Experimental variables affecting the conformity behavior of children1

Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Responses of a Majority in a Color Perception Task

“…Asch (1956) varied the proportion of the neutral trials in relation to the critical trials (1/6, 1/2, 1/1, 4/1) and although the differences were not significant, a decrease in the percentage of conformist responses was observed (50 per cent, 36.8 per cent, 38.6 per cent, 26.2 per cent) as the majority became less coherent in time. Iscoe and Williams (1963) obtained similar results. On the whole, considering the information we have at hand today, we can say that it is the behavioral style of a majority or a minority and not the pure amount of social pressure which is revealed to be at the origin of influence exerted.…”

Developmental Comparisons of Conformity across Two Cultures

“…This was not the first study to find different behavior of females in conformity at different ages. Iscoe et al (1963) found results that were difficult for the Costanzo-Shaw hypothesis to explain, since their data showed different ages at which conformity peaked for the two sexes. Males conformed the most at 15 years, but the females conformed most at age 12.…”

“…These differences were further qualified by a differential effect across task difficulty. There have been previous findings in the literature (Iscoe & Williams 1963;Iscoe et al 1964) that children display little selectivity but conform generally regardless of task difficulty or task abilities. However, the present data show differential responses to task difficulty by the younger as well as the older children.…”

“…With the adjusted scores, it appeared that the relationship was curvilinear with an increase and then a decrease in conformity with age, with the point of change being around 9-12 years. Related data were presented earlier by Iscoe and Williams (1963) showing an increase in conformity for females up to age 12. The girls conformed more than the boys, and the maximum conformity for girls was at age 12 while the maximum conformity for boys was at age 15.…”

Labeling By Self and Others

“…It may well be the case that &dquo;anti-social&dquo; subjects are more likely to acquiesce to negative, albeit inaccurate, labels ascribed to them by powerful others, such as therapists and counselors, when the behavioral referents of such labels are vague, ill-defined, or undifferentiated. This interpretation is in accord with studies wherein experimental subjects have been found to be more susceptible to the expectations and definitions of social reality set forth by others when the subjects' social situation is highly ambiguous (cf., for example, Allen, 1965;Iscoe and Williams, 1963). ' The data suggest that lower-class boys, who are disproportionately represented in the &dquo;anti-social&dquo; sample, may be more prone to inaccurate self-labeling than their middle-class counterparts.…”