Thank You Project

Does mob mentality or group behavior psychology appeal

to situations such as manners?
Essentially what this question means is asking if people are more likely to say to thank
for receiving a gift, or a snack in the context of this experiment, one on one with the subject
and the facilitator or with a a group of their peers and the facilitator. There is a positive
connection in behavior psychology on this topic in a way that suggests the people around a
subject can have an impact on their day to day cultural behavior including manners. The
experiment will test whether more Austin High students said thank you after receiving a snack
with the facilitator, one on one, or in a group of their classmates.

AP Statistics
6th Period
William Kiker
Rowan Pruitt
Spring 2015

CULMINATING PROJECT

!1

Table of Contents
Page 1 Project Paper
Page 8 Works Cited
Page 9 Appendix:
Page 9 Teachers with 4th Periods Master List
Page 10 Simple Random Sample Lists
Page 16 Data and Signatures
Page 17 Hypothesis Test Work
Page 18 Peer Review
Page 20 Original Inquiry Pitch
Page 22 Revised Inquiry Pitch
Page 24 Website Link

CULMINATING PROJECT

!2

Thank You Project

The idea for this experiment is based on the concept that humans become the five people they
spend the most time with this includes family and friends as well as teachers. This people have a
large influence on the culture of society and behavior within it including manners and how
formal people are with each other. Typically, manners were much more prevalent in conservative
cultures, like the American South, where there were more rules towards human behavior
especially in group situations when there are more people to judge said options. This made is
particularly interesting to test this experiment on Austin High students in Austin, Texas.
Paragraph adapting the idea into the plan. To develop this concept of group behavior with
manners, it was boiled down into receiving a gift rather than holding doors per say because it
made the experiment uncomplicated in its actual implementation.
To conduct the experiment, begin by sampling from a list of the Austin High student
body. This list has every students grade, gender, and is organized alphabetically. Then used said
list to conduct a simple random sample with the calculator running the random integer function
from numbers 1 through 2050. This skips repeats, numbers greater than 2050, and 0. Continuing
did there were 15 students selected, this becomes this individual block for the experiment where
every subject received a gift individually. The next block of subjects was collected by finding a
master teacher schedule and creating a separate list of teachers with fourth period classes. After
looking through the master list, there were 56 teachers with fourth period classes. From this list
then simple random sample in the same manner to find which classes to conduct the group stage
of the experiment. It resulted in the teacher's Turner, Bell, Calver, Matheny, and Garcia. To pick
the individual students for the five groups, the facilitator discusses the experiment with the
CULMINATING PROJECT

!3

teachers and asked for a rooster of their fourth period classes. To continue simple random sample
each class until there were three subjects from each class. This was done to make the group
aspect easier and more manageable to not have to disturb classes for as long. There were benefits
and consequences to this method of grouping.
After a sample was gathered and a bunch of goldfish, the first set of experiments with the
individuals were conducted. To sort of explain the situation, there was a slip delivered to the
students that said Congrats you have been selected to receive a gift provided by an Austin High
Stats Student, Rowan Pruitt. Please accept your gift in the hall, for the individual block and
Congrats you have been selected to receive a gift provided by an Austin High Stats Student,
Rowan Pruitt. Please accept your gift in the hall with the other students in your class, for the
group block. This proved to just be another thing to accommodate for but it made the reception
of the experiment a little more understandable to the subjects. To finalize the interaction their
signatures were gathered for proof, hoping this interaction will give them enough time on their
own or in the group to decide on whether to say thank you or not.
After the subjects received their slips they came outside to get their reward. The overall emotion
from the experiment was confusion, both in the individual block and group block was confusion.
Most people didnt entirely understand that the were just getting a gift and they didnt entirely
know how to respond. This confusion had an overall effect of the subjects response, they either
woke up from their confusion and said thank you, or they said thank you because they were
confused, or just had no idea how to react and didnt say anything at all. In the individual setting
more so than in the group environment it was much clearer when the subjects didnt say thank
you rather than when they did say it. This phenomenon occurs because of the underlying cultural

CULMINATING PROJECT

!4

concept of manners in this region, it is expected of people. The individual setting was more
personal between the facilitator and the subject which made the need for manners more relevant
to compensate for the awkwardness.
For the group block, the facilitator waited until every subject had entered the hall to give
them their reward, in order to get the best results. The goldfish were handed out and before
waiting for their responses keeping tabs on who said what in the group and how they interacted
with each other and the administrator. In the end it didnt seem as if the group had any effect on
their responses and if it did, it was negatively rather than positively as I had originally proposed.
The group aspect of random students made the subjects more awkward rather than comfortable
as it was intended to do. This was the main issue with the concept because it was based on the
attitude among friends which would affect a persons cultural behavior such as manners rather
than just a persons peer.
An issue that came along throughout the experimentation occurred when the facilitator
ran out of goldfish, the original snack, after not finding the same product the prize had to change
from to chips from an assorted pack. In order to make the experiment as similar as possible, all
the subjects in the groups were given the same gift in case that affected whether or not that said
thank you and then they didnt see any other kinds of chips in case they wanted to trade again
effected whether or not they said thank you.
Following the experiment, a two-sample proportions test was performed to find the true
population difference in proportions of students that said thank you when given a gift
individually and of students that said thank you when given a gift in a group. The gift being a
snack. The null hypothesis that these two proportions would be the same, with no significant

CULMINATING PROJECT

!5

difference between being in a group or not and the alternative that there is some difference.
When the experiment was originally designed, it made sense to conduct a one-tailed test for this
date because the experiment tested to see if being in a group made people more likely to say
thank you but after completing the experiment, it became evident that any difference would have
a significant commentary on cultural dynamics.
Not all of the conditions were met while multiplying the sample size to the p and q hat
values for both samples, this condition was not met and it had a great effect on the end result of
the test. Despite this, the test was run with a z-score of 1.1366 and a p-value (2p(z>1.1366)) of .
2557. Meaning that the chance of my experimental results occurring if the proportion of students
that were given a gift individually and in a group were the same was 25.57%. Since p-value of .
2557 is larger than our alpha level, we can fail to reject the claim that the true population
proportion of students that receive a gift are equally likely to say thank you individually or in a
group. Central Limit Theorem suggests that with the larger the sample size the more normal a
distribution becomes, not only would this particular distribution become more normal, a larger
sample size would be more likely to demonstrate a significant difference. In addition to the small
size, the experiment was limited to being conducted during the school day and had to limit the
search to students in 4th period classes which misrepresented the population of Austin High
students.
Despite my personal findings, there is a large amount of evidence that suggests group
behavior in this situations such as manners and others like it does present itself as I had inquired
about. This positive group behavior occurs because of our connections with people in our day to
day life, their habits tend to mold to become the subjects habits. In addition, this group behavior

CULMINATING PROJECT

!6

relies on the cultural significance of manners, which as we mature from a traditional society,
manners has become less of a common concept. But group behavior has an intrinsic identity in
society that develops on its own, which could account for the variation in data from the original
project idea because the groups were not established on their own rather than by a facilitator.
Overall this experiment shows the four concepts of exploring data, sampling and
experimentation, anticipating patterns, and statistical inference based on how the idea developed
into an actual experiment with subjects blocked into two groups to properly test the difference in
individual dynamics with manners and group dynamics with manners before noticing the
patterns that formed within the individuals and within the group to statistically infer the
difference in these two concepts. This becomes more evident when reviewing the original
inquiry pitch before becoming a more developed idea and experiment. Mob mentality and group
behavior has a negative connotation but the psychological power can have positive benefits too
including when it comes to manners as this experiment was designed to show.

CULMINATING PROJECT

!7

Works Cited
A Crowded World: Scientists Study Collective Psychology. US News. US News, 09 25 09.
Web. 03 25 15.

CULMINATING PROJECT

!8

Appendix A: Teachers 4th Period Master List

Teachers with 4th Periods

1. Anderson
2. Ault
3. Bell
4. Bence
5. Boyter
6. Cain
7. Calver
8. Cooper
9. Dagar
10. De Prang
11. Dent
12. Dragoo B
13. Duarte
14. Finney
15. Forrest
16. Frock
17. Fudge
18. Fuhrman
19. Garcia
20. Guerrero
21. Hand
22. Harris
23. Heurkins
24. Hohenstein
25. Holbrook
26. James
27. Kelley
28. Lawless
29. Marovich Smith
30. Mast
31. Matheny
32. Moreno
33. Nott
34. Nunez
35. Patenaude
36. Payne
37. Pearce
38. Perez
39. Plate
40. Pribyl
41. Quackenbush
42. Reyes
43. Rhodenbaugh
44. Sclerandi
45. Sherwood
46. Solis
47. Stanley
48. Tanksley

CULMINATING PROJECT

!9

Appendix B: Simple Random Sample Lists

Kevin Bells Class List

CULMINATING PROJECT

!10

CULMINATING PROJECT

!11

Calvers Class List

CULMINATING PROJECT

!12

CULMINATING PROJECT

!13

Mathenys Class List

CULMINATING PROJECT

!14

Turners Class List

CULMINATING PROJECT

!15

Appendix C: Individual Block Data

Group Block Data

CULMINATING PROJECT

!16

Appendix D: Hypothesis Test Work

CULMINATING PROJECT

!17

Appendix E: Peer Review

CULMINATING PROJECT

!18

CULMINATING PROJECT

!19

Appendix F: Original Inquiry Pitch

Does mob mentality apply with manners such as saying thank you? Essentially what I mean is
are people more likely to say to thank for a gift, or a snack in the context of this experiment, one
on one with the subject and the facilitator rather than with a a group of people and the facilitator.
There is a positive connection in behavior psychology on this topic in a way that suggests the
people around a subject can have an impact on their day to day cultural behavior including
saying thank you, so that is what this experiment is testing. So what I'm going to do is, test
whether more students said thank you after receiving a snack with me one on one or in a group
of their classmates.
To gather this information I will use the master list of the student population I will assign a
number to each student in alphabetical order, then I will use a SRS to select 30 students. I will
select the students in two blocks: 15 students who I will ask individually and 15 students I will as
in groups of three. The students in groups of three I want to cluster by 4th period classes so it is
easier to gather the students for the test. To do this I will gather a list of teachers with 4th period
classes, randomly select classes from that list and then randomly select three students from their
classes. In the actual process of conducting an SRS I will skip any repeats, zeros, or numbers
greater then the school population or the class population in the second block. Then I will track
the students down and give them a snack pack. To finalize the interaction I will get their
signature for proof, hopefully this interaction will give them enough time on their own or in the
group to decide on whether to say thank you or not. While conducting my experiment I will
reframe from saying "you're welcome" until they have said thank you because that can sway

CULMINATING PROJECT

!20

results.
By doing this experiment it would show a significant difference in the students that said thank
you one on one and the students that said thank you in a group showing a positive example of
mob mentality and group behavior. Overall I think this experiment will show how cultural
behavior has shifted for people to be less professional or formal with each other.

CULMINATING PROJECT

!21

Appendix G: Revised Inquiry Pitch

Does mob mentality, or rather group behavior, apply with manners such as saying thank
you? Essentially what I mean is are people more likely to say to thank for a gift, or a snack in the
context of this experiment, one on one with the subject and the facilitator rather than with a a
group of people and the facilitator. There is a positive connection in behavior psychology on this
topic in a way that suggests the people around a subject can have an impact on their day to day
cultural behavior including saying thank you, so that is what this experiment is testing. So what
I'm going to do is, test whether more students said thank you after receiving a snack with me one
on one or in a group of their classmates.
To gather this information I will use the master list of the student population I will assign
a number to each student in alphabetical order, then I will use a SRS to select 30 students. I will
select the students in two blocks based on being tested individually or in a gorup: 15 students
who I will ask individually and 15 students I will as in groups of three. The students in groups of
three I want to separate by 4th period classes so it is easier to gather the students for the test. To
do this I will gather a list of teachers with 4th period classes, randomly select classes from that
list and then randomly select three students from their classes. In the actual process of
conducting an SRS I will skip any repeats, zeros, or numbers greater then the school population
or the class population in the second block. Then I will track the students down and give them a
snack pack. To finalize the interaction I will get their signature for proof, hopefully this
interaction will give them enough time on their own or in the group to decide on whether to say
thank you or not. While conducting my experiment I will reframe from saying "you're welcome"

CULMINATING PROJECT

!22

until they have said thank you because that can sway results. With the treatment of the idea of the
group one level being the individual block and the other being the group block, we can see
whether this dynamic has an impact on the manners of individuals.
By doing this experiment it would show a significant difference in the students that said thank
you one on one and the students that said thank you in a group showing a positive example of
mob mentality and group behavior. Overall I think this experiment will show how cultural
behavior has shifted for people to be less professional or formal with each other.
Potential Issues include not testing enough subjects, students in the group block being absent
resulting in postponing the test for all those subjects in that class, and running out of snacks that
then effecting the experiment.

CULMINATING PROJECT

!23

Appendix H: Website Link

www.thankyoustats.weebly.com

CULMINATING PROJECT

!24