D) expire (E) grow

.. Leaf is to tree as hand is to
(A) body (B) foot (C) handy (D) finger (E) give

. Core is to Corps as sent is to

(A) send (B) cent (C) sent (D) transmitted (E) sents

.7 Book is to read as radio is to

(A) Television (B) See (C) Listen (D) Marconi (E) Music

 

. 1-3-5-7 is to 11-13-15-17 as 2-4-6-8 is to

(A) 12.-13-14-15 (B) 10-12-14-16 (C) 8-6-4-2 (D) infinity (E) 12-10-9-7

 

. Cow is to cows as deer is to
(A) deer (B) deers (C) deeres (D) bucks (E) herd

. 1760 yards is to one mile as 220 yards is to one

(A) quadrant (B) kilometer (C) fathom (D) furlong (E) octroi

 

Five is to 4 as two is to
(A) 6 (B) 8 (C) 4 (D) 3 (E) 7

.. Past is to "ed" as present is to

(A) "in n (B) "tion" (C) "ex" (D) n h" (E) future
______g_ g

Tibia is to Fibula as Radius is to
(A) Ulna- (B) Femur (C) Ischium (D) Ilium (E) Tarsus

Quarter is to football as Chukker is to
(A) LaCrosse (B) Soccer (C) Rugby (D) Cricket (E) Polo

One yard is to 36 inches as one fathom is to
(A) 220 yards (B) one cubic rod (C) 16 feet (D) 6 feet (E) 100 centimeters

 

. Horse is to sheep as mare is to

(A) lamb (B) ewe (C) stallion (D) horse (E) sheep

36

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

37

Before is to Obstetrician as after is to
(A) Pediatrician (B) Gynecologist (C) Osteopath (D) Ophthalmologist

 

(E) Ortho dont1 s t

96 and 36 are to 12 as 84 and 7 are to
(A) 2 (B) 6 (C) 3 _(_____D) 7 (E) 8

A robin is to a wren as a minnow is to a
(A) Porpoise (B) Whale (C) Duckbill Platypus (D) Seal (E) Trout

 

Flammable is to nonflammable as inflammable is to
(A) fire (B) inoperative (C) nonflammable (D) incorrect (E) flammable

 

81 is to 9 is to 3 as 256 is to 16 is to
(A) 8 (B) 4 (C) 2 (D) 6 (E) no answer

Short is to longest as meek is to
(A) mild (B) gentle (C) submissive (D) kind (E) modest

 

Presley is to Rock and Roll as Goodman is to
(A) Swing (B) Dixieland (C) Classical (D) Bop (E) Jazz

 

.‘ Anode is to cathode as yes is to

(A) certainly (B) doing (C) completed (D) stop (E) no

Homo is to Latin as Anthropos is to
(A) Spanish (B) Latin (C) Greek (D) German (E) Italian

.HCl is to Hydrochloric acid as H2504 is to

(A) Sulphuric acid (B) Hydrogen peroxide (C) Ether (D) Fire (E) Ammonia

 

Washington D. C. is to the United States as Ankara is to
(A) Chile (B) Iran (C) Turkey (D) Russia (E) Greenlandi<

 

‘A is to Z as alpha is to

(A) epsilon (B) omicron (C) chi (D) pi* (E) omega

 

Mark Twain is to Samuel Clemens as Saki is to
(A) George Sands * (B) Ernest Hemingway (C) Joseph Conrad
(D) Andre Malreaux (E) H. H. Munro

 

One meter is to 39. 37 inches as one inch is to centimeter(s)
(A) l (B) 5. 24 (C) 4. 52 (D) 10 ’5‘ (E) 2. 54

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

38

Distance in walking is to pedometer as density of milk is to
(A) anemometer * (B) manometer (C) drosometer' (D) dosimeter

* (E) lactometer

 

 

Tack is to _ . _._. _._ as cat is to

(A) ._._ _ __ (B) _._ ._ ._ (C) _._ _. _. *
(D) _._. ._ __ (E) ._ _ __

Conceit is to egotism as Nationalism is to

(A) Solecism ~ (B) Synchronism (C) Aphorism * (D) Chauvinism
(E) Atavism

 

9-12-4 is to 25-30-6 as 9-6-18 is to
(A) 25-20-100 (B) 9-5-20 (C) 25-22-66 (D) 18-12-36 x< (E) 6-3-15

 

Geologist is to rock as Ornithologist is to
(A) Religion (B) Decoration (C) Bird (D) Star (E) Water*

Pork Chop is to hill as Mannerheim is to

(A) Line (B) Hill* (C) War (D) Canada (E) Win

Pride is to Prejudice as Sense is to
(A) Sensibility (B) Action (C) Knowledge (D) Ignorance (E) Hate

 

Dunn is to Bradstreet as Merrill, Lynch, . Pierce, Fenner is to
(A) Smith (B) Clark (C) Jones (D) Fox (E) Balser

 

6 a.m. is to 6 p.m. as betimes is to
(A) anon (BJ vespertinal (C) matutinal (D) laconic (E) now

2 is to 4-2-4-2 as 3 is to
(A) 9—3-6-3 (B) 6-3-9-3 (C) 3-9-6-3 (D) 6-3-3-9 (E) 3-6-6-3

 

-Abraham. Lincoln is to the "Railsplitter" as Martin Van Buren is to

(A) The Kinderhook Fox (B) Old Man Eloquent (C) Squire of Hyde Park
(D) Old Tip (E) Old Rough and Ready

 

"Aida" is to "Sylvia" as "Burleske" is to
(A) "C0ppelia" (B) ”Carnaval" (C) “Samson et Delila"
(D) "Sinfonietta Giocosa" (E) "Idomeneo" *

 

5-7-9-2 is to 7-8-9-1 as 2-5-8-3 is to
(A) 2-6-8-4 (B) 1-2-4-1 (C) 1-5-9-4 (D) 3-6-9-2 (E) 2-2-4-8 9.:

 

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

39

The Atlantic is to the Pacific as New Guinea is to -
(A) Cyprus (B) Corsica (C) Cuba * (D) Greenland (E) Borneo

 

Jocose is to melancholy as evergreen is to
(A) carnivorous (B) perennial (C) deciduous (D) herbivorous (E) tree *

 

ABC is to 2 as JKL is to

(A) 5 (B) 4 (C) 6 * (D) 3 (E) none of the above

s-b-l-i-b-r-q is to tangent as a-f-j-v is to
(A) can't (B) belt (C) face (D) bomb * (E) bask

.2-7-4-5-6-3 is to 3-6-5-4-7-2 as 4-7-6-3-8-1 is to

 

(A) 3-6-5-8-1-4 (B) 1-3-6-5-7-6 (C) 4-7-6-3-8-1 (D) 3-1-5—7-2-2 >l<
(E) 2-3-4-5-6-4

Jack of clubs is to 8 of diamonds as 7 of Spades is to
(A) 4 of diamonds (B) 4 of Spades * (C) 2 of clubs (D) ace of clubs

 

(E) 8 of hearts

Appetizer is to after dinner drink as antipastois to
(A) Hors D'Oeuvres * (B) Souffle (C) Demitasse (D) Suzette (E) Croutons

 

6-9-5-7-2 is to 6-11-9-13-10 as 4-7-8-2-6 is to
(A) 4-6-8-3-5 (B) 5-8-9-3-7 (C) unsolvable * (D) 4-1—7-4-3
(E) 4-0-6-5-2

 

 

Legend: Underlined is the correct answer.

 

* is the forced answer for the twenty critical items.

 

 

D

 

(1
if

C

 

 

APPENDIX E

26

E

U
it

1)

2'7

28

29

 

31
32

33

34
36
3’7
38

35

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

4'7
48
49

 

50

40

 

 

11‘11‘

 

 

J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

16

 

 

 

1'7

 

18

 

19

2o

 

 

21

22
23

 

 

24

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I111111111)(