Modification of Children's Judgments by a Simulated Group Technique: A Normative Developmental Study

Iscoe, Ira; Williams, Martha E.; Harvey, Jerry B.

doi:10.2307/1126539

Cited by 22 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Costanzo and Shaw (1966) found that conformity increased from ages 7-9 to ages 11-13 and then decreased. Iscoe, Williams, and Harvey (1963) also reported increasing conformity from ages 7 through 12 in both boys and girls. Girls then decreased in conformity by age 15, but conformity in boys increased at least through age 15.…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social influence as a function of stimulus ambiguity at three age levels.

Hoving¹,

Hamm²,

Galvin³

1969

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children in Grades 2, 5, and 8 were required to determine which of two sides of a projected slide had the greater number of dots. Slides on which similar-age children had made correct judgments approximately 50%, 80%, and 98% of the time under noninfluence conditions were employed. The magnitude of peer influence was assessed both with and without a correction for error rate. The results revealed that peer influence varied with the ambiguity of the task and the age of the subjects. Conformity on unambiguous slides was negatively related to age, whereas conformity to completely ambiguous slides was positively related to age. The task that was of intermediate ambiguity revealed conformity to be a nonmonotonic function of age.Several recent articles have reported a nonmonotonic relationship between conformity and age. Costanzo and Shaw (1966) found that conformity increased from ages 7-9 to ages 11-13 and then decreased. Iscoe, Williams, and Harvey (1963) also reported increasing conformity from ages 7 through 12 in both boys and girls. Girls then decreased in conformity by age 15, but conformity in boys increased at least through age 15.These findings are in marked contrast to those reported by Berenda (1950), who found significantly less conformity in a group of 10-to 13-year-old children than in a group of 7-to 10-year-old children. Moving (1964) also found more conformity in second-grade (age 7) than fourth-grade (age 9) children. Moving, Hamm, andRoehl (1967) have suggested that differences in task ambiguity may be responsible for these conflicting results. The tasks used in these studies differed in terms of the clarity with J P.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 84%

“…The tasks employed by Costanzo and Shaw (1966) and Iscoe et al (1963) seem to be at least partially ambiguous and hence 631 involved only minimal conflict for the subject. The tasks employed by Berenda (1950) and Moving (1964) were, by contrast, clearly unambiguous and hence presented a clear-cut conflict situation to the subject.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social influence as a function of stimulus ambiguity at three age levels.

Hoving¹,

Hamm²,

Galvin³

1969

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The developmental literature on normative and informational social influence applying Asch's classical paradigm (Asch, 1958;Crutchfield, 1955) has mostly found an inverted developmental function, that is, an increase in the effects of social influence between the ages of 5 and 10 years (Constanzo & Shaw, 1966;Iscoe, Williams, & Harvey, 1963). Back in the 1960s, this age trend in conformity was interpreted as reflecting young children's difficulties in perceiving an unanimously wrong majority as threatening in terms of loss of companionship or status (Collins & Thomas, 1972).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social influence and children's event recall and suggestibility

Roebers

Schwarz

Neumann

2005

European Journal of Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Confor mity to peers in dress, mannerisms, percep tual judgments, and moral judgments peaks in early adolescence [C'oslanzo and Shaw, 1966;Gardner and Thompson, 1963], The subsequent decline in conformity [e.g., Iscoe et al, 1963;Landshaum and Willis, 1971] may allow for role differentiation in adult hood. Conformity in dress and ornamenta tion, which is institutionalized in virtually all cultures during puberty rites, would serve to promote conformity by virtue of the effect of similarity on modeling.…”

Section: Friction Between Adolescents and Adultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some Features of Human Adolescence Viewed in Evolutionary Perspective

Weisfeld

Berger

1983

Human Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This theoretical essay focuses on some of the apparently evolved features of human adolescence and their possible functions. These include the pubertal growth spurt, sexual size dimorphism and bimaturism, the greater aggressiveness of males, heightened concern with one’s social standing and the factors affecting it, intergenerational friction, same-sex aggregations and solidarity, conformity, and interest in infants especially by girls. Evidence for an evolved basis for these traits is derived from cross-cultural, comparative, hormonal, and developmental research. The point is made that these types of research have a potential for revealing the universal features, and hence the essential nature, of adolescence.

show abstract

Modification of Children's Judgments by a Simulated Group Technique: A Normative Developmental Study

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Social influence as a function of stimulus ambiguity at three age levels.

Social influence as a function of stimulus ambiguity at three age levels.

Social influence and children's event recall and suggestibility

Some Features of Human Adolescence Viewed in Evolutionary Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About