Create Conformity Game.md

tasks/Conformity Game.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+# Summary
+To test predictions that social influence in a two-dimensional social geometry results in consolidation, clustering, and continuing diversity, the Conformity Game, which rewarded individuals for adopting the same position as the majority in their group thus motivating individuals to change and maximizing social influence, was constructed.
+
+# References
+Paper: https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1996-01769-008.html#s7
+
+# Stimuli
+## The visual components
+![imagesConformityGame](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/89650778/137519156-a424565a-9f24-478e-8433-1bf090a74f78.jpg)
+
+# Procedure
+## Steps
+192 undergraduates who had been recruited by mail and told they would be paid for their participation completed one of two 2½-week, five-session studies via E-mail (19 additional participants started but did not complete the study). Participants were permanently assigned to membership in one of eight 24-person groups, four groups in November 1991 and four groups in March 1992. Each group played the Conformity Game four or eight times, each time with a different topic, equally often in each geometry. Thus there was a total of 48 instances in which a 24-person group discussed a topic through four rounds of electronic communication.
+
+All sessions took place in the Social Behavior Computer Laboratory at Florida Atlantic University, which at the time consisted of 12 personal computers linked in a Novell network. Participants were assigned specific times for their individual sessions. All communication was asynchronous, as it is in real-world E-mail networks. Participants were told the number of people in their electronic group and were informed that the other members in their group would come to the laboratory at different hours and the other people currently in the computer laboratory were not necessarily members of their group or even participants in the same study. Each participant could only communicate with four other group members, which limited the communcation to the social geometry of the group. Participants were able to send and/or receive messages among themselves at each of the five twice-weekly sessions, which were scheduled so that everyone would have finished sending their messages for a given round before anyone returned for the next session.
+
+There were four geometries of social space in the experiement:
+
+1. The Torus geometry consisted of a two-dimensional, equal-density surface in which each person has neighbors to the north, south, east, and west so that special effects due to borders were eliminated making this grid representative of larger populations. People who live at the top are considered to be neighbors of those at the bottom, and this cylinder is folded around so that those on the right and left are also considered to be neighbors.
+
+2. The Family geometry  consisted of six groups, each consisting of four interconnected persons. This can be thought of as a neighborhood of households, each consisting of a father, mother, daughter, and son.
+
+3. The Ribbon geometry connected each member with two nearest neighbors each to the left and to the right. This geometry is similar to individuals living along a road or on the banks of a river, with neighbors only on two sides and across the way.
+
+4. A control random zero-dimension structure, in which individual messages were routed to a random set of four other group members. Connections were randomly reassigned for each round of discussion. Links between members were not reciprocal.
+
+## Roles 
+Participants were randomly assigned groups and positions in social spaces.
+
+## Instructions
+Most instructions were provided via computer.
+1. Participants read this information while being randomly assigned to locations in a social space:
+
+This module is part of a study of electronic communication. In recent years the number of people using computers and electronic mail (E-mail) to communicate has grown at an incredible rate. It is possible that, by the turn of the century, computers in almost every home and workplace will be linked to national and international networks, allowing people to send and receive electronic messages efficiently and economically.
+
+What will these developments do to how we talk to each other? Some things are obvious—like the telephone, computers don't allow non-verbal messages like shrugs or smiles. Other things are less obvious—for example, the same message can be sent to several people at a time—and that's why we are doing this study.
+
+In this study you will send and receive mail on a variety of topics to the other participants. You will be talking to four people at a time: your messages will be sent to four people, and you will get four messages, sometimes from the same four people. The messages you send today will be read next time, when you will have a chance to read messages from four people, after which you will be able to send more messages.
+
+Press any key to continue …
+
+2. The task was presented to participants as follows:
+
+Welcome to E-Mail Feud
+
+Now you have the chance to win some money!
+
+We are interested in how well members of an electronic group can predict what everyone else is thinking. In order to find out, we have invented a little game. We will ask you to predict what the majority of people in the group are thinking on a topic. You make a prediction, and on the next session you will find out what others in the group thought. Then you can revise your choice. If, at the end, you are right, you can win an extra bonus of $1.00 for each question in which you succeed in predicting the right answer.
+
+Ready? Here we go …
+
+3. Participants were then prompted to choose between two alternatives as their initial position:
+
+Now, see if you can predict the mathematician (Euler or Hilbert) which the majority of your groupmates will choose. For an additional $1.00, on the final session the most popular mathematician will be?___(Choose E or H)
+How strongly do you feel about this (1 = not strongly to 7 = very strongly)?
+
+4. Participants entered their initial prediction (in many cases it was a blind guess) by pressing either the letter E or the letter H and a number (between 1 and 7) indicating their degree of conviction. The word “SENDING …” then appeared briefly on the screen, followed by “SENT,” and one round of communication on that topic was completed. The next round of communication took place at the next session, 2 or 5 days later. On subsequent days, participants were reminded of their choice in the previous session and were shown the choices their neighbors had made. They were then allowed to make a new choice.
+
+Last time you said “Hilbert ”
+Person A said “Euler ” with conviction 6
+Person C said “Euler ” with conviction 7
+Person F said “Hilbert ” with conviction 7
+Person W said “Euler ” with conviction 6
+
+# Criteria
+## Performance calculation
+Percent change and confidence level, from 1 to 7, were independent variables and number of opposing messages was a dependent variable. Although expressed conviction declined continuously with increased numbers of people providing an opposing message, change was much less linear. As expected, very few people (less than 3% overall) changed when 4, 3, or even 2 others agreed with their position. However, when they received three or more opposing messages, substantially higher percentages (59%) of individuals changed their choice. Although individuals were surprisingly stubborn, weighting their own opinions highly even when faced with unanimous opposition, they were generally quite responsive to social influence.
+
+## Incentives
+Each participant recieved a base payment, and then was paid $1 for predicting each answer of the majority.