Altruism is defined as "unselfish regard or devotion to the welfare of others. "

Full Answer Section

What did the experimenters conclude based on the results of the study?

Based on the results, Sherif concluded that in situations of ambiguity and uncertainty, individuals are highly susceptible to social influence, leading to the formation of group norms. When there is no objective reality to anchor one's perceptions, people look to others for guidance and information, leading to a convergence of judgments. This process is a form of informational social influence, where individuals conform because they believe others' interpretations are more accurate than their own.

Sherif's key findings highlighted that:

• Group norms emerge quickly: Even within a few trials, a collective estimate solidified.
• Group norms persist: Once established, these norms are internalized by individuals and continue to influence their judgments even when they are no longer in the group setting. This demonstrated that the conformity was not merely public compliance but actual private acceptance.
• Social reality is constructed: In the absence of an objective physical reality, people collaboratively construct a social reality that then guides individual perceptions.

This experiment provided fundamental insights into how social influence can shape individual perceptions and behaviors, particularly when individuals are uncertain about the correct course of action or interpretation.

Do you think there were any biases or flaws in the design of the experiment? What is the potential impact of these flaws?

While Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Experiment was groundbreaking and influential, it certainly had some biases and potential flaws in its design:

1. High Ambiguity of the Stimulus (Inherent Limitation):

   • Flaw: The entire experiment relies on the highly ambiguous nature of the autokinetic effect. Participants genuinely didn't know how far the light "moved."
   • Potential Impact: While this was crucial for demonstrating informational social influence (people seeking information from others), it limits the generalizability to situations where there is a clear, objective reality. It doesn't tell us much about conformity when the correct answer is obvious (which Asch's experiment later addressed). The findings might be less applicable to real-world scenarios where people conform despite knowing the correct answer or having strong personal convictions.

2. Lack of Ecological Validity / Artificial Lab Setting:

   • Flaw: The experiment was conducted in a highly controlled and artificial laboratory environment (a dark room with a single point of light). This scenario is very different from everyday social interactions.
   • Potential Impact: The findings might not fully translate to more complex, dynamic, and realistic social situations where people are influenced by a multitude of factors, not just an ambiguous perceptual task. The pressure to conform in a group task where there's no real-world consequence might be different from conforming in a high-stakes social situation.

3. Demand Characteristics:

   • Flaw: Participants in psychological experiments are often aware they are being studied and might try to figure out the "purpose" of the experiment. In this case, participants might have inferred that the experiment was about how their judgments would align with others.
   • Potential Impact: If participants suspected the experiment's goal was to observe conformity, they might have deliberately adjusted their answers to "help" the experimenter, or to appear cooperative, rather than genuinely internalizing the group norm. This could inflate the observed conformity effect.

4. Limited Participant Diversity:

   • Flaw: Like many early psychology experiments, Sherif primarily used male college students from a specific cultural background.
   • Potential Impact: The findings' generalizability across different cultures, genders, age groups, and social contexts is limited. Cultural norms around individualism vs. collectivism, for example, could significantly alter conformity rates or how norms are formed. The "group" in the experiment was also very small and temporary, not reflecting complex, long-standing social groups.

5. Ethical Considerations (Minor Deception):

   • Flaw: Participants were deceived about the true nature of the light's movement (i.e., that it wasn't actually moving).
   • Potential Impact: While considered mild deception for the time, any deception can raise ethical concerns about informed consent and the potential erosion of trust in psychological research. Participants might feel misled after debriefing, which could affect their willingness to participate in future studies.

Despite these flaws, Sherif's experiment remains a cornerstone of social psychology, providing a foundational understanding of how social norms emerge and influence individual behavior in ambiguous contexts. The flaws, however, highlight the importance of considering methodological limitations when interpreting and generalizing research findings.

Sample Answer

Muzafer Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Experiment (1935)

Experiment Description:

Sherif's experiment explored how social norms develop and influence individual judgments when faced with an ambiguous stimulus. The core of the experiment involved the autokinetic effect, a perceptual phenomenon where a stationary point of light in a completely dark room appears to move. Because there are no stable reference points, individuals cannot accurately judge the actual movement; their perception is entirely subjective.

Methodology:

1. Individual Phase: Participants were first placed alone in a dark room and asked to estimate how far the light moved. Each participant established a consistent range of judgment (their "personal norm").
2. Group Phase: Participants were then placed in groups of two or three (often after the individual phase, though some started in groups). They were again asked to estimate the light's movement aloud.
3. Observation: Sherif observed that over several trials, the individual estimates of the light's movement within each group converged towards a common estimate. This group norm was distinct from the individual norms established in the solitary phase.
4. Second Individual Phase (Optional): Some participants were then placed alone again after the group phase. Sherif found that their individual judgments continued to reflect the group norm they had established, even in the absence of the group.