Conformity: Effects of Group Consensus on Opinions Ashley

GROUP CONSENSUS & OPINIONS 1

Running Head: CONSENSUS & OPINIONS

Conformity: Effects of Group Consensus on Opinions

Ashley Adams, Rachel Jacobs, and Alyssa Zaid

Hanover College

2011


Abstract

This study was designed to examine the effects of conformity on opinions. We predicted

that participants exposed to a false statistic (for or against the addition of a Housing Studies

major) will be more likely to have conforming attitudes to the given statistic than those who were

not provided with a false statistic. Participants (N=64) completed a control survey or a survey

with fictitious statistics either supporting or opposing the addition of a Housing Studies major.

Participants were told that the false statistics (76.8% Support/Oppose) were taken from their

peers at Hanover College. While we did not find a statistically significant main effect of

conformity on opinions, the results followed our hypothesis (F (2, 63) =0.369; p=0.693). Our

findings help support that conformity is a function of group consensus and can involve changing

personal attitudes, opinions, or behaviors to match that of the group’s.

Commented [BA2]: consensus information

Commented [BA3]: clarify: pattern of means


Conformity: Effects of Group Consensus on Opinions

Picture this: You are filling out an opinion poll. You come across a question that contains

material that you do not feel strongly about. The opinion poll also provides statistics from

previous participants’ responses to the questions. You find yourself looking at the given statistic

and eventually you form your own opinion that matches the given statistic. Why does this

happen? The power of conformity is a huge factor in this situation. Conformity, or changing

one’s attitudes or behaviors to match those of others, has a large effect on behavior and beliefs

(Aronson, 2008).

Why do people conform? There are three main reasons why conformity occurs: the fear

of social rejection, the desire to achieve a common goal, and holding the belief that the group

may know more about a given topic than the individual (Deutsch & Gerrard, 1955). Each of

these factors are crucial in understanding the sorts of cognitive as well as affective aspects that

could possibly arise from conformity acting as a function of consensus.

The strong influence of wanting to be accepted within a group results in normative

influence which is a powerful factor of conformity. Normative influence occurs when a group

has set expectations for behavior and attitudes and enforces these expectations through

punishments and rewards (Deutsch & Gerrard, 1955). The rewards and punishments often

include acceptance of the individual into the group, social validation supporting the legitimacy of

the individual’s opinions, and rejection of anyone that deviates from these expectations. Group

members can be indirectly and directly informed of the possible outcomes that may arise from

their actions; thus, they evaluate the consequences of their behavior before acting (Deutsch &

Gerrard, 1955). Punishments, or what is commonly known as social rejection, have been

proven to cause feelings of depression, uncertainty, loneliness, aggression, and low self-esteem

(Baumeister & Leary, 2000). However, being accepted into a group (the reward), has a much

more positive effect on the psyche. According to Baumeister and Leary (2000), acceptance has

“…multiple strong effects on emotional patters and on cognitive processes”. Being accepted

Commented [BA4]: Try to get a primary source.

Commented [BA5]: clarify

Commented [BA6]: Quote would be more effective if it said what those effects were. Are the positive?


into a group gives one a heightened level of confidence and encourages the individual to

actively engage in future group interaction. To maintain healthy and secure relationships,

humans are more likely to avoid social rejections by putting aside their sense of individuality.

Humans are naturally social beings, so they tend to strive for a sense of belonging as well as

the ability to identify one’s self with others (Neuwirth et al., 2007; Baumeister & Leary, 2000).

Normative influence presents a strong indicator as to what causes conformity to occur within a

social situation. That being said, normative influence also contributes to the formation of a

common decision amongst the members in a group.

Reaching a group consensus is often a crucial step in order for the group to achieve its

desired goal. Past literature (White, 1975) suggests that prior exposure to a group decision has

an influential impact on an individual to agree with the group, even if that person was not

involved in making the decision. This suggests that people are indirectly influenced by the

group decision without realizing it. One does not knowingly decide to conform to previously-

made group decision, it just happens. This illustrates the power that reaching a common

decision has over others.

Another contributor to conformity is informational influence. This phenomenon occurs

when an individual perceives fellow group members to have more information about the topic

being discussed than himself/ herself (Deutsch & Gerrard, 1955). This causes the individual to

depend on others as a reliable source of information, which then also causes the individual to

rely on the knowledge and beliefs of others (Epley & Gilovich, 1999). Power of informational

influence increases when other group members are believed to be experts in the field being

discussed and it is believed that these group members are capable of making the best possible

decision. Going along with the idea of making the best possible decision for the group is also

the pressure of reaching a group consensus. The individual hopefully wants to ensure that

he/she makes the best possible decision for the group. Assuming that the majority of fellow

group members know what they are talking about, the individual will take what they say as fact.

Commented [BA7]: Is this what makes it rewarding? Or is there something else about acceptance that people find rewarding?

Commented [BA8]: clarify. How is this difference from belonging?

Commented [BA9]: I’m not sure it’s an indicator so much as it is the cause itself.

Commented [BA10]: The rest of this paragraph doesn’t seem to be supportive of this topic sentence.

Commented [BA11]: Need a reference for this claim.

Commented [BA12]: Making decisions for a group (serving as the group’s representative) is a different issue from conformity.

Commented [BA13]: Need a reference for this claim, but I’m not sure what the claim is.


This then leads the individual to genuinely believe that the agreed-upon decision is the best way

to handle the situation being examined. As a result, informational influence causes conformity

by influencing group members to depend on others as a source of information. Thus causing

them to form beliefs that are agreeable with whatever is decided on by the majority. Additionally,

the pressure to reach a group decision caused by the desire to make the “right” choice can

cause the individual to conform to the decisions of other group members.

Past research of on the impact of false estimates and informational influence on opinion

was conducted by G.M. White in 1975. In order to investigate this issue, White conducted a

series of experiments. Some of White’s studies included students taking opinion surveys, which

included fictitious statistics. He did these surveys regarding various topics, such as the price of

schoolbooks. White found that the judgments the participants reported were strongly influenced

when the fictitious statistic of supposed others were available. White also reported that it

seemed as though the participants were unwilling or unable to state any individual opinion,

which confirmed that his topic was neutral and there were no predisposed opinions on it. The

participants’ responses followed the trend of the false estimates significantly (p<.0001).

Therefore, it is assumed the results reflect informational influence, which increases likelihood to

conform. In conclusion, participants were more likely to and motivated to conform due to the

belief that those that had “previously taken” the survey were knowledgeable about the given

topic.

After looking into White’s experiment, we decided to further investigate the effects of a

false statistic on personal opinion. We predicted that participants exposed to a false statistic (for

or against the addition of a Housing Studies major) will be more likely to have conforming

attitudes to the given statistic than those who were not provided with a false statistic. We felt

that the use of an anonymous survey would best allow us to examine this phenomenon.

Commented [BA14]: Circular. Informational influence doesn’t cause people to depend on others, it is the dependence of people on others.

Commented [BA15]: is this distinct from false estimates?

Commented [BA16]: What does that mean? Was there a control condition, perhaps?

Commented [BA17]: Why?

Commented [BA18]: Did White have evidence for this, or was this speculation?

Commented [BA19]: Should connect this to the other literature you review: the 3 reasons why people conform.


Method

Participants

We obtained 64 Hanover College students to participate in this study through random

sampling. The participants received randomly distributed surveys via email. Every seventh

student in the Hanover student directory was chosen. We selected a total of 150 students.

These students were then placed in Excel to randomly assign them to their conditions. Through

this method we received a 43% response rate. 68% of the participants were female and 32%

were male. The participants were distributed through all graduation years with 14 first years, 12

sophomores, 16 juniors, and 22 seniors.

Materials

The participants were sent an email asking them to fill out a survey by clicking the link

provided to them. These surveys were made on surveymethods.com. The survey was

concerning the addition of a Housing Studies major to Hanover College campus. There were

three different surveys the participant could have been put into: a control, oppose, or support

condition. The control survey had no fictitious statistic present. The oppose condition had a

fictitious statistic listed underneath a pie graph stating that 76.8% of Hanover College students

oppose adding the major. The support condition had a fictitious statistic underneath a pie graph

informing that 76.8% of Hanover College students support adding the major. Beside the graph,

a paragraph describing a Housing Studies major was provided. A series of five questions were

then asked about the major being beneficial, if they would agree to adding it, if they knew

someone who was interested, if they were against adding the major, and if they believed it

would affect them in any way. The participants answered on a Likert Scale from 1-6, with 1

being strongly disagree and 6 being strongly agree. All three surveys can be viewed in the

Appendix.


Procedure

After receiving the email, the participant simply had to follow the link to the

survey. Here he/she was presented with an informed consent that he/she verified by checking a

box giving his/her consent, which was necessary to continue the experiment. The survey was

then presented on the next page, which varied depending on the participant’s condition. The

oppose and support surveys only differed in their fictitious statistic reference. However, the

control survey did not contain a statistic. At the end of the survey a few demographic questions

were presented, followed by a debriefing page ending the survey.

Results

We ran the Cronbach’s Alpha, α = 0.811, to specify the consistency across all five items

we presented to our participants. We reverse-scored questions 4 and 5 on the surveys, as both

questions were worded negatively in order to ensure participants were consistent. All five of our

items were measuring the average mean attitude about the addition of the Housing Studies

major at Hanover College. To analyze our data, we also ran a one-way between-subjects

ANOVA comparing the means of the three conditions. The means for each group were

calculated by averaging scores across the conditions. The three conditions were the control,

oppose, and the support group. The independent variables were the three conditions; while the

dependent variable was the participants’ attitudes and opinions about whether or not Hanover

College should include the Housing Studies major to their academics. The one-way ANOVA

indicated that there was no statistically significant variation across the conditions, F (2, 63)

=0.369; p=0.693, such that participants’ opinions/attitudes were not completely changed based

upon the fictitious statistic provided to them. The average means of the participants’

opinions/attitudes are shown in Figure 1. The mean score for the control condition is M=3.1,

while it is M=2.99 for the oppose condition and M=3,26 for the support condition. We used the

Commented [BA20]: Not quite: IV was condition, which had three levels. Just one IV.


mean scores of each condition to run the one-way ANOVA. Despite the non-significant findings,

the means do follow our expected hypothesis.

Discussion

In this study, we predicted that participants who were exposed to a fictitious statistic

would have been more inclined to have conforming attitudes to the statistic provided than those

who were not provided with a fictitious statistic. Thus, they would be more likely to be swayed

by the opinions of their “peers” when deciding on whether or not the idea of adding a Housing

Studies major would be beneficial to Hanover College. Results from the analysis were not

statistically significant, thus do not support our hypothesis. However, although we cannot rule

out the possibility that our results were due to chance, because the pattern of results did follow

the trend that we expected to observe. We found that participants in the control condition

seemed neutral on the subject, while those in the support/oppose conditions conformed to the

given statistic.

3.1

2.99

3.26

2.85

2.9

2.95

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

3.25

3.3

Mea

n O

pin

ion

/Att

itu

de

ab

ou

t 'H

ou

sin

g St

ud

ies'

ma

jor

Condition

Control

Oppose

Support

Figure 1: The participants’ mean opinions/attitudes of the addition of the

Housing Studies major when exposed to one of the three conditions.

Commented [BA21]: Not quite. The one-way ANOVA uses all the scores, but it is a test of equal means.

Commented [BA22]: They do, but it would be worth mentioning that the differences among the means are very small – just 0.1 points.


Normative and informational challenges within a group are reasons for the impact of

changing attitudes to match group consensus in order to maintain interpersonal interactions.

Interestingly enough, conformity is a function of group consensus and can involve changing

personal attitudes, opinions, or behaviors to match that of the group’s. Most people appear to

conform to norms without much thought as to why they do so. We allow norms to guide our

behavior in both formal and informal group settings, which incorporate decisions made by the

group. It seems that conforming to the pressures to behave accordingly to others, despite one’s

true feelings and desires, are common occurrences. This is due to the negative feelings that

may arise within the self.

When people behave in ways that are different from their attitudes, they experience

unpleasant affective states leading to a change in their initial attitudes or behaviors. According

to Stone and Cooper (2001), dissonance occurs when people evaluate their behavior and find it

discrepant from that of others. This may have occurred when participants responded to our

survey, after realizing that the majority of their peers felt differently about the issue than they

did. The complexity of understanding the self goes beyond just individual factors but also

encompasses social aspects. Cognitive accessibility of different aspects of the self determines

how and whether a particular behavior leads to the state of cognitive dissonance (Cooper,

2010). Since we are social animals and take our identity partly from our group memberships, we

experience integration with the members of our groups. We experience discomfort vicariously

and change our attitudes in order to reduce it (Cooper, 2010). This could help explain the trend

our results followed. Not only does this expand the reach of dissonance processes in

understanding shifts in attitudes and behaviors, but it allows us to conceptualize that being in a

group has several benefiting functions as well as drawbacks. However, self affirmation may

reduce dissonance through a variety of mechanisms such as: sustaining self worth, distracting


Commented [BA24]: Why interesting?


Commented [BA26]: Need to cite a source.

Commented [BA27]: Need source.

Commented [BA28]: True, but how does that apply here?

Commented [BA29]: What are the benefits?

Commented [BA30]: define


people from cognitive dissonance, and trivializing the importance of those cognitions (Matz &

Wood, 2005).

Limitations

Based upon our participant pool, participants could have been indifferent about the idea

of adding a new Housing Studies major due to their class standing. They could have felt that

there was not going to be any lasting impact on their lives; thus making them apt to be reliant on

the fictitious statistic to make a decision. Their indifference could have affected our study

because people may rely less on others when the decision has a lasting impact on their lives.

However, because the fictitious statistic we provided was an “opinion” from over three-fourths of

other Hanover College students, participants could have been uncertain of whether or not to

state their initial opinion. This is due to the effect of group consensus because it should have

caused the participants to assume their peers willingly stated their opinion, therefore the

participants would be more likely to conform.

The limitations of this study mainly stem from our sample size. Obtaining a larger sample

size would have increased statistical power, therefore creating greater external validity and

further revealing any other effects of conformity to the statistics. Another limitation of this study

was the focus on the possible addition of a major. Upperclassmen may not have paid any

attention to the survey statistics because adding the major would not have affected them in any

way.

Further Directions

In order to decrease limitations in further investigations of this study, we would appeal to

a more diverse/broader audience by obtaining participants outside of Hanover College. Political

issues, for example, would incorporate all ages and various locations. Another possibility for

furthering this investigation could be through interactional consensus. This refers to

confederates and participants on verbal consensus. It would be interesting to look at the

Commented [BA31]: This sounds good but I don’t quite understand how it fits into your argument.

Commented [BA32]: Interesting idea, and you use “may”, but it would be better to back this up with a reference.

Commented [BA33]: Not sure why you’re saying “however”.

Commented [BA34]: I don’t follow your logic here.

Commented [BA35]: clarify.


difference between written consensus influenced by peers versus a verbal consensus

influenced by peers. This would shed light on the differences between normative and influential

influences overall, and would illustrate if written consensus is as powerful as verbal consensus. Commented [BA36]: Interesting idea, but you would need to explain how.


References

Aronson, E. (2008). The social animal. Conformity. (10th ed.). [pp. 13- 54]. New York: W.H. Freeman and

Company.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (2000). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a

fundamental human motivation. In E. Higgins, A. W. Kruglanski, E. Higgins, A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.) ,

Motivational science: Social and personality perspectives (pp. 24-49). New York, NY US:

Psychology Press. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Cialdini, R. B. & Trost, M. R.,. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance” In D.

T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. [pp. 151-180].

Boston: McGraw-Hill. Website:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=w27pSuHLnLYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA151&dq=conformity+

and+interpersonal+influences&ots=gIPhzYEJHL&sig=rcssqftLo2BXXOv_1xZC5TWnYAo#v=onepag

e&q=conformity%20and%20interpersonal%20influences&f=false

Cooper, J. (2010). Vicarious cognitive dissonance: Changing attitudes by experiencing another's pain. In

J. P. Forgas, J. Cooper, W. D. Crano, J. P. Forgas, J. Cooper, W. D. Crano (Eds.) , The psychology

of attitudes and attitude change (pp. 125-139). New York, NY US: Psychology Press.

Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (1999). Just going along: Nonconscious priming and conformity to social

pressure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(6), 578-589. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1390

Jastrebske, E. M. (1982). Conformity as a function of semantic wording and direction of peers' opinions.

Psychological Reports, 51(1), 19-26.

Matz, D. C. & Wood, W. (2005). Cognitive dissonance in groups: Consequences of disagreement. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology. 88(1), 22 -37.

Neuwirth, K., Frederick, E., & Mayo, C. (2007). The spiral of silence and fear of isolation. Journal of

Communication, 57(3), 450-468. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00352.x

Stone, J. & Cooper, J. (2001). A self-standards model of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology. 37, 228 -243.

Commented [BA37]: Reference not used in paper.

Commented [BA38]: Not used in paper.


White, G. M. (1975). Contextual determinants of opinion judgments. Jurnal Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology. 32, 1047-1054.

Appendix 1: Control Condition

Housing Studies Major

Hanover College is considering a new addition to the list of

majors available for graduation. Housing studies majors study living

environments from the perspectives of the arts and the social sciences,

including economics and public policy. They also learn how to create

practical and attractive interiors. Classes cover such topics as planning,

designing, and furnishing spaces to meet the needs of the people who

live, work, and play within them.

Please answer the following questions so we may get a more complete idea of students’ views on this

matter:

1. I believe the Housing Studies major will be beneficial to Hanover College’s Campus.1 2 3 4 5 6

2. I would agree to adding this Housing Studies major.1 2 3 4 5 6

3. I know someone who would be interested in pursuing a Housing Studies major.1 2 3 4 5 6

4. I am strongly against the addition of the Housing Studies major.1 2 3 4 5 6


5. I believe that the additional of the Housing Studies major in no way would affect me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Appendix 2: Support Condition


Hanover College is considering a new addition to the list of majors

available for graduation. Housing studies majors study living






*Results collected thus far from Hanover College students; 76.8% Support


matter:

1. I believe the Housing Studies major will be beneficial to Hanover College’s Campus.

1 2 3 4 5 6

2. I would agree to add this Housing Studies major.

1 2 3 4 5 6

3. I know someone who would be interested in pursuing a Housing Studies major.

1 2 3 4 5 6

4. I am strongly against the addition of the Housing Studies major.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Students Supporting Adding a Housing Studies Major

% Support*

% Do Not Support*


5. I believe that the additional of the Housing Studies major in no way would affect me.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Appendix 3: Oppose Condition


Hanover College is considering a new addition to the list of majors

available for graduation. Housing studies majors study living






*Results collected thus far from Hanover College students; 76.8% Do Not Support


matter:

1. I believe the Housing Studies major will be beneficial to Hanover College’s Campus.1 2 3 4 5 6

2. I would agree to add this Housing Studies major.1 2 3 4 5 6

3. I know someone who would be interested in pursuing a Housing Studies major.1 2 3 4 5 6

4. I am strongly against the addition of the Housing Studies major.1 2 3 4 5 6

Students Opposing Adding a Housing Studies Major

% Support*

% Do Not Support*


5. I believe that the additional of the Housing Studies major in no way would affect me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Documents

Conformity: Effects of Group Consensus on Opinions Ashley