Opinions and Social Pressure

Solomon Asch conducted various experiments pertaining to the effects of group pressure on an
individuals opinion and judgment. In the first experiment, seven to nine college students were placed in
a classroom and shown two cards: one with a single line, the other with three lines. The students were
asked to choose one line out of the three that matches the length of the single line. In the trials, most of
the group was instructed by the experimenter to choose specific lines, the lone dissenter was not. This
one individual was studied as he saw the other members choose different lines. Under this group
pressure, the dissenters made mistakes in 36.8% of the selections, while in ordinary circumstances they
only made mistakes 1% of the time. The control group was the group in ordinary circumstances; the
independent variable was the presence of a misleading group; the dependent variable was accuracy. In
the same experiment, mistakes were made more often when the size of the group increased. When a
dissenting partner was introduced, however, the accuracy increased. The experiment was further
tweaked with the dissenting partner agreeing for six trials and then joining the majority. The dissenter
made few mistakes in the first six trials but after the partner joined the majority, the dissenter made
many errors. This shows that group pressure can exert strong influence over an individuals opinion or
judgment. It also shows that when a partner is present who agrees with the individual, the individual
feels more confident about opposing the majority.
I found this article very interesting. I have always known about the mob-mentality concept, but I
have never realized how powerful it can be. The results of the experiment show that an individual can
be misled to make mistakes far more frequently than if the individual had acted in ordinary
circumstances (in the experiment conducted by Asch, the dissenters made mistakes 36.8% of the time
while under ordinary circumstances they made mistakes only 1% of the time). The overall methodology
seemed sound. The experiment was repeated many times and with many different scenarios. Each
experiment also had eighteen trials to record the dissenters accuracy. This aspect could have been


changed slightly. The number of trials could have been increased to give more accurate results. When
reading this article, various questions came to mind? How would multiple partners help the dissenters
confidence? How would gender and age play a role in the concept of group pressure? Do individuals
tend to agree more often with people from their own demographics/heritage? The experiment did not
violate any ethical issues.
More Experience=Bigger Brain
MR Rosenzweig and MC Diamond conducted the experiment that pertained to environmental
conditions and brain development. Rosenzweig and Diamond wanted to determine if nurturing an
individual in certain conditions would result in changes in the development of the brain. To test this,
twelve rats were obtained and placed in three separate environments: a normal environment with
standard conditions, an impoverished environment with no luxuries, and a large cage with objects for
sense stimulation. The independent variable was the environmental condition (the different cages)
while the dependent variable was brain development. The control group was the group of rats raised in
the normal cage. The experiment showed that with the more extravagant environment, there was an
increase in the weight and thickness of the cerebral cortex, as well as the size of neurons. Also, there
was more activity in the enzyme acetylcholinesterase.
I found this article to be pretty interesting. The results show that an environment can contribute
to or impair brain development. The methodology, however, could have been improved. The rats could
have been studied in more natural environments where resource-depleted and resource-abundant
areas can still be found. The rest of the methodology seemed sound since the researchers were able to
gather conclusive results. I agree with the conclusion of the article that brain development is affected by
environmental conditions. Actual results in brain developments were found, such as an increase in the
size of neurons and the size of the cerebral cortex. A few questions came to mind when reading the
article. To what extent did the environmental conditions affect brain development? Would humans


show the same increase in brain development and in the same areas? Is there a way to target specific
parts of the brain for development by introducing certain environmental conditions? The article did
raise some ethical issues. The rats were experimented on and some were subjected to impoverished
environments. This can be seen as a form of animal cruelty.
Are You a Natural
Lykken, Bouchard, McGue, Segal, and Tellegan conducted a case study in which twins who grew
up in different environments were examined. The case study served to examine if the twins had the
same genetic makeup and if they had similar personalities. The twins were all tested to examine their
specific preferences to determine differences and similarities. The results show that each genetically
identical twin was strikingly similar in personality and preferences to the other twin, despite being raised
in a different environment. This experiment shows that environment may not have as great a role in
shaping personality/preferences as previously thought. Though certain environments may be necessary
in brain development, specific aspects of personality/preferences are determined by genetic makeup,
unaffected by environmental conditions.
The article as a whole was quite surprising. I had always believed that environmental conditions
play a great role in shaping an individuals preferences and even personality. The article shows that this
in fact may not be true. The twins, despite being raised in different environments were astonishingly
similar to one another. This surprised me because it shows that genes can account for preferences and
that individuals may not have control over what they truly like. The methodology was based on finding
similarities and differences. One problem may have been over-extrapolation. If the researchers noted
many similarities that were common to society as a whole, genes may have had no bearing on the
similarity. If the researchers took this into account, however, the methodology would be sound. Each
twin was given many questions to assess similarities and differences. I agree with the conclusion as a
whole, but I am unsure as to what extent genes play in shaping personality. A few questions came to


mind when reading this article. Do these results hold true for individuals who have similar genetic
makeups ie siblings or parents and children? To what extent do genes affect our
personalities/preferences? Can strong enough environmental conditions change our personalities? Do
certain differences show what aspects of personality are not controlled by genetic makeup? There were
no ethical issues as the twins were separated at birth due to various external factors.