Social Expulationment - 950 Words

participants in their sample (persuasive argument). Therefore, if an attitudinal changed resulted from this manipulation it would be due to reasoning, not social approval, because the participants were not given any information about what the norm for the group was. After this, he ran two preliminary studies. In the first, he had participants respond to both the CDQs and the opinion questions. Participants indicated what they deemed as the lowest acceptable probability for choosing the risky option on a scale from 0% (liberal) to 100% (conservative) and stated where they stood in response to the opinion questions. In addition, he also instructed each participant from both samples to develop arguments for both the liberal and the†¦show more content†¦Participants in the mere exposure condition were then shown graphs of the response distributions for the sample that they belonged to, as well as a brief passage. The passage essentially explained to the participants that the graphs represented responses from other people who matched their artistic preference and demographic background and that people who share these commonalities also typically share similar psychological tendencies. Finally, participants responded to each of the initial it ems again after seeing this information. The persuasive argument condition had the same format as the first condition, except instead of being showed the results of the other participants from their sample, they were presented with persuasive arguments from other participants in their sample. He also matched the number of opposing and supporting arguments for each of the four items with the means for each sample to ensure that participants in this condition felt a similar amounts of group pressure. The results showed that there was a significant interaction between the condition and conformity levels for each sample. In the mere exposure condition, the level of conformity among the Indian sample was much higher than the conformity levels of the American sample (4.81 vs. .66) and this difference was statistically significant. However, the conformity levels between each sample were only slightly different from each other in persuasive argument condition (2.41 vs. 2.88) and this