The comparability of emergent norms in four judgment situations was investigated. A moderately arbitrary prescribed norm was presented with a low degree of social pressure. One member of each of 8 groups of 4 Ss was an experimental collaborator who presented arbitrary ranges of judgments. Each group participated in the autokinetic, shotgun, pinball, and hex situations. The norms formed in 3 of the situations were equivalent; those in the hex situation were not. The lack of comparability of the hex situation is attributed to a relatively greater degree of structure, resulting from psychophysical and cultural anchorages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenR. B., & MacNeilM. K.Conformity and compliance as a function of social norm arbitrariness. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwest Psychological Association, Austin, Apirl, 1969.
2.
AschS. E.Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 1956, 70, No. 9.
3.
BovardE. W.Group structure and perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 46, 398–405.
4.
GrahamD.Experimental studies of social influence in simple judgment situations. Journal of Social Psychology, 1962, 56, 245–269.
5.
HarveyO. J., & ConsalviC.Status and conformity to pressures in informal groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 60, 182–187.
6.
JacobsR. C., & CampbellD. T.The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory micro-culture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 649–658.
7.
KaufmanE. L.LordM. W.ReeseR. M., & VolkmannJ.The discrimination of visual number. American Journal of Psychology, 1949, 62, 498–525.
8.
KünnapasT. M.The vertical-horizontal illusion in artificial visual fields. Journal of Psychology, 1959, 47, 41–48.
9.
MacNeilM. K.Power of status in norm formation under differing conditions of group solidarity. (Doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Oklahoma) Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univer. Microfilms, 1967. (No. 67-12, 318)
10.
MacNeilM. K., & GregoryB. W.The hexagonal horizontal-vertical judgment situation as an analogy to the autokinetic situation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwest Psychological Association, Austin, April, 1969.
11.
MacNeilM. K., & PaceD. J.Differential adoption of norms by high-status and low-status members of informal groups. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1973, 36, 1275–1283.
12.
MacNeilM. K., & ReboucheR.An ego-involving experimental social norm formation judgment task situation. Paper presented at the Southwest Psychological Association, Austin, April, 1969.
13.
PaceD. J., & MacNeilM. K.Differential responses of individuals and pairs to suggestion in a judgment situation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwest Psychological Association, Houston, April, 1967.
14.
PollisN. P., & MontgomeryR. L.Conformity and resistance to compliance. Journal of Psychology, 1966, 63, 35–41.
15.
SherifM.A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 1935, 27, No. 187.
16.
SherifM.HarveyO. J.WhiteB. J.HoodW. R., & SherifC.Inter-group conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, Okla.: Institute of Group Relations, Univer. of Oklahoma, 1961.
17.
VolkmannJ.HuntW. A., & McGourtyM.Variability of judgment as a function of stimulus density. American Journal of Psychology, 1940, 53, 277–284.
18.
WalterN.A study of effects of conflicting suggestions upon judgment of the autokinetic situation. Sociometry, 1955, 18, 138–146.
19.
WinerB. J.Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.
