Facebook Conformity and Consensus Gender as a Factor in Conformity

Facebook Conformity and Consensus: Gender as a Factor in Conformity

Name

Florida International University

Psy 3215

Methods Study Two

Participants

Nine hundred and fifty-seven participants (n=957) were selected for them to participate in this particular study of Facebook consensus. Out of the 957 participants, 39.3% (n= 376) were male and 60.7% (n= 581) were female. Ages that were sampled from this experiment were between the age of 12 to 81 with an average of 26.27 years (SD = 9.83). Our participants were also from different races with 20.9% Caucasian (n = 200), 20% African Americans (n = 191), 54.1% Hispanic American (n = 518), 3.2% Asian American (n = 31), 0.9% Native American (n= 9) and 0.8% others (n= 8). See Appendix A

Methods and procedures

The respondents to this research were enlightened on the contents of the study as they had a right to know before participation. They were allowed to know what the research entailed and what was expected from them in line with the standard guidelines that are mentioned in the informed consent that the participants were to sign. Through the research and particulars for ethical participation of respondents in this study, the respondents were informed of the benefits as well as the risks that were involved as a result of their association in the study. The students in this study were provided with three different documents upon giving their consent for participation verbally. These consents were acknowledged after having exposed the students to the research materials and extensive explanations on what was expected of the students as respondents of this particular study. The three documents that were given to these students had five different parts with the first part of the documents being a study scenario that was similar in all three documents but with different conditions. The study part of these documents provided for a short story on Facebook that focused on a student taking her exam by the name Abigail. The post on Facebook as a short story on Abigail was no extraordinary although it attracted several mixed reactions. The story elucidates on how Abigail was going to take a test that she had not yet been prepared and had her panicking with fear of failure in this particular test. She was however handed the answers key in the process of handing the exam sheets by the professor, hence getting all the answers for the exam which led to her passing the exam. Since one of the students in the exam had a perfect score the professor had considered curving the graph pass mark so as to allow more students to pass. There was also another individual Adam, with the same scenario as Abigail. The study scenario in each of the documents had similar scenarios at the beginning although with alternate conditions that included the supporting and mixed reactions of the situation. And it was these alternate conditions that developed different outcomes as their results.

The support conditions developed arguments and opinions of people who viewed the act of Abigail as to have nothing wrong. The responses to Abigail’s post were only different in that they reflected the opinion of others based on how she received the answer key that in turn facilitated her passing of the paper that she was not prepared for. The support conditions of the documents showed individuals whose views were that Abigail/Adam had done nothing wrong hence she deserved to keep her grades as the situation was not an act of cheating. The mixed condition in the documents presented the views of respondents who viewed the situation at the exam room to as being lucky for Abigail/Adam and thus she should keep the grades instead of complicating issues by going to the professor to explain how things had unfolded. These respondents were of the view that going to the professor would get her in trouble thus she should just the grades. A section of respondents in the mixed reaction conditions was of the similar view that Abigail might have been lucky although they advocated for her not taking the grades as it would have been unfair to other classmates who had worked extra hard to ensure that they were prepared for the exam. Thus, this group of commenters explained how Abigail or Adam should not take the grades.

Without the option of reviewing these scenarios, the research participants were directed to the next part of the research that was developed as a questionnaire. This part of the research was made up of questions that were based on the scenarios from the study part. This part of the research had a series of questions that comprised of open-ended, partial and close-ended questions that were to be answered appropriately by the participants of the study. On a Likert scale in this second part, the students had been presented with seven possibilities that they were required to make assumptions on intensity and strength of these choices on a continuum of 1 representing strongly disagree to 6 representing strongly agree.

The third part of the documents required the evaluation of the participants anchoring their response to strongly disagree to strongly agree in the possibilities presents ion how one would rate their advice to be Abigail and how the participants would behave and respond if they were in Abigail’s situation whereby they received the answer key instead. With the rating system anchored to 1= strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree, the participants were provided with 11 options listed that they were required to rate.

The fourth part of this study in the questionnaire field was determined in the section that required the participants to provide for their demographic information for purposes of analyzing with consent and for the purpose of securing a person’s information and privacy the participants were given the options of prefer not to answer questions that made them feel uncomfortable as well as the option of open self-describing oneself especially in providing gender information. The demographic survey develops more of personal questions that include questions on age, ethnicity, gender, if they were students at Florida International University, if English was their first language and their relationship status. The final part of the documents part five was developed to give options for general remarks from the participants. Marking X on the feedback part was viewed as appropriate with remarks being between support of Abigail’s behavior, opposing her behavior and even if the feedback had mixed opinions.

Although the research had a number of dependent variables, this research focused on investigating a single variable that was to examine if the reaction of the participants towards Abigail’s story would be influenced by the comment they read and if gender played a role on the conformity. The research anticipated that the participants who were exposed to supporting comments of Abigail’s behavior were likely to support her as well so as to be given the grade, whereas those exposed to the negative comments on her actions were likely to oppose the actions of Abigail viewing them as wrong thus the need for her not to accept the grades. Gender was also likely to influence the people’s comments on the post

Results

Using the survey conditions, support vs. mixed, which were the independent variables, as well as the assessments that were given to participants on both Adam’s and Abigail’s post as dependent variable. The participants who read the support comments on Abigail’s post, supported Abigail and had positive outlook towards her behavior. Most of those who supported her also pointed out the fact that they would just make the same decision as Abigail. Those who read the mixed reactions on Abigail’s post were also not bent on any particular side their answers were balanced. Adam however, received much critic as compared to Abigail. Most believed that Adam’s actions were not ethical including those that had read positive comments. Most people who took Ada’s survey believed that he should have returned the answer sheet to the professor. 480 participants which was 50.2% were in support while 477, 49.8% of the population were Mixed. Using the Chi square test of two variables presented, X2(2) = 25.729, p<.05. indicated a close association. The results indicated that those with supportive comments also would receive supportive comments from their friends. The use of Phi and Cramer’s V also proved an association that existed whereby r= 0.369, p<0.05(See Appendix B).

One-Way ANOVA portrayed differences in dependent variables on the conditions presented. People were also swayed by gender as male individual conformity was different as compared to the female, F (30, 926) = 1.17, p = .246. Initial prediction from the research was that participants were likely to be affected by the comments on the post they read first as well as the gender of the Facebook user. The Post Hoc test supported hypothesis that participants were more than likely to support Abigail in support condition (M = 5.41, SD = 0.767) while for Adam (M= 5.474, SD= 0.573). For the mixed condition for Abigail (M = 4.03, SD = 1.447) while for Adam it was (M = 6.49, SD =0.733) (See Appendix C).

Discussion

We predicted in this study that for Abigail’s post, those who got the Support survey were likely to also support Abigail’s action. Equally, we predicted that Adam was likely to receive more opposition as compared to Abigail. AS hypothesized, Abigail got support from those who had read the support post first. However, for Adam, most though that he ought to have returned the answer sheet. This was in support of hypothesis that when gender is a variable in conformity, people are likely to be more biased towards the male than the female.

Those who found that Abigail’s behavior was okay were also likely to take the same actions as her. Generally, this study proved that gender was a key factor on Facebook conformity. People were more empathetic on the female than on the male. While Adam had a higher number of reactions against his actions, Abigail’s post had higher number of people who supported her action.

Appendix

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Participant gender 957 1 2 1.61 .489

Participant age 957 12.00 81.00 26.2727 9.83067

Participant race/ethnicity? 957 1 6 2.46 .943

Valid N (listwise) 957 Participant gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Male 376 39.3 39.3 39.3

Female 581 60.7 60.7 100.0

Total 957 100.0 100.0 Participant race/ethnicity?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Caucasian 200 20.9 20.9 20.9

African American 191 20.0 20.0 40.9

Hispanic American 518 54.1 54.1 95.0

Asian American 31 3.2 3.2 98.2

Native American 9 .9 .9 99.2

Other 8 .8 .8 100.0

Total 957 100.0 100.0 Participant gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Male 376 39.3 39.3 39.3

Female 581 60.7 60.7 100.0

Total 957 100.0 100.0 Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

I Condition 957 1.00 2.00 1.4984 .50026

Valid N (listwise) 957 I Condition

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Support 480 50.2 50.2 50.2

Mixed 477 49.8 49.8 100.0

Total 957 100.0 100.0 What is your relationship status?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Single / No Relationship 450 47.0 47.0 47.0

In a relationship 507 53.0 53.0 100.0

Total 957 100.0 100.0 Part II Their behavior was wrong

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 1 103 10.8 10.8 10.8

2 94 9.8 9.8 20.6

3 188 19.6 19.6 40.2

4 168 17.6 17.6 57.8

5 125 13.1 13.1 70.8

6 279 29.2 29.2 100.0

Total 957 100.0 100.0 Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Part III: They seems warm 957 1 6 3.67 1.382

Valid N (listwise) 957 Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Part II Their behavior was wrong 957 1 6 4.00 1.690

Part II Their behavior was reasonable 957 1 6 3.11 1.520

Part II Their behavior was immoral 957 1 6 3.93 1.631

Part II Their behavior was unacceptable 957 1 6 3.93 1.624

Valid N (listwise) 957 What is your relationship status?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Single / No Relationship 450 47.0 47.0 47.0

In a relationship 507 53.0 53.0 100.0

Total 957 100.0 100.0 Part II Their behavior was wrong

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 1 103 10.8 10.8 10.8

2 94 9.8 9.8 20.6

3 188 19.6 19.6 40.2

4 168 17.6 17.6 57.8

5 125 13.1 13.1 70.8

6 279 29.2 29.2 100.0

Total 957 100.0 100.0 Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Part III: They seems warm 957 1 6 3.67 1.382

Valid N (listwise) 957 Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Part II Their behavior was wrong 957 1 6 4.00 1.690

Part II Their behavior was reasonable 957 1 6 3.11 1.520

Part II Their behavior was immoral 957 1 6 3.93 1.631

Part II Their behavior was unacceptable 957 1 6 3.93 1.624

Valid N (listwise) 957 Self esteem, higher score = higher self esteem

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 10.00 88 9.2 9.2 9.2

11.00 36 3.8 3.8 13.0

12.00 46 4.8 4.8 17.8

13.00 55 5.7 5.7 23.5

14.00 46 4.8 4.8 28.3

15.00 43 4.5 4.5 32.8

16.00 42 4.4 4.4 37.2

17.00 43 4.5 4.5 41.7

18.00 42 4.4 4.4 46.1

19.00 49 5.1 5.1 51.2

20.00 70 7.3 7.3 58.5

21.00 49 5.1 5.1 63.6

22.00 45 4.7 4.7 68.3

23.00 38 4.0 4.0 72.3

24.00 64 6.7 6.7 79.0

25.00 70 7.3 7.3 86.3

26.00 38 4.0 4.0 90.3

27.00 18 1.9 1.9 92.2

28.00 16 1.7 1.7 93.8

29.00 9 .9 .9 94.8

30.00 14 1.5 1.5 96.2

31.00 7 .7 .7 97.0

32.00 3 .3 .3 97.3

33.00 4 .4 .4 97.7

34.00 2 .2 .2 97.9

35.00 5 .5 .5 98.4

36.00 2 .2 .2 98.6

37.00 4 .4 .4 99.1

38.00 2 .2 .2 99.3

39.00 2 .2 .2 99.5

40.00 5 .5 .5 100.0

Total 957 100.0 100.0 Self esteem, higher score = higher self esteem

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 10.00 88 9.2 9.2 9.2

11.00 36 3.8 3.8 13.0

12.00 46 4.8 4.8 17.8

13.00 55 5.7 5.7 23.5

14.00 46 4.8 4.8 28.3

15.00 43 4.5 4.5 32.8

16.00 42 4.4 4.4 37.2

17.00 43 4.5 4.5 41.7

18.00 42 4.4 4.4 46.1

19.00 49 5.1 5.1 51.2

20.00 70 7.3 7.3 58.5

21.00 49 5.1 5.1 63.6

22.00 45 4.7 4.7 68.3

23.00 38 4.0 4.0 72.3

24.00 64 6.7 6.7 79.0

25.00 70 7.3 7.3 86.3

26.00 38 4.0 4.0 90.3

27.00 18 1.9 1.9 92.2

28.00 16 1.7 1.7 93.8

29.00 9 .9 .9 94.8

30.00 14 1.5 1.5 96.2

31.00 7 .7 .7 97.0

32.00 3 .3 .3 97.3

33.00 4 .4 .4 97.7

34.00 2 .2 .2 97.9

35.00 5 .5 .5 98.4

36.00 2 .2 .2 98.6

37.00 4 .4 .4 99.1

38.00 2 .2 .2 99.3

39.00 2 .2 .2 99.5

40.00 5 .5 .5 100.0

Total 957 100.0 100.0 Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Part III- I would advise them to keep silent 957 1 6 3.14 1.786

Part III: I would give them the same advice that their friends gave them 957 1 6 3.09 1.582

Part III: If I received the answers, I would confess 957 1 6 3.82 1.848

Part III:They seems good-natured 957 1 6 3.64 1.391

Part III: They seems competitive 957 1 6 3.09 1.538

Valid N (listwise) 957 Part III- I would advise them to keep silent

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 1 263 27.5 27.5 27.5

2 129 13.5 13.5 41.0

3 178 18.6 18.6 59.6

4 137 14.3 14.3 73.9

5 100 10.4 10.4 84.3

6 150 15.7 15.7 100.0

Total 957 100.0 100.0 Part III: I would give them the same advice that their friends gave them

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 1 215 22.5 22.5 22.5

2 132 13.8 13.8 36.3

3 245 25.6 25.6 61.9

4 182 19.0 19.0 80.9

5 84 8.8 8.8 89.7

6 99 10.3 10.3 100.0

Total 957 100.0 100.0 Appendix B

ANOVA

Sum of Squares do Mean Square F Sig.

IVProfilegenderBetween Groups 6.406 30 .214 .849 .700

Within Groups 232.823 926 .251 Total 239.229 956 Manipulation check for profile gender Between Groups 12.629 30 .421 1.167 .246

Within Groups 333.899 926 .361 Total 346.529 956 IVConditionBetween Groups 7.073 30 .236 .940 .560

Within Groups 232.175 926 .251 Total 239.248 956 Participant age for use as IV Between Groups 9.323 30 .311 1.259 .161

Within Groups 228.534 926 .247 Total 237.858 956 Participant gender Between Groups 7.577 30 .253 1.060 .380

Within Groups 220.695 926 .238 Total 228.272 956 Participant race/ethnicity? Between Groups 24.158 30 .805 .903 .617

Within Groups 825.462 926 .891 Total 849.620 956 Is English your first language? Between Groups 5.423 30 .181 .762 .818

Within Groups 219.645 926 .237 Total 225.068 956 What is your relationship status? Between Groups 12.489 30 .416 1.706 .011

Within Groups 225.912 926 .244 Total 238.401 956 Part II Their behavior was wrong Between Groups 141.084 30 4.703 1.681 .013

Within Groups 2590.912 926 2.798 Total 2731.996 956 Appendix C

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Participant age for use as IV 957 1.00 2.00 1.4619 .49880

Participant age 957 12.00 81.00 26.2727 9.83067

Participant gender 957 1 2 1.61 .489

Participant race/ethnicity? 957 1 6 2.46 .943

Is English your first language? 957 1 2 1.38 .485

What is your relationship status? 957 1 2 1.53 .499

Valid N (listwise) 957 Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Part II Their behavior was wrong 957 1 6 4.00 1.690

Part II Their behavior was reasonable 957 1 6 3.11 1.520

Part II Their behavior was immoral 957 1 6 3.93 1.631

Part II Their behavior was unacceptable 957 1 6 3.93 1.624

Valid N (listwise) 957 ANOVA

Sum of Squares dfMean Square F Sig.

Part II Their behavior was wrong Between Groups 141.084 30 4.703 1.681 .013

Within Groups 2590.912 926 2.798 Total 2731.996 956 Part II Their behavior was reasonable Between Groups 100.849 30 3.362 1.477 .048

Within Groups 2108.188 926 2.277 Total 2209.037 956 Part II Their behavior was immoral Between Groups 114.195 30 3.806 1.452 .056

Within Groups 2428.115 926 2.622 Total 2542.309 956 Part II Their behavior was unacceptable Between Groups 125.252 30 4.175 1.612 .020

Within Groups 2397.628 926 2.589 Total 2522.880 956