Abstract
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 1
Social Media: Conformity and Forewarning
A. Student
Florida International University
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 2
Abstract
Methods One Students: Typically, authors add their abstract for the paper here on the second
page. As you can see, the abstract for this paper is missing. Your job is to supply that abstract!
Read over the following paper, which is an actual paper turned in by a former student taking
Research Methods and Design II at FIU. This is similar to a paper you will write next semester.
Review the studies in this paper, and spot the hypotheses, independent and dependent variables,
participants, results, and implications, and write it up in one paragraph (no more than 250 words
maximum). Make sure to include keywords as well (keywords are words or short phrases that
researchers use when searching through online databases like PsycInfo – they need to be
descriptive of the paper, so come up with three or four that seem to suit this paper). Good luck!
Keywords: methods, paper, abstract, assignment, preview
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 3
Social Media and Conformity
The pressure to act, that is, acting a way that is typical or expected of a group, may
influence the occurrence of conformity (Anderson et al., 2014). Other factors like morality and
deindividualization help put into perspective conformity in society, specifically in the social
media world where individuals can interact with a level of anonymity (Perfumi et al., 2019).
Also, it is important to look at normative and informational influences since this help understand
why individuals act the way they do. According to Hornsey et al. (2003), normative influence
relates to the fact that individuals would conform to the group norm, especially in public, to
avoid judgment and being isolated. Informational influences refer to the influence of others, so
individuals can decide what is correct. For example, Perfumi et al. (2019) conducted a study in
which they compared these two typologies (normative and informational) to see what same
characteristics they meet and what others may affect them, as well as observe how
deindividualization plays a role in both cases. In the study, participants completed three tasks;
one to elicit normative influence and the other two to elicit informational influence (Perfumi et
al., 2019). Results showed that informational social influences were more effective than
normative social influences and that both were influenced by the deindividualization factor when
it comes to computer-mediated – communication.
Morality also plays a role in the online community. Kelly et al. (2017) conducted two
studies, one about statistical information of responses in social media, the second one, about
arguments defending responses either in a rational or in an emotional way. It was found that to
provoke moral judgment, all that is needed is the presentation of statistical information on how
others respond to the same situations. This may have implications in our study because if
information is provided, we can influence the way participants may respond.
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 4
Another study conducted by Hornsey et al. (2003), explained how group norms can
influence moral issues. Two experiments were conducted, one about the individual’s attitudes
toward a controversial topic (gay couples) and the second about government apology concerning
Aborigines. It was found that participants with a weak moral basis based on their attitude used to
conform with group norms on private behaviors. The contrary happened to those with a strong
moral basis. Here comes to play the different influences an individual is exposed to, known as
normative and informational influences.
The Asch paradigm is widely used to assess conformity. The study conducted by Kundu
and Cummins (2013) looked at how moral decisions may produce conformity under social
pressure as much as any other decisions made by individuals. In the study, participants were
asked to decide between moral issues presented to them. As it was expected, high effects of
conformity were found. Results showed when individuals classified unacceptable actions as
acceptable others, would perceive those actions as acceptable too. This may relate to our study
since we can in part manipulate individuals’ persuasion and how the opinions of others affect the
way they may respond.
Another factor that influences conformity is the bystander effect. In the study conducted
by Anderson et al. (2014), the authors looked at this effect concerning conformity on weight-
based cyber-bullying. On the study, a Facebook situation was created, and participants were
presented with a photo and a caption. Participants were divided into three conditions
(conformity, dissenting, and control). Findings from the study revealed that in comparison to the
other conditions, those in the dissenter condition, in other words, people who disagree with
others, provided more supportive and positive comments with relation to the victim (Anderson et
al., 2014).
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 5
When it comes to understanding how conformity relates to social media situations, it is of
special importance to look at how different types of comments influence other’s responses. In
general, if individuals were exposed to negative comments first, then they would tend to respond
more negatively, the same happens with positive comments. Further, moral issues are present in
social media too, people evaluate morality, which may help explain why people tend to comment
or express their opinion closely related to others since. Since early times society had seen
standing alone very rebellious. For this reason, generally, people looked at others to figure out
how to act and make decisions (Hornsey et al., 2003). Further, social media is a place where
anonymity is present constantly, and this may play a role in the way others conform to issues
presented in everyday life. The studies presented above support our hypothesis that in general,
we predict that participants who read unanimously supportive feedback will rate the Facebook
user’s conduct as more acceptable than participants who read unanimously oppositional
feedback, with those who read mixed feedback falling between these extremes.
More specifically, participants in the unanimously supportive condition will more
strongly agree with supportive survey statements (“Abigail’s behavior was understandable,
“Abigail’s behavior was reasonable”, “Abigail’s behavior was appropriate”, “I would advise
Abigail to keep silent”, and “I would try to comfort Abigail”) and more strongly disagree
with oppositional survey statements (“Abigail’s behavior was wrong”, “Abigail’s behavior was
unethical”, “Abigail’s behavior was immoral”, and “Abigail’s behavior was unacceptable”)
compared to participants in the unanimously oppositional condition, with participants in the
mixed condition falling between these extremes. However, participants in both the
unanimously supportive and unanimously oppositional conditions will strongly agree that
they would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her.
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 6
Method
Participants
One-hundred and thirty-nine participants took part in this study. Some participants were
students at Florida International University 74.8% (N = 104), and 25.2% (N = 35) were not
students at the university. Participants were randomly selected to participate in this study. From
these 139 participants, 38.1% (N = 53) were male and 61.9 % (N = 86) were female. Ages ranged
from a minimum of 17 to a maximum of 59, with an average age of M = 24.09 (SD = 7.52). Our
sample population consisted of 25.9% Caucasians (N = 36), 39.6% Hispanic (N = 55), 2.2 %
native Indian (N = 3), 17.3% African Americans (N = 24), 6.5 Asian American (N = 9), and 8.6
% others (N = 12).
Materials and Procedure
The materials used for this study consisted of two-page (hard-copy) questionnaires and
pencils. Each of the questionnaires was composed of the following parts: Part One-Image of a
Facebook post with eight comments, Part Two-Impression of behavior from the image shown
before, Part Three-Perception of the behavior from the comments, Part Four-Demographic
information, and Part Five-General feedback question. On Part One, participants were assigned
to different questionnaires with support, oppose, or mixed comments related to the original
Facebook post. Part Two was composed of six statements and Part Three composed of twelfth
statements used a Likert-type rating scale with responses ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6
(Strongly Agree). Part Four used a mix of marking and filling in the black types of questions.
Finally, Part Five was in a mark with an X type of question.
The study consisted of two phases. In the first phase, we approach various individuals
and obtain their oral consent to participate in the study. We did this at different times without
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 7
including, neither friends nor family members. Following the guidelines for informed consent,
potential subjects were notified, before presenting them with the research material, of risks and
benefits of taking part in this study. If consent were given, then the researcher would continue to
the next phase in the study. In the next phase of the study, participants were randomly assigned
to one of the three conditions: supportive, opposed, or mixed; being these, the three levels of our
independent variable.
Participants, in the first part of the study, were presented with a Facebook post and eight
comments that showed either supportive, opposite, or mixed feedback and were asked to
carefully read throughout it so they could answer the next part of the questionnaire. As soon as
they finished reading this first part presented with supportive, opposite, or mixed comments, they
would move to the next part of the survey.
In part two, participants without going back to the first part would respond to seven
questions about their impression of Abigail's behavior with the situation presented before. The
questions were “Abigail’s behavior was wrong”, “Abigail’s behavior was understandable”,
“Abigail’s behavior was reasonable”, “Abigail’s behavior was unethical”, “Abigail’s behavior
was immoral”, “Abigail’s behavior was appropriate” or “Abigail’s behavior was unacceptable”.
Answers were given on an interval scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
In part three, participants were asked again that without looking back, they rate the type
of advice they would give Abigail and to complete the twelfth questions with answers ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) on an interval scale. In this part, statements like
“I would advise Abigail to keep silent”, “Abigail’s seems confident”, or “If I received the
answers, I would keep silent” were given.
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 8
Part four, asked participants for demographic information like gender, age, ethnicity,
language, relationship status, and if they were FIU (Florida International University) students. In
this part, participants were told to leave blank any questions that they feel uncomfortable
providing information.
The final part asked participants to predict what general feedback Abigail’s friends give
her. This last part served as a manipulation check to see if participants were aware of the
condition they were in (support, opposite, and mixed). Responses in this section were based on a
nominal scale. At the end of the study, each one of the participants was debriefed about the
general purpose of the study, hypothesis, and manipulation of the comments shown.
After the completion of the study, researchers input the data into SPSS - Data Analysis
Software system where consensus condition (supportive, opposite, mixed) was the main
independent variable, and questions like “Abigail’s behavior was understandable” (PIIQ2) and “I
would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her” (PIIIQ3) were the two main
dependent variables analyzed.
Results
Chi-Square was the first test conducted, using priming condition variable (support vs.
opposite vs. mixed) as our independent variable and recall of the feedback given to Abigail by
her friends as our dependent variable. There was a significant effect, χ2 (4) = 135.50, p < .001.
Participants in the “supportive” condition recalled “supporting” feedback (80.4 %) and
participants in the “oppose” condition recalled “opposing” feedback (80.0 %). Participants in the
“mixed” condition recalled “mixed” feedback (77.1 %). This shows that overall participants
perceived our manipulation as intended.
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 9
The second test conducted was a One-Way ANOVA where consensus condition (support
vs. opposite vs. mixed) was used as our independent variable and “Abigail’s behavior was
understandable” (PII Q2) as our dependent variable. There was a significant condition effect,
F(2, 136) = 19.28, p < .001. Turkey post hoc test showed that participants agree more with the
statement in the supportive condition (M = 4.52, SD = 0.86), than those in the opposite (M =
3.40, SD = 1.00) and mixed conditions (M = 3.81, SD = 0.73). Oppose and mixed condition did
not differ much from each other, which in part support our prediction that participants that were
exposed to unanimously supportive friend comments would similarly support Abigail’s behavior
than if they read unanimously opposite or mixed feedback, with those reading the oppositional
feedback falling between these extremes.
A second One-Way ANOVA was calculated to compare consensus condition (support vs.
opposite vs. mixed) as our independent variable and the question “I would give Abigail the same
advice that her friends gave her” (PIIIQ3) as our dependent variable. The results of this
calculation showed that there was a significant condition effect, F(2, 136) = 9.22, p < .001. A
following Tukey post hoc test indicated that the participants would agree with such statement
more in the support condition (M = 4.35, SD = 0.71) and oppose condition (M = 4.40, SD = 0.78)
than in the mixed condition (M = 3.69, SD = 1.32), though the support and opposed condition did
not differ from each other.
Discussion Study One
It was predicted that participants that read unanimously supportive feedback would rate
Facebook user’s conduct more acceptable than participants that read oppositional feedback, with
those that read the mixed feedback falling between these two extremes. Also, participants in both
unanimous supportive and oppositional conditions will agree that they would give Abigail’s
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 10
same advice as her friends did. The obtained results supported our hypothesis because
participants in the support condition agreed more with supportive statements like “Abigail’s
behavior was understandable” that those in the opposite and mixed conditions and that both
support and oppose conditions would agree with the same advice given by others. From this, a
question arises: what if participants were warned about the effects of such comments? Would
they continue to agree with others' advice? This would be answered in the second study.
Study Two
In Study One, we looked at the influence of comments on a Facebook page on
participants. In Study Two, we introduced a new variable, forewarning, to the same situation
before mentioned. Forewarning is a term used to warn someone about a situation that they may
encounter in advance. Such a term can have different effects on attitudes, behaviors, and self-
concept (Wood & Quinn, 2003).
Our first study was conducted by Verwijmeren et al. (2013), in the study authors looked
at forewarning with relation to advertisements. It was exposed that warning individuals about the
presence of the persuasive stimulus, in this case, subliminal advertisement, and giving them
instruction to not get influenced by this advertisement, it helps cancel their effect. Further, they
argued that this happens before and after the priming. Minutes before a choice was made. Also,
it was found that people rely less on automatic schemas or information when the situation at
hand requires attention (Verwijmeren et al., 2013). This may, in part, explain why we believe
that those participants in our study that were forewarned provided a more mixed response to the
situation given since they were warned, they would put an effort in paying attention.
In the study conducted by Wood and Quinn (2003), the authors found that warning can
cause resistance, a variety of social motives, and as a result, create different outcomes when it
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 11
comes to attitudes. Forewarning may produce resistance depending on the motivation they give
people to protect their current attitudes, creating a favorable impression, or defending self-image.
Forewarning can cause resistance when it is said that the upcoming task will change the way
people see things or when some aspect of the person's identity, or freedom, has been threatened.
That is why warning participants of the intent of the researcher/ or another person to persuade
them, it generates resistance. Warnings that sensitize individuals to the impressions passed on to
others may evoke attitudinal balance when individuals wish to seem adaptable and receptive
(Wood & Quinn,2003). The study also revealed that participants' agreement was higher when
they were told about the high persuasiveness of the message than when such persuasiveness was
not clarified. Further, a high agreement was seen when participants were told that other
participants/subjects, before them, had seen the message more persuasive than when the same
conclusion was told by the experimenter (Wood & Quinn, 2003). These findings may explain
why when we forewarned participants, they would pay attention to what is happening and
respond in accordance with their belief.
Leon et al. (2003) conducted a study looking at forewarning and attractiveness. They
found that when it comes to forewarning, those participants who were forewarned showed less
persuasion effect by messages than those who were not warned. If the individual is warned
before another person will impose a position contrary to their own, that period after the
forewarning can be used to rehearse, recall or construct arguments that may support the initial
position and negate arguments that go against that first position. Also, it was exposed that
manipulation of public commitment to the participant’s point of view, is an important
determinant of the forewarning effect. The higher the commitment, the more resistance to the
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 12
persuasion effect can be seen (Leon et al., 2003). This may help to explain a more complex
factor that it may affect the way individuals respond to any situation.
More studies about the effect of forewarning have been done. The following study
conducted by Lee (2010) looked at the effect of ad-influenced in relation to forewarning. In the
study, the author exposed that having knowledge about the intent of persuasive messages may
influence how subjects process information. In other words, forewarning can cause resistance to
persuasive messages. Forewarning about a message that may contradict the belief of an
individual may generate counterarguments. Even when people have a positive attitude towards a
certain situation, person, or a brand; this effect of forewarning can affect information processing
(Lee, 2010). This experiment has implications to our study since it may help explain why when
participants were forewarned, they generate arguments against the situation presented.
Forewarning also impacts test performance. Weber and Bizer (2006) conducted a study
that looked at the effect of forewarning concerning test performance. They found that warning in
advance or just before a test may have different effects on the way individuals perform. For
example, if the warning is given in advance, it may give individuals the motivation to prepare in
advance which can increase their performance. The study also looked at the impact of anxiety
when it comes to forewarning. They argued that participants with low anxiety levels did better
when they were warned about the difficulty of the test than when they were told it was easy
(Weber & Bizer, 2006). The findings on this study can be related to our study because
participants may be more aware of their performance if it is needed.
The hypotheses in the current study examine two main effects and an interaction effect
for dependent variables. The first independent variable for the current study is condition (support
vs. mixed). The second independent variable is forewarning (forewarning vs. no forewarning).
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 13
When it comes to the first independent variable, condition, we predict a main effect, with
participants in mixed condition being more agreed with relation to our main dependent variables
“Abigail's behavior was understandable” and “ I would give Abigail’s the same advise that her
friends gave her”, than those in support condition. We predict a main effect for the second
independent variable, forewarning. That is, participants in the forewarning condition will agree
more in relation to our dependent variables “Abigail's behavior was understandable” and “I
would give Abigail’s the same advice that her friends gave her” than participants in the no
forewarning condition. Also, we predict an interaction effect between condition and forewarning.
That is, participants in mixed forewarning condition will show more agreement in relation to our
main dependent variables. Participants in supportive no forewarning condition will be higher in
relation to our main dependent variables. The other two conditions, supportive forewarning and
mixed no forewarning will fall between these two extremes.
Method
Participants
There were two hundred and thirty - seven participants, 38.0 % (N = 90) were students at
Florida International University (FIU) and 62.0 % (N = 147) were not students at FIU.
Individuals were family members or friends that the experimenter recruited to participate in this
study. Of the total of participants (two hundred and thirty-seven), 39.7 % (N = 94) were males,
and 59.5 % (N = 141) were females, 2 participants did not provide their gender. Ages in the
study ranged from a minimum of 14 years to a maximum of 69, with an average (mean) age of
M = 26.16 years (SD = 10.02). 59.1 % (N = 140) reported that English was their first language,
13.5 % (N = 32) reported that English was not their first language, and 27.4 % (N = 65) of the
participants reported other languages as their first language that was not English. In addition, our
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 14
sample population consisted of 12.7 % (N = 30) Caucasians, 70. 5 % (N = 167) Hispanics, 10.5
% (N =25) African Americans, 3.8 % (N = 9) Asian American, and 2.5 % (N = 6) others.
Materials and Procedure
For our study number two, we used an online questionnaire that participants could access
via any of their electronic devices (e.g. laptop computer, mobile phone). Each questionnaire
consisted of the following parts: Part One: informed consent to participate and a warning. Part
Two: presentation of a Facebook post about exam cheating, Part Three and Part Four:
Impressions of others, Part Five: Demographic Information, Part Six: recalling the purpose of the
study, and Part Seven: asked participants who asked them to participate.
In part one, we provided information to the participants about the purpose, duration,
procedures, benefits/risks of the study, and their participation agreement at the end. Following
this and before presenting the survey to participants, we manipulated their reaction to
forewarning concerning their performance on this survey by randomly showing a warning or no
warning. The warning said that when people see several series of comments that are in the same
line (positive or negative), they would typically follow the consensus in the comments. In part
two, a Facebook post and comments about test cheating was presented. Participants were advised
to read carefully. Then in part three, participants were shown a question where they were asked
to rate their impression of the Facebook owner's behavior without looking back. Here, they were
presented with seven questions that used a Likert-type rating scale, (1) being Strongly Disagree
and (6) being Strongly Agree. Part four, asked participants that again without looking back, rate
the advice they would give to the Facebook owner. This section consisted of twelve questions,
using the Likert-type rating scale (1) being Strongly Disagree and (6) being Strongly Agree. Part
five, asked six questions about participants' demographic information like gender, age,
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 15
race/ethnicity, if their first language was English if they were a student at Florida International
University, and their relationship status, in the presented order. Part six, we asked participants
that without looking back select the general advice that the friend of the Facebook owner gave
them. This was the question that asked participants if they recalled the given warning. Finally,
part seven participants had to provide the name of the person who asked them to participate in
this study. Having finished the study, each participant was debriefed about the purpose, theory,
predictions, and variables of the study.
This presented study consisted of two phases. The first phase consisted of approaching at
different times to various individuals, they could be family members or friends and asked them if
they would like to be part of an online study being conducted for research purposes. If the
individuals agreed to participate, either verbally or in any other form, they would be directed to
the survey that was created in Qualtrics. Participants were informed of the risk, benefits, purpose
of the study before starting the questionnaire. They were only able to move to the next phase if
they confirm they consent to participate. In the second phase, all of the participants were
randomly presented with one of the four questionnaires (mixed condition with forewarning,
mixed condition with no forewarning, support condition with forewarning, and support mixed
with no forewarning).
Our first independent variable was condition with two levels (support vs. mixed). The
second independent variable was forewarning participants about their performance in relation to
conditions they were exposed to. This independent variable consisted of two levels too
(forewarning vs. no forewarning). We analyzed two dependent variables, one being “Their
behavior was understandable” and the second one being “I would give the same advice that their
friends gave them”. There were many other dependent variables, but we decided to focus on just
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 16
these two. We analyzed the interaction between condition and forewarning for both of the
dependent variables.
Results
The first test conducted was Chi-square to check our condition manipulation, with
condition (support vs. mixed) as our independent variable and type of feedback given to the
Facebook owner as our dependent variable. There was a significant effect, χ2 (2) = 35.42, p <
.001. Participants in the support (61.1 %) and the mixed (69.4 %) conditions correctly recalled
the conditions they were in (Table 1). This shows that participants did pay attention to the
condition they were exposed to.
A second Chi- square test was conducted, this time to check forewarning manipulation,
being forewarning (forewarning vs. no forewarning) our independent variable and whether they
were reminded of the purpose of the study as our dependent variable. There was a significant
effect, χ2 (2) = 9.89, p < .05. Participants in the forewarning (75.4 %) and no forewarning (24.4
%) conditions accurately recalled the presence of the warnings (Table 1). This implies that
participants did not really notice our manipulation for forewarning.
Further, we conducted our next test, a 2 x 2 ANOVA where we analyzed, condition
(support vs. mixed) and forewarning (forewarning vs. no forewarning) as our independent
variable and whether participants thought Facebook owner behavior was understandable (PIIQ2)
as our dependent variable. Results showed that there was a significant condition effect, F (1,
233) = 20.11, p < .001. Participants felt that the behavior from the Facebook owner was more
understandable in the support condition (M = 4.12, SD = 1.29) than in the mixed condition (M =
3.40, SD = 1.15). However, there was no significant main effect for forewarning, F (1, 233) =
2.32, p = .130. The cheating impression of participants does not differ much in the forewarned
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 17
(M = 3.61, SD = 1.21) versus the no forewarned condition (M = 3.87, SD = 1.33). In addition, the
interaction effect between our two independent variables (condition and forewarning) was
analyzed as well. There was no significant interaction between condition and forewarning on our
main dependent variable (Their behavior was understandable, PIIQ2), F (1, 233) = 2.78, p = .097
(Table 2).
A second 2 X 2 ANOVA was analyzed, with condition (support vs. mixed) and
forewarning (forewarning vs. no forewarning) as our independent variable and whether
participants would give them the same advice that the Facebook owner friends gave them
(PIIIQ3) as our dependent variable. Our results showed that there was a significant main effect
for condition, F (1,233) = 25.52, p < .001. Those participants would give the same advice as the
Facebook owner friend in the support condition (M = 4.14, SD = 1.37) than in the mixed
condition (M = 3.31, SD = 1.11). Results revealed that there was no significant main effect of
forewarning, F (1, 233) = 2.90, p = .090. Participants who were no forewarned (M = 3.86, SD =
1.37) would agree giving the same advice given by friends, as well as those who were
forewarned (M = 3.56, SD = 1.23). As in our first ANOVA, we analyzed the interaction effect of
our independent variables (comments and forewarning) with relation to our main dependent
variable (“I would give them the same advice that their friend gave them”). There was no
significant interaction between condition type and forewarning, F (1, 233) = 1.16, p = .283
(Table 3).
Discussion Study Two
In our study, there were two main analyses, each of them analyzed two main effects and
an interaction effect for our dependent variables (“The behavior was understandable” and “I
would give them the same advice that their friend gave them”). Our two independent variables
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 18
were condition (support vs. mixed) and forewarning (forewarning vs. no forewarning). We
predicted a main effect for conditions and forewarning. Our results partically support our
prediction. Those participants in the support condition were more understandable of Facebook
owner behavior than those participants in the mixed condition. However, those participants who
were not forewarned understood Abigail’s behavior the same degree with those in the
forewarning condition. Further, we also predicted an interaction effect between condition and
forewarning with relation to participants' understanding of the Facebook owner behavior, but the
results do not support these predictions.
In relation to our second dependent variable, “I would give them the same advice that
their friend gave them” we predicted again, a main effect for both, condition and forewarning.
The results obtained partically support our prediction because those participants in the support
condition would agree more to give the same advice as the Facebook owner friends than those in
the mixed condition. However, the non-forewarned participants would agree with the advice
given to the Facebook owner by their friends the same degree with those forewarned
participants. Additionally, we predicted an interaction effect for these two independent variables
(condition and forewarning) concerning our dependent variable (“I would give them the same
advice that their friend gave them”, but our results did not support this either.
General Discussion
In summary, for study one we predicted that those participants that read supportive
feedback would rate Facebook user’s behavior more acceptable than participants who read
oppositional feedback, and those that read mixed feedback would fall between these two
extremes, and that those participants in the support and opposite conditions will agree with the
advice given to the Facebook owner by their friends. For study two, we introduced a new
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 19
independent variable, forewarning and maintained two levels of the first independent variable;
support and mixed. We predicted that there would be a main effect for mixed condition, a main
effect for forewarning, and an interaction effect between these two independent variables.
Results from study one partially supported our predictions. Participants in the support
condition were more supportive of Facebook’s owner behavior than participants in the opposite
and mixed conditions. Also, participants in the support and opposite conditions agreed with the
same advice that other people gave. On the other hand, results from the second study did not
support our forewarning predictions. There was no differences on agreement between
forewarned participants and non-forewarned participants.
According to Kundu and Dellarosa (2013) usually, individuals would speak the truth, but
this preference can be changed by what other people do, and this is because of the presence of
social agreements in the decision-making environment that give rise to social norms like rules of
what is forbidden, permitted, or obligated. This may explain our hypothesis in our first study,
participants showed more agreement with their respective comments shown to them (Kundu &
Dellarosa, 2013). For example, participants in the support condition agree more with supportive
comments. Our results for study number two were not expected, it is thought that forewarning
individuals about an impending persuasive message, motivate them to resist such a message in
order to show and give their true opinion (Janssen et al., 2010). It was thought that if participants
were forewarned, they would respond more truly to their beliefs and not pay attention to others
point of view. This shows that yes, people would show resistance to messages that try to
persuade them, but in this case, conformity and social norms do play a role in decision making,
especially in an online context.
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 20
Our study results are presented with a few limitations. First of all, in both of our studies,
the majority of the population were Hispanic which may have impacted the way they responded
to the questionnaire due to possible language barriers, and we could see this in the study that a
large portion of the participants reported that their first language was not English. Second, our
sample population consisted of mainly college students, which in part limits the way in which
this study may be generalized. Third, in the second part of the study, the survey needed to be
completed online, this limits the participation rate of individuals, especially older participants.
For further studies, it is important to take into account these limitations and implement some
changes like, for example, provide the survey in another language, like Spanish, or provide an
explanation of bias or difficult words in a simple manner. Also, include different people in the
study, not only students. Further, it is important to make sure that all of the participants know
how to use, access, complete surveys online via laptops, smartphones, or other technology.
The findings of the two studies revealed that types of comments and forewarning
contribute significantly to the way individuals would respond to others' behaviors, particularly in
online settings. More research is needed in this area, but more notably to understand why those
participants, presented with forewarning and mixed conditions or types of comments performed
the way they did.
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 21
References
Anderson, J., Bresnahan, M., & Musatics, C. (2014). Combating weight-based cyberbullying on
Facebook with the dissenter effect. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
17(5), 281-286. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0370
Hornsey, M. J., Majkut, L., Terry, D. J., & McKimmie, B. M. (2003). On being loud and proud:
Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 42(3), 319-335. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322438189
Janssen, L., Fennis, B. M., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (2010). Forewarned is forearmed: Conserving self-
control strength to resist social influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
46(6), 911-921. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.008
Kelly, M., Ngo, L., Chituc, V., Huettel, S., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2017). Moral Conformity
in Online Interactions: Rational Justifications Increase Influence of Peer Opinions on
Moral Judgments. Social Influence, 12(2), 57-68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2017.132300
Kundu, P., & Cummins, D. D. (2013). Morality and conformity: The Asch paradigm applied to
moral decisions. Social Influence, 8(4), 268-279. https://doi.org
/10.1080/15534510.2012.727767
Lee, S. Y. (2010). Ad-induced affect: The effects of forewarning, affect intensity, and prior
brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(4), 225-237. https://doi.org
/10.1080/13527260902869038
Leon, D. T., Rotunda, R. J., Sutton, M. A., & Schlossman, C. (2003). Internet forewarning
effects on ratings of attraction. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(1), 39-57.
https://doi.org /10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00017-1
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 22
Perfumi, S. C., Bagnoli, F., Caudek, C., & Guazzini, A. (2019). Deindividuation effects on
normative and informational social influence within computer-mediated-communication.
Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 230-237. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.017
Verwijmeren, T., Karremans, J. C., Bernritter, S. F., Stroebe, W., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2013).
Warning: You are being primed! The effect of a warning on the impact of subliminal ads.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1124-1129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.06.010
Weber, C. J., and Bizer, G. Y. The effects of immediate forewarning of test difficulty on test
performance. Journal of General Psychology, 133(3), 277-285. (2006).
DOI:10.3200/GENP.133.3.277-285
Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analysis syntheses of
forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 119-138.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.119
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 23
Table 1
Manipulation Check for Comments Variable
Levels of Variable Percentage
Support 61.1
Mixed 69.4
χ2 (2) = 35.42, p < .001
Manipulation Check for Forewarning Variable
Levels of Variable Percentage
Forewarning 75.4
No forewarning 24.4
χ2 (2) = 9.89, p < .05
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 24
Table 2
2 x 2 ANOVA on Their Behavior was Understandable
Source Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F p
Corrected Model 37.820 3 12.607 8.540 .000
Intercept 3319.410 1 3319.410 2248.576 .000
Comments 29.683 1 29.683 20.107 .000
Forewarning 3.417 1 3.417 2.315 .130
Comments *
Forewarning
4.099 1 4.099 2.776 .097
Error 343.961 233 1.476
Total 3694.000 237
SOCIAL MEDIA: CONFORMITY AND FOREWARNING 25
Table 3
2 x 2 ANOVA on I Would Give the Same Advice that Their Friends Gave Them
Source Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F p
Corrected Model 46.431 3 15.477 10.060 .000
Intercept 3274.528 1 3274.528 2128.332 .000
Comments 39.261 1 39.261 25.518 .000
Forewarning 4.457 1 4.457 2.897 .090
Comments *
Forewarning
1.782 1 1.782 1.158 .283
Error 358.480 233 1.539
Total 3665.000 237