Conformity Literature Review

1. Klein, R. L. (1972). Age, sex, and task difficulty as predictors of social

conformity. Journal of Gerontology.
Abstract:
Compared a group of 36 16-21 yr. old Ss with a group of 36 60-80 yr. old Ss for
susceptibility to social influence upon perceptual judgments. A visual task requiring a
series of perceptual judgments was presented on slides. Ss were required to judge which
of 2 stimuli (circular discs) was greater in size. Using a modified Crutchfield apparatus,
young and old Ss, both male and female, were subjected to contrived group pressures
toward erroneous perceptual judgments. An analysis of variance of frequencies of
conforming behavior revealed that (a) older Ss conformed significantly more often than
younger Ss (b) there was not a significant sex difference in conformity behavior, (c)
conformity occurred more frequently as stimulus ambiguity of the perceptual task
increased, and (d) increase in conformity scores was larger for older Ss as difficulty
increased.
2. Dong, P., Dai, X., & Wyer Jr, R. S. (2015). Actors conform, observers react: The
effects of behavioral synchrony on conformity. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 108(1), 60.
Abstract:
Engaging in synchronous behavior can induce a more general disposition to copy others,
which increases the tendency to conform to others preferences in an unrelated choice
situation. In contrast, observing others perform synchronous behavior can induce
psychological reactance and decrease conformity to others preferences. Five experiments
confirmed these different effects and circumscribed the conditions in which they
occurred. Actors typically focus their attention on the goal to which their synchronous
behavior is directed, inducing a copying-others mindset that generalizes to later
situations. In contrast, observers focus on the actors behavior independently of the goal
to which it pertains. Consequently, they become sensitive to the restrictions on freedom
that synchronous behavior requires and experience reactance. However, changing the
relative attention that actors and observers pay to these factors can reverse the effects of
the actors synchronous behavior on conformity
3. Huang, Y., Kendrick, K. M., & Yu, R. (2014). Conformity to the opinions of other
people lasts for no more than 3 days. Psychological science, 0956797614532104.
Abstract:
When people are faced with opinions different from their own, they often revise their
own opinions to match those held by other people. This is known as the socialconformity effect. Although the immediate impact of social influence on peoples
decision making is well established, it is unclear whether this reflects a transient
capitulation to public opinion or a more enduring change in privately held views. In an
experiment using a facial-attractiveness rating task, we asked participants to rate each
face; after providing their rating, they were informed of the rating given by a peer group.

They then rerated the same faces after 1, 3, or 7 days or 3 months. Results show that
individuals initial judgments are altered by the differing opinions of other people for no
more than 3 days. Our findings suggest that because the social-conformity effect lasts
several days, it reflects a short-term change in privately held views rather than a transient
public compliance.
4. McGuire, K., London, K., & Wright, D. B. (2015). Developmental Trends in False
Memory Across Adolescence and Young Adulthood: A Comparison of DRM and Memory
Conformity Paradigms. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
Abstract:
Little is known about the reliability of eyewitness memory among adolescents as most
memory research has focused primarily on adults and young children. A number of
studies recently have emerged outlining conditions where memory suggestibility
increases from early childhood to adulthood. These developmental reversals are found in
semantic association tasks such as the DeeseRoedigerMcDermott (DRM) paradigm
and have not yet been thoroughly investigated among adolescents. In the current study,
we examined DRM performance among 1121 year olds (N = 245). Extending the work
comparing children and adults, false memory on the DRM task increased with age. False
memory on the DRM task was not associated with false memory on a memory
conformity task. The different memory processes involved with the tasks and the
implications for legal psychology are discussed.
5. Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2011). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses
influence each other's memories for an event?. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 163174.
Abstract:
The current study investigated memory conformity effects between individuals who
witness and then discuss a criminal event, employing a novel procedure whereby each
member of a dyad watches a different video of the same event. Each video contained
unique items that were thus seen only by one witness. Dyads in one condition were
encouraged to discuss the event before each witness (individually) performed a recall
test, while in a control condition dyads were not allowed to discuss the event prior to
recall. A significant proportion (71%) of witnesses who had discussed the event went on
to mistakenly recall items acquired during the discussion. There were no age-related
differences in susceptibility to these memory conformity effects in younger (18-30 years)
as compared to older (60-80 years) participants (N=120). Possible social and cognitive
mechanisms underlying the distortions of memory due to conformity are discussed.
6. Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2012). " Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference,
and risk decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study":
Correction to Gardner and Steinberg (2005).
Abstract:

Reports an error in "Peer Influence on Risk Taking, Risk Preference, and Risky Decision
Making in Adolescence and Adulthood: An Experimental Study" by Margo Gardner and
Laurence Steinberg (Developmental Psychology, 2005[Jul], Vol 41[4], 625-635). The
article contains several typographical errors in the text and in the descriptive statistics
table (Table 2). These errors are addressed in the correction and the corrected Table 2 is
provided. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2005-08221004.) In this study, 306 individuals in 3 age groups--adolescents (13-16), youths (18-22),
and adults (24 and older)--completed 2 questionnaire measures assessing risk preference
and risky decision making, and 1 behavioral task measuring risk taking. Participants in
each age group were randomly assigned to complete the measures either alone or with 2
same-aged peers. Analyses indicated that (a) risk taking and risky decision making
decreased with age; (b) participants took more risks, focused more on the benefits than
the costs of risky behavior, and made riskier decisions when in peer groups than alone;
and (c) peer effects on risk taking and risky decision making were stronger among
adolescents and youths than adults. These findings support the idea that adolescents are
more inclined toward risky behavior and risky decision making than are adults and that
peer influence plays an important role in explaining risky behavior during adolescence.
7. Zhu, H., & Huberman, B. A. (2014). To Switch or Not To Switch Understanding Social
Influence in Online Choices. American Behavioral Scientist, 0002764214527089.
Abstract:
The authors designed and ran an experiment to measure social influence in online
recommender systems, specifically, how often peoples choices are changed by others
recommendations when facing different levels of confirmation and conformity pressures.
In this experiment, participants were first asked to provide their preference from pairs of
items. They were then asked to make second choices about the same pairs with
knowledge of other peoples preferences. The results show that other peoples opinions
significantly sway peoples own choices. The influence is stronger when people are
required to make their second decision sometime later (22.4%) rather than immediately
(14.1%). Moreover, people seem to be most likely to reverse their choices when facing a
moderate, as opposed to large, number of opposing opinions. Finally, the time people
spend making the first decision significantly predicts whether they will reverse their
decisions later on, whereas demographics such as age and gender do not. These results
have implications for consumer behavior research as well as online marketing strategies.
8. Hasegawa, M. (2014). Tolerance for diversity: Judgments of children, adolescents, and
young adults when accepting others into an in-group. Japanese Journal Of Educational
Psychology, 62(1), 1-11
Abstract:
Development of social exclusion judgments regarding out-groups, also known as "the left
out", was investigated. In Study 1, judgments about the social exclusion of others having
behavioral characteristics corresponding to 3 domains (moral, conventional, personal) in
social domain theory were tapped by the question, "Do you agree to exclude people from
your group?" Reasons for that judgment and conformity judgment were tapped by the

question, "Should excluded children change themselves to fit into a group?" Elementary
school (57 fourth graders, 67 sixth graders), junior high school (67 eighth graders), and
university students (n = 64) responded to these questions with respect to personal groups
(playmates) and public groups (teams). The results of Study 1 indicated changes in
judgments with increasing age, changing from focusing on the unfairness of exclusion
without distinguishing the characteristics of those who are excluded, to judgments that
distinguished the excluded others' characteristics in detail and focused on group functions
and objectives. The elementary school students made judgments that distinguished the 2
groups ; they tended to indicate that the excluded children should change. In Study 2, the
relation between social exclusion and differences in orientation toward groups and friends
was examined; participants were elementary school (65 fourth graders, 62 sixth graders)
and junior high school (54 eighth graders) students. The results suggested that when
orientation to a closed and fixed group, and demand for conformity with friends, were
high, exclusion from a group tended to be accepted.
9. Trautmann- Lengsfeld, S. A., & Herrmann, C.S. (2014). Virtually simulated social
pressure influences early visual processing more in low compared to high autonomous
participants, Psychophysiology, 51(2), 124-135
Abstract: In a previous study, we showed that virtually simulated social group pressure
could influence early stages of perception after only 100 ms. In the present EEG study,
we investigated the influence of social pressure on visual perception in participants with
high (HA) and low (LA) levels of autonomy. Ten HA and ten LA individuals were asked
to accomplish a visual discrimination task in an adapted paradigm of Solomon Asch.
Results indicate that LA participants adapted to the incorrect group opinion more often
than HA participants (42% vs. 30% of the trials, respectively). LA participants showed a
larger posterior P1 component contralateral to targets presented in the right visual field
when conforming to the correct compared to conforming to the incorrect group decision.
In conclusion, our ERP data suggest that the group context can have early effects on our
perception rather than on conscious decision processes in LA, but not HA participants.
10. Pasupathi, M. (1999). Age differences in response to conformity pressure for
emotional and nonemotional material. Psychology and Aging, 14(1), 170.
Abstract: Most theories of social influence do not consider adult development.
Theoretical and empirical work in life span developmental psychology, however, suggests
that age may reduce susceptibility to social influence. The present study
examined age differences in social conformity for 2 classes of stimuli: judgments of
geometric shapes and emotional facial expressions. As predicted, older people, compared
with their younger counterparts, displayed lower rates of socialconformity, and
this age difference was most evident when judging emotional facial expressions.
11. Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2007). Age differences in resistance to peer
influence. Developmental psychology, 43(6), 1531.

Abstract: Prior research describes the development of susceptibility to peer pressure in

adolescence as following an inverted U-shaped curve, increasing during early
adolescence, peaking around age 14, and declining thereafter. This pattern, however, is
derived mainly from studies that specifically examined peer pressure to engage in
antisocial behavior. In the present study, age differences and developmental change in
resistance to peer influence were assessed using a new self-report instrument that
separates susceptibility to peer pressure from willingness to engage in antisocial activity.
Data from four ethnically and socioeconomically diverse samples comprising more than
3,600 males and females between the ages of 10 and 30 were pooled from one
longitudinal and two cross-sectional studies. Results show that across all demographic
groups, resistance to peer influences increases linearly between ages 14 and 18. In
contrast, there is little evidence for growth in this capacity between ages 10 and 14 or
between 18 and 30. Middle adolescence is an especially significant period for the
development of the capacity to stand up for what one believes and resist the pressures of
ones peers to do otherwise.