Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research.

Abstract

Traditional (literary) reviews of research in social psychology are compared with a statistical approach. It is concluded on both abstract and practical grounds that adoption of the statistical approach would lead to theoretical progress for the research area covered. A meta-analysis "package" is described and then applied to the question of whether there are sex differences in degree of conformity. The meta-analysis is yoked to a literary analysis, and conclusions of differing direction and confidence appear. Problems in application are encountered, and appropriate courses of action are discussed. Finally, limitations on the power of the procedure are outlined.

Influence of primed social roles on gender differences in conformity

“…These results highlight the importance of examining gender roles in future conformity research. Overall, the results support recent research that indicates a subtle change in women's gender roles (Diekman & Eagly, 2000;Diekman & Goodfriend, 2006 A review of the literature on gender differences in conformity reveals a series of inconsistent results across studies (e.g., Collin, Di Sano, & Malik, 1994;Eagly, Wood, & Fishbaugh, 1981;Endler, 1966;Follingstad, 1979;Maslach, Santee, & Wade, 1987;Maupin & Fisher, 1989;Reysen & Reysen, 2004;Santee & Jackson, 1982;Sistrunk & McDavid, 1971) and meta-analyses (Cooper, 1979;Eagly, 1978;Eagly & Carli, 1981). While most researchers argue that there is little evidence to suggest that women always conform more than men, most researchers find at least some evidence to support the idea that women conform more than men sometimes or in some situations.…”

“…An examination of the literature on gender differences in conformity reveals a string of inconsistent results (e.g., Cooper, 1979;Eagly, 1978;Eagly & Carli, 1981). Some studies support the idea that women conform more than men, while other studies find no gender differences.…”

“…These results suggest that gender differences are more likely to appear in group pressure conformity contexts, however, the tally method may not provide an accurate picture of the results as it does not take effect size of the results into account. Cooper (1979) made the first attempt to average the effect sizes of studies on gender differences in conformity. Articles from a previous literature review on gender differences in conformity (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) were utilized and an average effect size across the studies was calculated.…”

Positive and Negative Opinion Modeling: The Influence of Another's Similarity and Dissimilarity.

“…Most social influence research, whether involving conformity (e.g., Cooper, 1979;Thelen, Frautschi, Roberts, Kirkland, & Dollinger, 1981), compliance techniques (e.g., Cialdini, 2001), or modeling (e.g., Bandura, 1986;Flanders, 1968), has been concerned with influence in the positive direction, that is, with factors that make it more likely a person will adopt an attitude or perform a behavior similar to that of others (hereafter referred to as positive modeling). Although the reasons model-observer similarity augments positive modeling are not fully understood, informational and normative influences are likely involved.…”

Assessing ‘what works’ in international development: meta-analysis for sophisticated dummies

“…Statistical tests have been developed based on the same insight (Egger, Harbord and Peters tests). Another approach has been to identify the 'fail-safe' N or number of additional studies with negative results that would be necessary to increase the P-value for the meta-analysis to above 0.05 (Cooper 1979, Rosenthal 1979, Orwin 1983, Becker 2006). …”