Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1970, Vol. 14, No. 3, 224-226
CONFORMITY AS A FUNCTION OF DECEPTION
AND ROLE PLAYING
IRWIN A. HOROWITZ 1 AND BERTRAM H. ROTHSCHILD
University of Toledo
An experimental comparison between deception and two variants of role
playing, prebriefed and forewarned, was made employing an Asch-type con-
formity design. Ninety male subjects were assigned to one of six conditions
in a 3 X 2 factorial design combining three levels of information disclosure
(deceived, prebriefed, and forewarned) with two levels of group size. The
results indicated that the prebriefed variant of role playing yielded significantly
less conformity than either the forewarned role players or the deceived subjects.
The forewarned and deceived groups yielded comparable results. A postexperi-
mental questionnaire revealed that forewarned subjects were less suspicious
than either deceived or prebriefed subjects.
The question of whether role playing can he employed, Willis and Willis (1969) re-
be employed as an alternative method for ported that role-playing subjects did not
deception in social psychological experiments duplicate a more subtle difference exhibited
has recently been subjected to empirical in- by the deceived subjects.
quiry. Greenberg (1967) used a role-playing The role-playing techniques utilized by the
technique to replicate Schachter's finding that two experiments differed in the amount of
anxiety increases affiliative tendencies. Instead information disclosed to the subjects. Willis
of deceiving his subjects, Greenberg (1967) and Willis (1969), in noting this difference,
asked them to act as if the experimental situa- termed their technique the prebriefing variant.
tion were real. Given this requirement, the Using this method, the deceptions inherent in
subjects were not affected by the experimental
the experiment were explained in great detail
manipulation of anxiety. Subjects' perceived
to the role-playing subjects. Greenberg (1967)
anxiety levels, however, were affected by the
experimental manipulations, and Schachter's utilized a technique which informed the sub-
findings that ordinal position of birth and jects that they were to act as if the situa-
level of anxiety are related to affiliation need tion were real but the elaborate and detailed
were replicated (Greenberg, 1967). description of the experimental manipulations
The Greenberg experiment was not, how- were omitted. Willis and Willis (1969) have
ever, a direct comparison of role playing and termed this latter technique the forewarning
deception for, as Willis and Willis (1969) variant of role playing.
pointed out, Greenberg did not include a The primary purpose of the present study
deception group in his design. Willis and was to determine by direct comparison, in a
Willis (1969) provided a direct comparison conformity experiment, the relative effective-
between the two techniques in a conformity ness of the prebriefed and forewarned variants
experiment. Their results reveal that while of role playing as compared to a deceived
an "obvious" main effect was exhibited by group.
both the role-playing and deception groups, a
more subtle interaction was observed only in METHOD
the experimental condition in which subjects Subjects
were deceived. Therefore, while Greenberg The subjects were 90 male subjects recruited from
(1967) found role playing to be useful within courses in education, sociology, and political science
the context of the experimental manipulations at the University of Toledo. Since a modification of
Asch (19S1) design was used and this design has
1
Requests for reprints should be sent to Irwin A. received a great deal of publicity, it was decided to
Horowitz, Department of Psychology, University of recruit only subjects who had not as yet taken the
Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606. basic psychology course.
224
CONFORMITY AS A FUNCTION OF DECEPTION AND ROLE PLAYING 225
Procedure important that you take your role seriously and
that you act as if this were a real situation [p.153].
The procedure was a modification of one reported
by Gerard, Wilhclmy, and Conolley (1968). Subjects Subjects were then given the brief instructions
were seated in separate but adjacent cubicles. Sub- given to the deceived group and the experiment
jects viewed the same stimuli on a screen placed IS began.
feet away. The subject's task was to choose one of
three comparison lines that matched a standard. Group Size
Each subject had in front of him a control board Subjects were run in groups of three or five. In.
on which he could see the response of the other the condition containing three subjects the subject
subjects in the experiment. These responses were therefore had an apparent majority of two people
controlled by the experimenter. Prior to the experi- making a false judgment while the condition cm-
ment each subject drew from a bowl a slip of paper ploying five subjects had, therefore, a majority of
indicating which turn he would take in making four arraying against the subject.
judgments. Each subject was informed by the slip Group size was manipulated to determine if the
of paper that he would be the last to respond. In role-playing techniques could duplicate the increase
accordance with Asch's (19S2) study 24 trials were in conformity manifested as a result of increase
run; 14 of them were designated as critical in which in group size (Gerard, Wilhelmy, & Conolley, 1968).
the judgments of the others were in disagreement
with reality. Summary of Design
Experimental Manipulations The design, then, was a 2 X 3 factorial combining
2 levels of group size with 3 levels of information
The subjects, upon arrival in the laboratory, disclosure.
were randomly assigned to one of six experimental
conditions. Postexperimental Questionnaire
Suspicion was assessed by a questionnaire which
Level of Disclosure: Deception was not identified as emanating from the experi-
Subjects in this condition were told only that the menter. Subjects were contacted by phone the day
experiment was concerned with judgment of physical after the experiment and were informed that the
stimuli. caller was interested in assessing their reactions to
the experiments in which they had been participants.
Role Playing, Prebriejed Several filler items were read over the phone and the
subject was asked to respond verbally to the ques-
The nature and purpose of the experiment was tions on 7-point scales. The critical item was whether
fully disclosed to the subjects in this condition. The or not the subject thought that in the current experi-
deception group was described and subjects were ment the investigator had told him the truth
told that in fact the responses of the "others" concerning the purpose of the experiment.
recorded on their control board were controlled by
the experimenter. Following Willis and Willis (1969) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
the subject was then instructed to:
An analysis of variance revealed that
Assume the role of a naive subject—that is, one both main effects, levels of disclosure
who has not had the deception explained to him—
and I will read you the exact instructions pre- (F = 9.71, J/-2/84, p<.01) and group
sented to such naive subjects in the other condition size (^=14.67, df = 1/84, p< .01), were
of the experiment. Your job is to act as if you significant. The interaction did not, how-
were in that other experimental condition fp. V], ever, reach significance (F = 2.69, df = 2/84,
Subjects were told that it was very important p< .08).
that they take their role seriously and then they were As Table 1 indicates, a Newman-Keuls test
told that this was an experiment concerned with performed on the combined means reveals that
judgment of physical stimuli. both the deceived and forewarned groups
manifested more conformity than did the pre-
Role Playing, Forewarned
briefed role-playing subjects. A subsidiary
Following Greenberg (1967), subjects were given analysis utilizing the Newman-Keuls test re-
the following instructions:
vealed that while level of disclosure did not
I'd like your cooperation in an experiment in- significantly affect conformity scores when the
volving role-playing. In role-playing the persons group size was 5 + 2 , both the deceived and
involved act or make believe that they are in a
particular situation. What I'd like to do is to
forewarned groups exhibited greater conform-
play the role of subjects in an experiment, and ity (p < .01) than the prebriefed group when
I will play the role of the experimenter. It's very the majority was increased to four.
226 IEWIN A. HOROWITZ AND BERTRAM H. ROTHSCHILD
Table 1 shows that the deceived and fore- TABLE 2
warned groups yield comparable results. Both MEAN RESPONSES FOR ALL EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS
groups demonstrate an increase in conformity FOR THE POSTEXPERIMENTAL QUESTION, "To WHAT
EXTENT Do You THINK THE EXPERIMENTER
when the majority is increased to four that TOLD THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE
is not exhibited by the prebriefed group. The PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENT?"
comparison between the prebriefed and de-
Condition
ceived group indicating a significant difference
in conformity with an increase in group size Deception Prebriefed Forewarned
would appear to support the Willis and Willis
(1969) finding that prebriefed subjects do 5 +2 4.26 4.13 2.93
5+2 4.60 3.86 3.13
not manifest the more subtle findings exhibited Combined 4.43a 3.99ab 3.03b
by deceived subjects.
A 2 X 2 analysis of variance involving the Note.—H = 15 in each cell. Means without common sub-
scripts are significantly different at the .05 level by Newman-
forewarned and debriefed role-playing groups ICeuls test. The higher the score the less the subjects believed
the experimenter.
showed that both main effects, levels of dis-
closure (F = 18.48, df = 1/56, p < .01) and
group did not lower their suspiciousness. In
group size (F - 12, rf/=]/S6, / > < .01),
the forewarned condition, the instructions
were significant. Also, the analysis of this
appeared to act in a manner that established
subdesign revealed a significant interaction
(F = 4.47, df = 1/56, p < .05). the trustworthiness of the investigator.
While further investigation concerning the
An analysis of variance performed on the
relative utility of various kinds of role play-
data presented by Table 2 revealed that re-
ing in a variety of experimental circumstances
sponses to the postexperimental item were sig-
is clearly needed, it does appear that the
nificantly affected by the levels of disclosure
forewarned variant has been an effective
(F=5.10, d/ = 2/84, p<.05). This was
substitute for deception in both the Greenberg
the only significant finding. As Table 2 indi-
(1967) experiment and the present study. The
cates, the significance is due to the fact that
forewarned variant appears to mitigate the
forewarned subjects had more faith that the
ethical pitfalls of deception without vitiating
experimenter was telling the truth concerning
the experimental realism of the manipulations.
the experiment than either the deceived or
prebriefed groups. REFERENCES
Anecdotal evidence from the postexperi- ASCII, S. E. Effects of group pressure upon the
mental interview indicated that telling sub- modification and distortion of judgments. In H.
jects the details pertaining to the deceived Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men.
Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 1951.
TABLE 1 Ascn, S. E. Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs,
MEAN NUMBER OP ERRORS FOR 14 CRITICAL TRIALS N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1952.
FOR ALL EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS GERARD, H. B., WILHELMY, R. A., & CONOLLEY, E. S.
Conformity and group size. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1968, 8, 79-82.
Group size GREENBERG, M. S. Role playing: An alternative to
Deception Prebriefed Forewarned deception? Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 1967, 7, 152-157.
5 +2 2.46 1.48 2.25 WILLIS, R. H., & WILLIS, V. A. Role playing versus
5 +4 3.46 1.93 4.20 deception: An experimental comparison. Paper
Combined 2.96a 1.70b 3.22a
presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psy-
Note.—n = 15 In each cell. Means not having common sub-
chological Association, Chicago, May 1969.
scripts are significantly different at the .05 level by Newman-
Keuls test. (Received May 26, 1969)
