MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030282834 · doi:10.1111/medu.12510

The good and bad of group conformity: a call for a new programme of research in medical education

2014· review· en· W2030282834 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tanya Beran, Alyshah Kaba, Jeff K. Caird, Kevin McLaughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgarySouth Health Campus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConformityPsycINFOPeer pressureContext (archaeology)Relevance (law)PsychologyNarrativeEmpirical researchMedical educationHealth careMEDLINESocial psychologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Given that a significant portion of medical education occurs in various social settings (small groups, large classes, clinical environments), it is critical to examine how group members interact. One type of influence on these interactions is conformity, whereby an individual changes his or her own behaviour to match incorrect responses of others in a group. Conformity to peer pressure has been replicated in experimental research conducted in many countries over the last 60 years. There is newly emerging empirical evidence of this effect in medical education, suggesting that subtle motivations and pressures within a group may prevent students from challenging or questioning information that seems incorrect. OBJECTIVES: This narrative review aims to present an overview of theory and findings in research into conformity in the fields of social psychology, business, sociology and aviation theory to demonstrate its direct relevance to medical education and the health professions. METHODS: We searched online databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO and ProQuest) from the University of Calgary catalogue. We also searched citations in articles reviewed and references provided by colleagues. We limited our narrative review to publications released between 1950 and 2012. RESULTS: Group conformity behaviour may be one of a number of communication challenges associated with interprofessional care, and may represent a factor contributing to the burden of adverse events. This paper calls for a new programme of research into conformity in medical education that provides systematic empirical evidence of its relevance and applications in education, health care and practice. CONCLUSIONS: This review reveals decades of anecdotal and empirical evidence that conformity is a pervasive phenomenon across disciplines. Further research is needed to elucidate which situations pose the greatest risk for the occurrence of conformity, how to manage it in practice and its implications for patient safety.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.020
Scholarly communication0.0140.052
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0110.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.431 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207