autokinetic experiment

• Earth Science
• Physical Science

Social Science

• Medical Science
• Mathematics
• Paleontology

An Overview of Sherifs Autokinetic Effect Experiment

Is reality a social construct? A famous psychology study, Sherif’s autokinetic effect experiment, done in the mid-nineteen-thirties, seemed to say it can be. Conformity to the opinions of others guides personal judgments when information is scant.

Muzafer Sharif was one of the founders of social psychology. He performed ground-breaking experiments that explored the effect of group interaction on personal perception. Among his earliest explorations were his autokinetic effect experiments.

The autokinetic effect can be observed by anyone with a flashlight and some duct tape. In perfect darkness, a dot of light projected on a wall will appear to move, even though it is completely stationary. This motion is an illusion, that is, the mind creates it, not anything the eyes see.

Without any reference point, the brain cannot tell what the point of light is doing. Perhaps the brain assigns movement to the light because movement is a more common and useful phenomenon in the physical world. For whatever reason, the majority of people will see the stationary light move.

Since the light does not actually move though, its movement cannot be measured. The movement is completely subjective, and varies from person to person. Dr. Sharif used this fact as the basis of experiments about conformity.

In one experiment, researchers showed the apparently moving light to solitary subjects, repeatedly. Over time, each subject came to a decision about how much the light moved. Once they had settled on a distance, Dr. Sharif moved on to the next part of this experiment.

He put groups of people who believed the light had moved varying distances in the dark room together. Over time, the subjects tended to move towards a compromise about the distance the light had moved. They changed their judgments about the movement of the light to more closely harmonize with the perceptions of those around them.

When he asked subjects if they had been influenced, though, most of them denied it. Each believed that he or she was making an objective decision. However, when they were shown the light again, in solitude, their estimate now tended to be the compromise the group had arrived at, or closer to it than their original evaluation had been.

The subjects conformed to group norms, often without even realizing it. Group norms were established by finding an intermediate position, with the extreme positions moving toward the middle.

Through many trials, Dr. Sharif tested subjects in groups and alone, in various combinations and orders. They retained the group evaluation of what they had seen as fact, even when the group was not around to exert influence. To Dr. Sharif, this was evidence of the power of conformity. Humans are social beings, each conforming to the group opinion, though it has no more objective reality than his or her own.

Related posts:

Solomon Asch Conformity Line Experiment Study

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Solomon Asch experimented with investigating the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform .

He believed the main problem with Sherif’s (1935) conformity experiment was that there was no correct answer to the ambiguous autokinetic experiment.  How could we be sure that a person conformed when there was no correct answer?

Asch (1951) devised what is now regarded as a classic experiment in social psychology, whereby there was an obvious answer to a line judgment task.

If the participant gave an incorrect answer, it would be clear that this was due to group pressure.

Experimental Procedure

Asch used a lab experiment to study conformity, whereby 50 male students from Swarthmore College in the USA participated in a ‘vision test.’

Using a line judgment task, Asch put a naive participant in a room with seven confederates/stooges. The confederates had agreed in advance what their responses would be when presented with the line task.

The real participant did not know this and was led to believe that the other seven confederates/stooges were also real participants like themselves.

Each person in the room had to state aloud which comparison line (A, B or C) was most like the target line. The answer was always obvious.  The real participant sat at the end of the row and gave his or her answer last.

At the start, all participants (including the confederates) gave the correct answers. However, after a few rounds, the confederates started to provide unanimously incorrect answers.

There were 18 trials in total, and the confederates gave the wrong answer on 12 trials (called the critical trials).  Asch was interested to see if the real participant would conform to the majority view.

Asch’s experiment also had a control condition where there were no confederates, only a “real participant.”

Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view. On average, about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed with the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials.

Over the 12 critical trials, about 75% of participants conformed at least once, and 25% of participants never conformed.

In the control group , with no pressure to conform to confederates, less than 1% of participants gave the wrong answer.

Why did the participants conform so readily?  When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought “peculiar.

A few of them said that they did believe the group’s answers were correct.

Apparently, people conform for two main reasons: because they want to fit in with the group ( normative influence ) and because they believe the group is better informed than they are ( informational influence ).

Critical Evaluation

One limitation of the study is that is used a biased sample. All the participants were male students who all belonged to the same age group. This means that the study lacks population validity and that the results cannot be generalized to females or older groups of people.

Another problem is that the experiment used an artificial task to measure conformity – judging line lengths. How often are we faced with making a judgment like the one Asch used, where the answer is plain to see?

This means that the study has low ecological validity and the results cannot be generalized to other real-life situations of conformity. Asch replied that he wanted to investigate a situation where the participants could be in no doubt what the correct answer was. In so doing he could explore the true limits of social influence.

Some critics thought the high levels of conformity found by Asch were a reflection of American, 1950’s culture and told us more about the historical and cultural climate of the USA in the 1950s than then they did about the phenomena of conformity.

In the 1950s America was very conservative, involved in an anti-communist witch-hunt (which became known as McCarthyism) against anyone who was thought to hold sympathetic left-wing views.

Perrin and Spencer

Conformity to American values was expected. Support for this comes from studies in the 1970s and 1980s that show lower conformity rates (e.g., Perrin & Spencer, 1980).

Perrin and Spencer (1980) suggested that the Asch effect was a “child of its time.” They carried out an exact replication of the original Asch experiment using engineering, mathematics, and chemistry students as subjects. They found that in only one out of 396 trials did an observer join the erroneous majority.

Perrin and Spencer argue that a cultural change has taken place in the value placed on conformity and obedience and in the position of students.

In America in the 1950s, students were unobtrusive members of society, whereas now, they occupy a free questioning role.

However, one problem in comparing this study with Asch is that very different types of participants are used. Perrin and Spencer used science and engineering students who might be expected to be more independent by training when it came to making perceptual judgments.

Finally, there are ethical issues : participants were not protected from psychological stress which may occur if they disagreed with the majority.

Evidence that participants in Asch-type situations are highly emotional was obtained by Back et al. (1963) who found that participants in the Asch situation had greatly increased levels of autonomic arousal.

This finding also suggests that they were in a conflict situation, finding it hard to decide whether to report what they saw or to conform to the opinion of others.

Asch also deceived the student volunteers claiming they were taking part in a “vision” test; the real purpose was to see how the “naive” participant would react to the behavior of the confederates. However, deception was necessary to produce valid results.

The clip below is not from the original experiment in 1951, but an acted version for television from the 1970s.

Factors Affecting Conformity

In further trials, Asch (1952, 1956) changed the procedure (i.e., independent variables) to investigate which situational factors influenced the level of conformity (dependent variable).

His results and conclusions are given below:

Asch (1956) found that group size influenced whether subjects conformed. The bigger the majority group (no of confederates), the more people conformed, but only up to a certain point.

With one other person (i.e., confederate) in the group conformity was 3%, with two others it increased to 13%, and with three or more it was 32% (or 1/3).

Optimum conformity effects (32%) were found with a majority of 3. Increasing the size of the majority beyond three did not increase the levels of conformity found. Brown and Byrne (1997) suggest that people might suspect collusion if the majority rises beyond three or four.

According to Hogg & Vaughan (1995), the most robust finding is that conformity reaches its full extent with 3-5 person majority, with additional members having little effect.

Lack of Group Unanimity / Presence of an Ally

The study also found that when any one individual differed from the majority, the power of conformity significantly decreased.

This showed that even a small dissent can reduce the power of a larger group, providing an important insight into how individuals can resist social pressure.

As conformity drops off with five members or more, it may be that it’s the unanimity of the group (the confederates all agree with each other) which is more important than the size of the group.

In another variation of the original experiment, Asch broke up the unanimity (total agreement) of the group by introducing a dissenting confederate.

Asch (1956) found that even the presence of just one confederate that goes against the majority choice can reduce conformity by as much as 80%.

For example, in the original experiment, 32% of participants conformed on the critical trials, whereas when one confederate gave the correct answer on all the critical trials conformity dropped to 5%.

This was supported in a study by Allen and Levine (1968). In their version of the experiment, they introduced a dissenting (disagreeing) confederate wearing thick-rimmed glasses – thus suggesting he was slightly visually impaired.

Even with this seemingly incompetent dissenter, conformity dropped from 97% to 64%. Clearly, the presence of an ally decreases conformity.

The absence of group unanimity lowers overall conformity as participants feel less need for social approval of the group (re: normative conformity).

Difficulty of Task

When the (comparison) lines (e.g., A, B, C) were made more similar in length it was harder to judge the correct answer and conformity increased.

When we are uncertain, it seems we look to others for confirmation. The more difficult the task, the greater the conformity.

Answer in Private

When participants were allowed to answer in private (so the rest of the group does not know their response), conformity decreased.

This is because there are fewer group pressures and normative influence is not as powerful, as there is no fear of rejection from the group.

Frequently Asked Questions

How has the asch conformity line experiment influenced our understanding of conformity.

The Asch conformity line experiment has shown that people are susceptible to conforming to group norms even when those norms are clearly incorrect. This experiment has significantly impacted our understanding of social influence and conformity, highlighting the powerful influence of group pressure on individual behavior.

It has helped researchers to understand the importance of social norms and group dynamics in shaping our beliefs and behaviors and has had a significant impact on the study of social psychology.

What are some real-world examples of conformity?

Examples of conformity in everyday life include following fashion trends, conforming to workplace norms, and adopting the beliefs and values of a particular social group. Other examples include conforming to peer pressure, following cultural traditions and customs, and conforming to societal expectations regarding gender roles and behavior.

Conformity can have both positive and negative effects on individuals and society, depending on the behavior’s context and consequences.

What are some of the negative effects of conformity?

Conformity can have negative effects on individuals and society. It can limit creativity and independent thinking, promote harmful social norms and practices, and prevent personal growth and self-expression.

Conforming to a group can also lead to “groupthink,” where the group prioritizes conformity over critical thinking and decision-making, which can result in poor choices.

Moreover, conformity can spread false information and harmful behavior within a group, as individuals may be afraid to challenge the group’s beliefs or actions.

How does conformity differ from obedience?

Conformity involves adjusting one’s behavior or beliefs to align with the norms of a group, even if those beliefs or behaviors are not consistent with one’s personal views. Obedience , on the other hand, involves following the orders or commands of an authority figure, often without question or critical thinking.

While conformity and obedience involve social influence, obedience is usually a response to an explicit request or demand from an authority figure, whereas conformity is a response to implicit social pressure from a group.

What is the Asch effect?

The Asch Effect is a term coined from the Asch Conformity Experiments conducted by Solomon Asch. It refers to the influence of a group majority on an individual’s judgment or behavior, such that the individual may conform to perceived group norms even when those norms are obviously incorrect or counter to the individual’s initial judgment.

This effect underscores the power of social pressure and the strong human tendency towards conformity in group settings.

What is Solomon Asch’s contribution to psychology?

Solomon Asch significantly contributed to psychology through his studies on social pressure and conformity.

His famous conformity experiments in the 1950s demonstrated how individuals often conform to the majority view, even when clearly incorrect.

His work has been fundamental to understanding social influence and group dynamics’ power in shaping individual behaviors and perceptions.

Allen, V. L., & Levine, J. M. (1968). Social support, dissent and conformity. Sociometry , 138-149.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men . Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

Asch, S. E. (1952). Group forces in the modification and distortion of judgments.

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 70(9) , 1-70.

Back, K. W., Bogdonoff, M. D., Shaw, D. M., & Klein, R. F. (1963). An interpretation of experimental conformity through physiological measures. Behavioral Science, 8(1) , 34.

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 (1), 111.

Longman, W., Vaughan, G., & Hogg, M. (1995). Introduction to social psychology .

Perrin, S., & Spencer, C. (1980). The Asch effect: a child of its time? Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 32, 405-406.

Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension . New York: Harper & Row.

Course blog for INFO 2040/CS 2850/Econ 2040/SOC 2090

Autokinetic effect and Social Norms

Autokinetic effect and conformity.

Muzafer Sherif is a Turkish American social psychologist.  He conducted a classic experiment on social norm and conformity, testing subjects to watch a pinpoint of light and report how far it moved. Autokinetic effect is a visual phenomenon where a stationary light in a dark room appears to move.  A probably reason is that we perceive distances and motion relative to some reference point.  In a dark environment, no reference point is in sight, so the motion of a single light in undefined. Many people believe that a pinpoint light moves even when it does not.

Sherif uses this phenomena to study how people are influenced by other people opinion.  The experiment has 2 phases.

In phase 1, he studies the reactions of auto kinetic effect individually and recorded each individuals norm. In the end, many people settled on the distance of 2 to 6 inches from trial to trial.

In phase 2, groups of subjects of 2 or 3 where formed and placed in the dark room and came to an agreement.

People who estimated 6 inches began to conform to smaller distances such as 4 inches and people who estimated less than 3 inches increase their judgement to 5 inches.  This shows that people change their distances rather than keep to their own observation in the presence of other opinions.

Afterwards, Sherif repeated phase 1 and to his surprise, they now conform that light is moving about 4 inches whether they know that they were influenced or not.  Group norms appear to establish through levelling off extreme opinions.

This shows that the group norm influence is greater than the individual norms.  What this means is that in the long run, for a group norm to change, there has to be a greater number of subjects to be able to affect the group norm’s opinion.

http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/Conformity-Majority_Influence/MuzaferSherif’suseofautokineticeffectfor.html

What Is Conformity? Definition, Types, Psychology Research

November 20, 2015 | category: Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Blogging Calendar

©2024 Cornell University Powered by Edublogs Campus and running on blogs.cornell.edu

Sherif (1935)

Sherif (1935) autokinetic effect experiment.

Sherif (1935) tried to show that people conform to group norms when they're performing an ambiguous task.

• Laboratory experiment.
• Sherif used the autokinetic effect. This is where a dot of light is projected onto a screen in a dark room. The light appears to move even though it's not moving. The dot appearing to move is a visual illusion.
• Participants were led to believe that someone was moving the light. They were asked to guess how far the light moved.
• Phase 1 - Participants made guesses individually.
• Phase 2 - Participants made guesses in groups of three.
• Phase 3 - Participants made guesses individually.

• In phase 1, individual guesses varied a lot (by 20cm - 80cm).
• In phase 2, participant's guesses tended to converge to a common estimate.
• In phase 3, individuals made guesses closer to the common group estimates than their initial estimates.

• The experiment showed that people look to others for guidance when they face ambiguous situations (like the autokinetic effect).
• When people don't have all the information they need, they look to others for information. This is called informational conformity.
• Participants' estimates converged and a group norm formed because participants were influenced by other participants' estimates. They were influenced by informational social influence.

• A third variable shouldn't have influenced results and we should be able to establish cause and effect.
• The method was replicable as participant variables could be controlled and kept constant.

Experimental issues

• Deception - participants believed the stationary light was moving.
• Narrow sample - only males participated. This reduces the generalisability of the results.
• Artificial situation - participants made estimates about the movement of a stationary light. This is not a natural situation, so the experiment has low ecological validity (it cannot be generalised well to real-life situations).

1 Social Influence

1.1 Social Influence

1.1.1 Conformity

1.1.2 Asch (1951)

1.1.3 Sherif (1935)

1.1.4 Conformity to Social Roles

1.1.5 BBC Prison Study

1.1.6 End of Topic Test - Conformity

1.1.7 Obedience

1.1.8 Analysing Milgram's Experiment

1.1.9 Agentic State & Legitimate Authority

1.1.10 Variables of Obedience

1.1.11 Resistance to Social Influence

1.1.12 Minority Influence & Social Change

1.1.13 Minority Influence & Social Impact Theory

1.1.14 End of Topic Test - Social Influences

1.1.15 Exam-Style Question - Conformity

1.1.16 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Social Influence

2.1.1 Multi-Store Model of Memory

2.1.2 Short-Term vs Long-Term Memory

2.1.3 Long-Term Memory

2.1.4 Support for the Multi-Store Model of Memory

2.1.5 Duration Studies

2.1.6 Capacity Studies

2.1.7 Coding Studies

2.1.8 The Working Memory Model

2.1.9 The Working Memory Model 2

2.1.10 Support for the Working Memory Model

2.1.11 Explanations for Forgetting

2.1.12 Studies on Interference

2.1.13 Cue-Dependent Forgetting

2.1.14 Eye Witness Testimony - Loftus & Palmer

2.1.15 Eye Witness Testimony Loftus

2.1.16 Eyewitness Testimony - Post-Event Discussion

2.1.17 Eyewitness Testimony - Age & Misleading Questions

2.1.18 Cognitive Interview

2.1.19 Cognitive Interview - Geiselman & Fisher

2.1.20 End of Topic Test - Memory

2.1.21 Exam-Style Question - Memory

2.1.22 A-A* (AO3/4) - Memory

3 Attachment

3.1 Attachment

3.1.1 Caregiver-Infant Interaction

3.1.2 Condon & Sander (1974)

3.1.3 Schaffer & Emerson (1964)

3.1.4 Multiple Attachments

3.1.5 Studies on the Role of the Father

3.1.6 Animal Studies of Attachment

3.1.7 Explanations of Attachment

3.1.8 Attachment Types - Strange Situation

3.1.9 Cultural Differences in Attachment

3.1.10 Disruption of Attachment

3.1.11 Disruption of Attachment - Privation

3.1.12 Overcoming the Effects of Disruption

3.1.13 The Effects of Institutionalisation

3.1.14 Early Attachment

3.1.15 Critical Period of Attachment

3.1.16 End of Topic Test - Attachment

3.1.17 Exam-Style Question - Attachment

3.1.18 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Attachment

4 Psychopathology

4.1 Psychopathology

4.1.1 Definitions of Abnormality

4.1.2 Definitions of Abnormality 2

4.1.3 Phobias, Depression & OCD

4.1.4 Phobias: Behavioural Approach

4.1.5 Evaluation of Behavioural Explanations of Phobias

4.1.6 Depression: Cognitive Approach

4.1.7 OCD: Biological Approach

4.1.8 Evidence for the Biological Approach

4.1.9 End of Topic Test - Psychopathy

4.1.10 Exam-Style Question - Phobias

4.1.11 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Psychopathology

5 Approaches in Psychology

5.1 Approaches in Psychology

5.1.1 Psychology as a Science

5.1.2 Origins of Psychology

5.1.3 Reductionism & Problems with Introspection

5.1.4 The Behaviourist Approach - Classical Conditioning

5.1.5 Pavlov's Experiment

5.1.6 Little Albert Study

5.1.7 The Behaviourist Approach - Operant Conditioning

5.1.8 Social Learning Theory

5.1.9 The Cognitive Approach 1

5.1.10 The Cognitive Approach 2

5.1.11 The Biological Approach

5.1.12 Gottesman (1991) - Twin Studies

5.1.13 Brain Scanning

5.1.14 Structure of Personality & Little Hans

5.1.15 The Psychodynamic Approach (A2 only)

5.1.16 Humanistic Psychology (A2 only)

5.1.17 Aronoff (1957) (A2 Only)

5.1.18 Rogers' Client-Centred Therapy (A2 only)

5.1.19 End of Topic Test - Approaches in Psychology

5.1.20 Exam-Style Question - Approaches in Psychology

5.2 Comparison of Approaches (A2 only)

5.2.1 Psychodynamic Approach

5.2.2 Cognitive Approach

5.2.3 Biological Approach

5.2.4 Behavioural Approach

5.2.5 End of Topic Test - Comparison of Approaches

6 Biopsychology

6.1 Biopsychology

6.1.1 Nervous System Divisions

6.1.2 Neuron Structure & Function

6.1.3 Neurotransmitters

6.1.4 Endocrine System Function

6.1.5 Fight or Flight Response

6.1.6 The Brain (A2 only)

6.1.7 Localisation of Brain Function (A2 only)

6.1.8 Studying the Brain (A2 only)

6.1.9 CIMT (A2 Only) & Postmortem Examinations

6.1.10 Biological Rhythms (A2 only)

6.1.11 Studies on Biological Rhythms (A2 Only)

6.1.12 End of Topic Test - Biopsychology

6.1.13 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Biopsychology

7 Research Methods

7.1 Research Methods

7.1.1 Experimental Method

7.1.2 Observational Techniques

7.1.3 Covert, Overt & Controlled Observation

7.1.4 Self-Report Techniques

7.1.5 Correlations

7.1.6 Exam-Style Question - Research Methods

7.1.7 End of Topic Test - Research Methods

7.2 Scientific Processes

7.2.1 Aims, Hypotheses & Sampling

7.2.2 Pilot Studies & Design

7.2.3 Questionnaires

7.2.4 Variables & Control

7.2.5 Demand Characteristics & Investigator Effects

7.2.6 Ethics

7.2.7 Limitations of Ethical Guidelines

7.2.8 Consent & Protection from Harm Studies

7.2.9 Peer Review & The Economy

7.2.10 Validity (A2 only)

7.2.11 Reliability (A2 only)

7.2.12 Features of Science (A2 only)

7.2.13 Paradigms & Falsifiability (A2 only)

7.2.14 Scientific Report (A2 only)

7.2.15 Scientific Report 2 (A2 only)

7.2.16 End of Topic Test - Scientific Processes

7.3 Data Handling & Analysis

7.3.1 Types of Data

7.3.2 Descriptive Statistics

7.3.3 Correlation

7.3.4 Evaluation of Descriptive Statistics

7.3.5 Presentation & Display of Data

7.3.6 Levels of Measurement (A2 only)

7.3.7 Content Analysis (A2 only)

7.3.8 Case Studies (A2 only)

7.3.9 Thematic Analysis (A2 only)

7.3.10 End of Topic Test - Data Handling & Analysis

7.4 Inferential Testing

7.4.1 Introduction to Inferential Testing

7.4.2 Sign Test

7.4.3 Piaget Conservation Experiment

7.4.4 Non-Parametric Tests

8 Issues & Debates in Psychology (A2 only)

8.1 Issues & Debates in Psychology (A2 only)

8.1.1 Culture Bias

8.1.2 Sub-Culture Bias

8.1.3 Gender Bias

8.1.4 Ethnocentrism

8.1.5 Cross Cultural Research

8.1.6 Free Will & Determinism

8.1.7 Comparison of Free Will & Determinism

8.1.8 Reductionism & Holism

8.1.9 Reductionist & Holistic Approaches

8.1.10 Nature-Nurture Debate

8.1.11 Interactionist Approach

8.1.12 Nature-Nurture Methods

8.1.13 Nature-Nurture Approaches

8.1.14 Idiographic & Nomothetic Approaches

8.1.15 Socially Sensitive Research

8.1.16 End of Topic Test - Issues and Debates

9 Option 1: Relationships (A2 only)

9.1 Relationships: Sexual Relationships (A2 only)

9.1.1 Sexual Selection & Human Reproductive Behaviour

9.1.2 Intersexual & Intrasexual Selection

9.1.3 Evaluation of Sexual Selection Behaviour

9.1.4 Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-Disclosure

9.1.5 Evaluation of Self-Disclosure Theory

9.1.6 Self Disclosure in Computer Communication

9.1.7 Factors Affecting Attraction: Physical Attributes

9.1.8 Matching Hypothesis Studies

9.1.9 Factors Affecting Physical Attraction

9.1.10 Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter Theory 1

9.1.11 Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter Theory 2

9.1.12 Evaluation of Filter Theory

9.1.13 End of Topic Test - Sexual Relationships

9.2 Relationships: Romantic Relationships (A2 only)

9.2.1 Social Exchange Theory

9.2.2 Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory

9.2.3 Equity Theory

9.2.4 Evaluation of Equity Theory

9.2.5 Rusbult’s Investment Model

9.2.6 Evaluation of Rusbult's Investment Model

9.2.7 Relationship Breakdown

9.2.8 Studies on Relationship Breakdown

9.2.9 Evaluation of Relationship Breakdown

9.2.10 End of Topic Test - Romantic relationships

9.3 Relationships: Virtual & Parasocial (A2 only)

9.3.1 Virtual Relationships in Social Media

9.3.2 Evaluation of Reduced Cues & Hyperpersonal

9.3.3 Parasocial Relationships

9.3.4 Attachment Theory & Parasocial Relationships

9.3.5 Evaluation of Parasocial Relationship Theories

9.3.6 End of Topic Test - Virtual & Parasocial Realtions

10 Option 1: Gender (A2 only)

10.1 Gender (A2 only)

10.1.1 Sex, Gender & Androgyny

10.1.2 Gender Identity Disorder

10.1.3 Biological & Social Explanations of GID

10.1.4 Biological Influences on Gender

10.1.5 Effects of Hormones on Gender

10.1.6 End of Topic Test - Gender 1

10.1.7 Kohlberg’s Theory of Gender Constancy

10.1.8 Evaluation of Kohlberg's Theory

10.1.9 Gender Schema Theory

10.1.10 Psychodynamic Approach to Gender Development 1

10.1.11 Psychodynamic Approach to Gender Development 2

10.1.12 Social Approach to Gender Development

10.1.13 Criticisms of Social Theory

10.1.14 End of Topic Test - Gender 2

10.1.15 Media Influence on Gender Development

10.1.16 Cross Cultural Research

10.1.17 Childcare & Gender Roles

10.1.18 End of Topic Test - Gender 3

11 Option 1: Cognition & Development (A2 only)

11.1 Cognition & Development (A2 only)

11.1.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development 1

11.1.2 Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development 2

11.1.3 Schema Accommodation Assimilation & Equilibration

11.1.4 Piaget & Inhelder’s Three Mountains Task (1956)

11.1.5 Conservation & Class Inclusion

11.1.6 Evaluation of Piaget

11.1.7 End of Topic Test - Cognition & Development 1

11.1.8 Vygotsky

11.1.9 Evaluation of Vygotsky

11.1.10 Baillargeon

11.1.11 Baillargeon's studies

11.1.12 Evaluation of Baillargeon

11.1.13 End of Topic Test - Cognition & Development 2

11.1.14 Sense of Self & Theory of Mind

11.1.15 Baron-Cohen Studies

11.1.16 Selman’s Five Levels of Perspective Taking

11.1.17 Biological Basis of Social Cognition

11.1.18 Evaluation of Biological Basis of Social Cognition

11.1.19 Important Issues in Social Neuroscience

11.1.20 End of Topic Test - Cognition & Development 3

11.1.21 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Cognition & Development

12 Option 2: Schizophrenia (A2 only)

12.1 Schizophrenia: Diagnosis (A2 only)

12.1.1 Classification & Diagnosis

12.1.2 Reliability & Validity of Diagnosis

12.1.3 Gender & Cultural Bias

12.1.4 Pinto (2017) & Copeland (1971)

12.1.5 End of Topic Test - Scizophrenia Diagnosis

12.2 Schizophrenia: Treatment (A2 only)

12.2.1 Family-Based Psychological Explanations

12.2.2 Evaluation of Family-Based Explanations

12.2.3 Cognitive Explanations

12.2.4 Drug Therapies

12.2.5 Evaluation of Drug Therapies

12.2.6 Biological Explanations for Schizophrenia

12.2.7 Dopamine Hypothesis

12.2.8 End of Topic Test - Schizoprenia Treatment 1

12.2.9 Psychological Therapies 1

12.2.10 Psychological Therapies 2

12.2.11 Evaluation of Psychological Therapies

12.2.12 Interactionist Approach - Diathesis-Stress Model

12.2.13 Interactionist Approach - Triggers & Treatment

12.2.14 Evaluation of the Interactionist Approach

12.2.15 End of Topic Test - Scizophrenia Treatments 2

13 Option 2: Eating Behaviour (A2 only)

13.1 Eating Behaviour (A2 only)

13.1.1 Explanations for Food Preferences

13.1.2 Birch et al (1987) & Lowe et al (2004)

13.1.3 Control of Eating Behaviours

13.1.4 Control of Eating Behaviour: Leptin

13.1.5 Biological Explanations for Anorexia Nervosa

13.1.6 Psychological Explanations: Family Systems Theory

13.1.7 Psychological Explanations: Social Learning Theory

13.1.8 Psychological Explanations: Cognitive Theory

13.1.9 Biological Explanations for Obesity

13.1.10 Biological Explanations: Studies

13.1.11 Psychological Explanations for Obesity

13.1.12 Psychological Explanations: Studies

13.1.13 End of Topic Test - Eating Behaviour

14 Option 2: Stress (A2 only)

14.1 Stress (A2 only)

14.1.1 Physiology of Stress

14.1.2 Role of Stress in Illness

14.1.3 Role of Stress in Illness: Studies

14.1.4 Social Readjustment Rating Scales

14.1.5 Hassles & Uplifts Scales

14.1.6 Stress, Workload & Control

14.1.7 Stress Level Studies

14.1.8 End of Topic Test - Stress 1

14.1.9 Physiological Measures of Stress

14.1.10 Individual Differences

14.1.11 Stress & Gender

14.1.12 Drug Therapy & Biofeedback for Stress

14.1.13 Stress Inoculation Therapy

14.1.14 Social Support & Stress

14.1.15 End of Topic Test - Stress 2

15 Option 3: Aggression (A2 only)

15.1 Aggression: Physiological (A2 only)

15.1.1 Neural Mechanisms

15.1.2 Serotonin

15.1.3 Hormonal Mechanisms

15.1.4 Genetic Factors

15.1.5 Genetic Factors 2

15.1.6 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Physiological 1

15.1.7 Ethological Explanation

15.1.8 Innate Releasing Mechanisms & Fixed Action Pattern

15.1.9 Evolutionary Explanations

15.1.10 Buss et al (1992) - Sex Differences in Jealousy

15.1.11 Evaluation of Evolutionary Explanations

15.1.12 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Physiological 2

15.2 Aggression: Social Psychological (A2 only)

15.2.1 Social Psychological Explanation

15.2.2 Buss (1963) - Frustration/Aggression

15.2.3 Social Psychological Explanation 2

15.2.4 Social Learning Theory (SLT) 1

15.2.5 Social Learning Theory (SLT) 2

15.2.6 Limitations of Social Learning Theory (SLT)

15.2.7 Deindividuation

15.2.8 Deindividuation 2

15.2.9 Deindividuation - Diener et al (1976)

15.2.10 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Social Psychology

15.2.11 Institutional Aggression: Prisons

15.2.12 Evaluation of Dispositional & Situational

15.2.13 Influence of Computer Games

15.2.14 Influence of Television

15.2.15 Evaluation of Studies on Media

15.2.16 Desensitisation & Disinhibition

15.2.17 Cognitive Priming

15.2.18 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Social Psychology

16 Option 3: Forensic Psychology (A2 only)

16.1 Forensic Psychology (A2 only)

16.1.1 Defining Crime

16.1.2 Measuring Crime

16.1.3 Offender Profiling

16.1.4 Evaluation of Offender Profiling

16.1.5 John Duffy Case Study

16.1.6 Biological Explanations 1

16.1.7 Biological Explanations 2

16.1.8 Evaluation of the Biological Explanation

16.1.9 Cognitive Explanations

16.1.10 Moral Reasoning

16.1.11 Psychodynamic Explanation 1

16.1.12 Psychodynamic Explanation 2

16.1.13 End of Topic Test - Forensic Psychology 1

16.1.14 Differential Association Theory

16.1.15 Custodial Sentencing

16.1.16 Effects of Prison

16.1.17 Evaluation of the Effects of Prison

16.1.18 Recidivism

16.1.19 Behavioural Treatments & Therapies

16.1.20 Effectiveness of Behavioural Treatments

16.1.21 Restorative Justice

16.1.22 End of Topic Test - Forensic Psychology 2

17 Option 3: Addiction (A2 only)

17.1 Addiction (A2 only)

17.1.1 Definition

17.1.2 Brain Neurochemistry Explanation

17.1.3 Learning Theory Explanation

17.1.4 Evaluation of a Learning Theory Explanation

17.1.5 Cognitive Bias

17.1.6 Griffiths on Cognitive Bias

17.1.7 Evaluation of Cognitive Theory (A2 only)

17.1.8 End of Topic Test - Addiction 1

17.1.9 Gambling Addiction & Learning Theory

17.1.10 Social Influences on Addiction 1

17.1.11 Social Influences on Addiction 2

17.1.12 Personal Influences on Addiction

17.1.13 Genetic Explanations of Addiction

17.1.14 End of Topic Test - Addiction 2

17.2 Treating Addiction (A2 only)

17.2.1 Drug Therapy

17.2.2 Behavioural Interventions

17.2.3 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy

17.2.4 Theory of Reasoned Action

17.2.5 Theory of Planned Behaviour

17.2.6 Six Stage Model of Behaviour Change

17.2.7 End of Topic Test - Treating Addiction

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Asch (1951)

Conformity to Social Roles

study guides for every class

That actually explain what's on your next test, sherif's autokinetic effect study, from class:, social psychology.

Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Study was a psychological experiment conducted by Muzafer Sherif in the 1930s that explored how people conform to group norms in ambiguous situations. In the study, participants were asked to estimate the movement of a stationary point of light in a dark room, which appeared to move due to the autokinetic effect, leading to varying individual estimates. This experiment highlighted how social influence can shape perceptions and lead individuals to conform to others' judgments when uncertainty is present.

congrats on reading the definition of Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Study . now let's actually learn it.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

• In Sherif's study, when participants were later asked individually, their estimates tended to converge towards a group norm established during earlier group discussions.
• The autokinetic effect occurs because the human eye cannot detect small movements in complete darkness, leading to perceived motion that varies among individuals.
• Sherif's findings demonstrated that individuals are more likely to conform when they feel uncertain or lack definitive information about a situation.
• The study laid the groundwork for further research on conformity and social influence, influencing many subsequent studies in social psychology.
• Participants' estimates shifted significantly towards the group's average over time, showcasing how group dynamics can influence personal judgments.

Review Questions

• Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Study showed that individuals' perceptions can be significantly influenced by group norms, especially in ambiguous situations. Participants initially had different estimates of the light's movement when alone, but when placed in groups, their estimates converged towards a common norm established through discussion. This demonstrates how social interactions can shape individual beliefs and perceptions, particularly when there is uncertainty.
• Informational social influence played a key role in Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Study as participants turned to each other for guidance on estimating the light's movement. When faced with ambiguity, individuals sought the opinions of others, which led them to accept the group's consensus as valid. This illustrates that conformity often stems from a desire for accurate information rather than mere social acceptance, highlighting the psychological processes underlying group behavior.
• Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Study is foundational in understanding conformity as it emphasizes how individuals adapt their beliefs based on social contexts, especially under uncertainty. This has real-world relevance as it mirrors scenarios such as decision-making in groups or public opinion formation, where people may conform to perceived group norms despite personal beliefs. The findings underscore the powerful influence of social dynamics on individual behavior, providing insights into various social phenomena like peer pressure and collective decision-making.

Related terms

The change in beliefs or behaviors in order to fit in with a group, often driven by the desire for acceptance or fear of rejection.

The unwritten rules and expectations that govern behavior within a group, influencing how individuals act in social contexts.

Informational Social Influence : A type of social influence where individuals look to others for guidance in ambiguous situations, leading to private acceptance of group opinions.

" Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Study " also found in:

Subjects ( 1 ).

• AP Psychology

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

Ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..