“…The conchtions affecting complexity preferences were reasoned to be a function of mstruc^ional set providmg a context withm which evaluabon of the group's opimons occurred Thus, when a person judges stimuli which can be empmcally vahdated, as m the case of weight estimates (Rule, 1964) or decision outcomes (Rule and Renner, 1965), others' opmions are not valued because the best responses can be determined by means other than personal opmions The actual weight of an object can be determmed empmcally, and decisions involve outcomes whose gain or loss value can be assessed directly In support of this assumption, Naylor (1964) found that persons prefer mformation sources with less vanance m a decision task Where empincal vahdation IS hkely, vanancje preference is not ehcited, and less vanance should be effective m mducmg change However, when a person responds to stimuli which can be socially vahdated, as m the case of opinion matters (Rule & Renner, 1968), mformation about others'opmions is relevant Matters of opmion or attitudes for an adult are confirmed by his relevant peers, and cx>mpanson with others' views provides information regardmg acceptable hmits (Festmger, 1954) Because greater vanance gives information on the range of opmions, it should be preferred, thereby enhancmg conformity To examme these possibilities m the present study, subjects were exposed to four group members' opinions which differed m variance of agreement on neutral issues To mampulate the basis for judgments, instructions either mchcated that the task was one which was bemg used to establish norms (social validation) or that the task was one on which norms had been estabhshed (empmcal validation) It was expected that social validation conditions enhance conformity when vanance of others' opimons is greater, whereas empincal validation conditions enhance conformity when vanance of others' opmions is less.…”