Impact of contextual and personal determinants on online social conformity
Introduction
Conformity is a powerful social phenomenon that encourages individuals to change their personal opinions and behaviour to agree with an opposing majority (i.e. the greater proportion of the group members with a contradicting opinion or behaviour) (Asch, 1951). Such behaviour is predominantly visible as we tend to fit in to our social groups, to be ‘liked’ and to be ‘right’ (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). In other words, social conformity can lead to people not expressing their own judgements and opinions when facing peer pressure in groups, which could be detrimental to the effectiveness of groups in decision making and innovative thinking (Kaplan & Miller, 1987).
This psychological mechanism has been widely studied with regard to face-to-face groups, specifically focusing on its diverse contextual and personal determinants. For example, it was observed that when placed in a group setting, the likelihood of an individual conforming to the majority was influenced by various contextual factors such as the size of the majority group (Asch, 1956, Gerard et al., 1968) and the nature and difficulty of the task at hand (i.e. objective tasks with one correct answer or subjective tasks where the answer is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions) (Blake et al., 1957, Coleman et al., 1958). Moreover, literature suggests that personal factors such as participant gender (Eagly & Chrvala, 1986), self-confidence (Rosenberg, 1963) and personality (Crutchfield, 1955) may also impact susceptibility to social conformity differently.
However, it is unclear to what extent observations resulting from these seminal studies apply to online settings. This is of particularly importance as our social interactions increasingly shift to diverse online paradigms such as discussion forums, social media, polls and learning platforms (Goncalves et al., 2013, Reynolds et al., 2011). As such online groups are inherently dissimilar to face-to-face groups in terms of anonymity and reduced social presence (McKenna & Green, 2002), their susceptibility to social conformity is likely to vary. While existing literature provide some evidence for the presence of conformity in computer-mediated settings (Beran et al., 2015, Cinnirella and Green, 2007, Sharma and De Choudhury, 2018, Sukumaran et al., 2011), and evaluate the effects of several aforementioned factors independently (Laporte et al., 2010, Lowry et al., 2006, Rosander and Eriksson, 2012), they fail to assess the combined effects of such determinants. We argue that understanding the collective impact of such determinants could better explain their relative importance while also rationalising conformity behaviour. Thus, we extend the existing literature by thoroughly exploring possible direct and combined effects of contextual and personal determinants of conformity in anonymous online settings. While online settings differ from face-to-face settings in aspects beyond anonymity (e.g. social presence), we do not investigate aspects of online social interactions beyond anonymity in the current study.
To explore online social conformity as a function of contextual and personal determinants, we deployed an online quiz with multiple-choice questions (MCQs) of objective and subjective nature. Participants first answered each question privately while denoting their self-reported confidence on the selected answer. Next, our software displayed the distribution of votes across the different answer options of the MCQ, as chosen by other participants. Participants were then given the opportunity to change their initial answer and self-reported confidence. We also collected Big-five personality test scores (where personality is identified in terms or openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) (John & Srivastava, 1999), to assess the personality of each participant towards the end of the quiz. Through our study we investigate the following research questions with regard to online social conformity:
RQ1: How do contextual determinants like majority and minority group sizes, number of minorities present and nature of the task impact the likelihood of an individual conforming to the majority’s judgement in an online setting?
RQ2: How do personal determinants like gender, self-confidence and personality impact the likelihood of an individual conforming to the majority’s judgement in an online setting?
Section snippets
Conformity in face-to-face groups
Social conformity was first explored in physical face-to-face groups. Asch’s conformity experiments (Asch, 1951, Asch, 1955) were pivotal among early research on social conformity, where about a third of the participants conformed to a clearly incorrect yet unanimous majority, in a simple line matching task, confirming that individual judgements can be swayed under pressure. A subsequent study by Deutsch and Gerard (1955) rationalised conformity behaviour as having ‘normative’ and
Method
We conducted our experiment as an online quiz with multiple-choice questions (MCQ). MCQ quizzes have been widely utilised in many recent studies related to online social conformity (Beran et al., 2015, Laporte et al., 2010, Rosander and Eriksson, 2012). This methodological decision enabled us to control the independent variables (such as group distributions and question types) to suit the requirements of the experiment, while simulating a plausible real world online environment.
Our experiment
Results
We collected 36 responses from each of the 50 participants (2 training questions and 34 quiz questions). Responses to training questions were removed from the data set prior to analysis, which resulted in 1700 responses. The participants were in a majority in 800 responses and in a minority for in the remaining 900 responses (equally distributed between objective and subjective questions). We highlight that our intention was not to compare results between majority and minority groups, but
Discussion
Our results establish that online social conformity is determined by several contextual and personal determinants. We observed statistically significant relationships between majority group size, nature of the question, self-reported confidence, and certain personality traits on the likelihood of conforming behaviour.
Conclusion
Social conformity is a widely experienced form of social influence, both in face-to-face and online groups, where minorities change their behaviour and opinions to match contrasting opinions of the group majority. While determinants of conformity has been studied in face-to-face groups, it is yet to be thoroughly explored in online group settings. Thus, this work aimed to study both contextual and personal determinants of social conformity and their implications in online environments.
Our
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References (52)
Gender and computer-mediated communication: Group processes in problem solving
Computers in Human Behavior
(2001)- et al.
Conformity of responses among graduate students in an online environment
The Internet and Higher Education
(2015) - et al.
Using computer agents to explain medical documents to patients with low health literacy
Patient Education and Counseling
(2009) - et al.
Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution
Trends in Ecology and Evolution
(2009) - et al.
Does ‘cyber-conformity’ vary cross-culturally? Exploring the effect of culture and communication medium on social conformity
Computers in Human Behavior
(2007) - et al.
A cognitive assistant for improving human reasoning skills
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
(2018) - et al.
Conformity on the internet–the role of task difficulty and gender differences
Computers in Human Behavior
(2012) - et al.
The effects of computer mediated communication on an individual’s judgment: A study based on the methods of Asch’s social influence experiment
Computers in Human Behavior
(1988) Motivating agents in software tutorials
Computers in Human Behavior
(2013)- et al.
Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider
Educational Research Review
(2017)
The hawthorne effect: a reconsideration of the methodological artifact
Journal of Applied Psychology
Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgements
Opinions and social pressure
Scientific American
Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied
Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4
Journal of Statistical Software
The generality of conformity behavior as a function of factual anchorage. Difficulty of task, and amount of social pressure
Journal of Personality
Group size and conformity
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
Social influence: Compliance and conformity
Annual Review of Psychology
Task difficulty and conformity pressures
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
Conformity and character
American Psychologist
A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis
American Psychologist
Sex differences in conformity: Status and gender role interpretations
Psychology of Women Quarterly
Gender and influenceability: Stereotype versus behavior
Conformity analyzed and related to personality
The Journal of Social Psychology
An analysis of the generality of suggestibility to group opinion
Journal of Personality
Cited by (39)
Peer effects in donations: Evidence from random assignment of college roommates
2024, Journal of Economic Behavior and OrganizationNeural correlates of evaluations of non-binary social feedback: An EEG study
2023, International Journal of PsychophysiologyAdaptive intelligent autonomous system using artificial somatic markers and Big Five personality traits
2022, Knowledge-Based SystemsCitation Excerpt :Personality traits have been widely studied as an explanation and prediction factor of human behavior [55–57]. Particularly, in studies, the personality traits of the Big Five model have been considered a factor in people’s acceptance of automated vehicles [58] to model the effect of the gamification mechanism, badges, on the personality traits of users of a Technical Question & Answering website [59], to examine gender differences in how personality influences the composition of students’ networks [60], to analyze their relationship with the consumer crowdfunding behavior for sustainability initiatives [61], to explore their influence on aberrant driving behaviors [62], to analyze their relationship with phishing [63,64], and to explore their influence on behavior, opinions, and interests in social networks [65–68]. Meanwhile, there are other studies devoted to detecting and recognizing the personality traits of the Big Five model [69–72].
Status reinforcing: Unintended rating bias on online shopping platforms
2022, Journal of Retailing and Consumer ServicesCitation Excerpt :Chen et al. (2010) implement a field experiment to investigate the effect of social norms on online review contributions, the results of which show that after receiving the middle group's rating information, the old registers who contributed more decrease their contributions, and the new registers increase their contributions in the following period to confirm to the social norm. As in face-to-face groups, on online platforms, people's opinions and behaviors also change to agree with the majority under the concern of conformity (Beran et al., 2015; Wijenayake et al., 2020). Group size determines which cluster is the majority, and it is an essential predictor of social conformity (Bond, 2005; Insko et al., 1985).
Quantifying determinants of social conformity in an online debating website
2022, International Journal of Human Computer StudiesCitation Excerpt :Hence, in this study we aim to investigate how majority-minority group compositions, when allowed to manifest organically (without fabricating group compositions) and presented similarly to realistic online platforms (such as Debate.org and Kialo), may influence user conformity behaviour. Literature has also highlighted the effect of participants’ confidence on personal answers on their conformity behaviour in both offline (Campbell et al., 1986; Tesser et al., 1983) and online (Lee, 2004; Wijenayake et al., 2019; 2020b; 2020c; 2020d) group settings. These studies unanimously state that participants who are confident in their personal answers before being exposed to group’s feedback are less inclined to conform to the majority.
Gender differences in private and public goal setting
2021, Journal of Economic Behavior and OrganizationCitation Excerpt :Social conformity is considered a powerful social phenomenon that encourages individuals to adapt their opinions and behaviors to conform to the majority in the group, especially to fit in the group and to be “liked” by others (Asch, 1951; Deutsch and Gerard, 1955). It has been widely observed in face-to-face groups, but more recently the psychological mechanism was also found in online environments (Wijenayake et al., 2020). Both men and women were aware that their self-set goals were observable and identifiable by their peers in the public condition; they could have increased their goals because they expected that the majority would do so.34