Article Review-Opinions, Bigger Brain, Natural

8/11/2019 Article Review-Opinions, Bigger Brain, Natural

1/4

Opinions and Social Pressure

Solomon Asch conducted various experiments pertaining to the effects of group pressure on an

individuals opinion and judgment. In the first experiment, seven to nine college students were placed in

a classroom and shown two cards: one with a single line, the other with three lines. The students were

asked to choose one line out of the three that matches the length of the single line. In the trials, most of

the group was instructed by the experimenter to choose specific lines, the lone dissenter was not. This

one individual was studied as he saw the other members choose different lines. Under this group

pressure, the dissenters made mistakes in 36.8% of the selections, while in ordinary circumstances they

only made mistakes 1% of the time. The control group was the group in ordinary circumstances; the

independent variable was the presence of a misleading group; the dependent variable was accuracy. In

the same experiment, mistakes were made more often when the size of the group increased. When a

dissenting partner was introduced, however, the accuracy increased. The experiment was further

tweaked with the dissenting partner agreeing for six trials and then joining the majority. The dissenter

made few mistakes in the first six trials but after the partner joined the majority, the dissenter made

many errors. This shows that group pressure can exert strong influence over an individuals opinion or

judgment. It also shows that when a partner is present who agrees with the individual, the individual

feels more confident about opposing the majority.

I found this article very interesting. I have always known about the mob-mentality concept, but I

have never realized how powerful it can be. The results of the experiment show that an individual can

be misled to make mistakes far more frequently than if the individual had acted in ordinary

circumstances (in the experiment conducted by Asch, the dissenters made mistakes 36.8% of the time

while under ordinary circumstances they made mistakes only 1% of the time). The overall methodology

seemed sound. The experiment was repeated many times and with many different scenarios. Each

experiment also had eighteen trials to record the dissenters accuracy. This aspect could have been


2/4

changed slightly. The number of trials could have been increased to give more accurate results. When

reading this article, various questions came to mind? How would multiple partners help the dissenters

confidence? How would gender and age play a role in the concept of group pressure? Do individuals

tend to agree more often with people from their own demographics/heritage? The experiment did not

violate any ethical issues.

More Experience=Bigger Brain

MR Rosenzweig and MC Diamond conducted the experiment that pertained to environmental

conditions and brain development. Rosenzweig and Diamond wanted to determine if nurturing an

individual in certain conditions would result in changes in the development of the brain. To test this,

twelve rats were obtained and placed in three separate environments: a normal environment with

standard conditions, an impoverished environment with no luxuries, and a large cage with objects for

sense stimulation. The independent variable was the environmental condition (the different cages)

while the dependent variable was brain development. The control group was the group of rats raised in

the normal cage. The experiment showed that with the more extravagant environment, there was an

increase in the weight and thickness of the cerebral cortex, as well as the size of neurons. Also, there

was more activity in the enzyme acetylcholinesterase.

I found this article to be pretty interesting. The results show that an environment can contribute

to or impair brain development. The methodology, however, could have been improved. The rats could

have been studied in more natural environments where resource-depleted and resource-abundant

areas can still be found. The rest of the methodology seemed sound since the researchers were able to

gather conclusive results. I agree with the conclusion of the article that brain development is affected by

environmental conditions. Actual results in brain developments were found, such as an increase in the

size of neurons and the size of the cerebral cortex. A few questions came to mind when reading the

article. To what extent did the environmental conditions affect brain development? Would humans


3/4

show the same increase in brain development and in the same areas? Is there a way to target specific

parts of the brain for development by introducing certain environmental conditions? The article did

raise some ethical issues. The rats were experimented on and some were subjected to impoverished

environments. This can be seen as a form of animal cruelty.

Are You a Natural

Lykken, Bouchard, McGue, Segal, and Tellegan conducted a case study in which twins who grew

up in different environments were examined. The case study served to examine if the twins had the

same genetic makeup and if they had similar personalities. The twins were all tested to examine their

specific preferences to determine differences and similarities. The results show that each genetically

identical twin was strikingly similar in personality and preferences to the other twin, despite being raised

in a different environment. This experiment shows that environment may not have as great a role in

shaping personality/preferences as previously thought. Though certain environments may be necessary

in brain development, specific aspects of personality/preferences are determined by genetic makeup,

unaffected by environmental conditions.

The article as a whole was quite surprising. I had always believed that environmental conditions

play a great role in shaping an individuals preferences and even personality. The article shows that this

in fact may not be true. The twins, despite being raised in different environments were astonishingly

similar to one another. This surprised me because it shows that genes can account for preferences and

that individuals may not have control over what they truly like. The methodology was based on finding

similarities and differences. One problem may have been over-extrapolation. If the researchers noted

many similarities that were common to society as a whole, genes may have had no bearing on the

similarity. If the researchers took this into account, however, the methodology would be sound. Each

twin was given many questions to assess similarities and differences. I agree with the conclusion as a

whole, but I am unsure as to what extent genes play in shaping personality. A few questions came to


4/4

mind when reading this article. Do these results hold true for individuals who have similar genetic

makeups ie siblings or parents and children? To what extent do genes affect our

personalities/preferences? Can strong enough environmental conditions change our personalities? Do

certain differences show what aspects of personality are not controlled by genetic makeup? There were

no ethical issues as the twins were separated at birth due to various external factors.

Documents

Article Review-Opinions, Bigger Brain, Natural