The Conformity in the Staffroom
A school introduces a new marking policy. In a staff meeting, the principal asks each of 12 teachers in turn whether they support the policy. The first five teachers, all senior staff seated at the front, say they support it strongly. The remaining seven teachers, seated at the back, are then asked. Six of them say they support it; one says she has concerns. In a follow-up anonymous survey, only three of the twelve report support. The principal concludes the policy has broad staff backing.
1. Explain the discrepancy between the public meeting and the anonymous survey using concepts from social psychology, and identify which data source is more likely to reflect private attitudes.
Read the worked answer
The meeting and the survey measure different things. In the meeting, teachers respond publicly, in sequence, after hearing five senior colleagues declare strong support. This creates normative social influence: the desire to avoid standing out or contradicting senior staff. The sequential format also produces informational influence - once several people have spoken, others may infer that support is the expected or correct position. The one dissenting teacher shows that dissent is possible but costly.
The anonymous survey removes the audience and the sequencing, so it is more likely to reflect private attitudes. The gap - six public supporters versus three private supporters - is the signature of conformity rather than a genuine change of mind.
So the principal's conclusion is not supported: public agreement in a hierarchical, sequential setting overstates actual backing.
2. The principal argues that the anonymous survey is unreliable because 'people complain anonymously but agree in person'. Assess this argument and describe one change to the meeting procedure that would give a more valid picture.
Read the worked answer
The argument assumes that public agreement is the truthful signal and anonymous dissent is the distortion. That is backwards in this setting. Public agreement is exactly the behaviour that conformity pressures are known to inflate, and the meeting had three features that amplify them: a hierarchy (senior staff spoke first), a sequence (later speakers heard earlier ones), and an audience (the principal was present). The anonymous survey removes all three.
The claim that anonymous respondents are simply complaining is an assertion, not evidence. It would need to be tested - for example, by comparing anonymous responses with private interviews conducted by someone outside the hierarchy.
A procedural change: collect written, anonymous positions before any discussion, then discuss. This captures private attitudes before conformity pressures operate and lets the principal compare pre-discussion and post-discussion views. If support rises only after the senior staff speak, that rise is conformity, not conviction.