Final Paper
Running Head: SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 1
Study Two Literature Review
Kaytlin De Los Santos
PSY 3215
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 2
Social Media and Consensus
Brief Overview
The consumption of social media indisputably forms a significant part of modern life and
correspondingly on many organizations. To this effect, it has been in contention, that social
media has the power to promote individualized thinking as opposed to sanitized group thinking
(Rom & Conway, 2018). This paper is in a bid to understand the Facebook consensus will probe
into an analysis of five articles which seek to explain the proposed hypothesis. It is important to
note that the articles shall focus on providing key summaries with regard to the hypotheses, the
findings of the empirical studies as well as justification for these articles in support of the
proposed hypotheses.
Moral Conformity in Online Interactions
Research has proven that the development of online spaces has brought about alterations
with regard to body language as well as communication norms and ways in which persuasive
influence is exerted (Bargh & McKenna, 2004). Kelly et al. (2017) conducted two studies which
were aimed at addressing the issue of moral conformity within online interactions. The first
study sought to identify the participants’ sensitivity towards moral edicts made by anonymous
people and directed towards ethical dilemmas. The study recruited participants via the virtual
labor market, Amazon Mechanical Turk. They were then directed to Qualities where they
concluded a virtual survey. Each of the participants was required to rate one of two scenarios
presented to them.
Scenario A presented a case of a family eating their dead pet dog. Scenario B, on the
other hand, presented passengers who were on the verge of sinking on a lifeboat and they
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 3
sacrificed a passenger who was not only injured but also overweight (Kelly et al. 2017). It is
important to note that this specific study sought to understand the degree of conformity and how
it varies when a scenario involves harm violations in contrast to purity violations.
The results of these study revealed that what was needed to induce conformity in moral
judgments was the provision of statistical evidence showing the response of other participants.
The second study, having established conformity relationship to manipulations that only contain
statistical information, wanted to understand how differing arguments and particularly emotional
and rational arguments, were effective in influencing moral judgments. This study also recruited
participants from the same site used in the first study and were allowed to rate the two scenarios
used in the first study (Kelly et al. 2017).
Computers in Human Behavior
The hypotheses of the Facebook Consensus theorize that there is greater influence to
conformity within social media platforms. In a study conducted by Jagatic et al. (2007),
seventy-two participants who took part in the study revealed that they trusted links that were
sent to them by friends regardless of the fact that they may contain phishing attempts. This
study begs the question of the factors that influence social conformity with regard to social
norms. Undisputedly, social customs are in online environs, but the perceptions of consumers to
the norms are subject to variation depending on the platforms, the anonymity as well as
presence of social ties between the contacts. The study, therefore, seeks to create a separation
between social influence that is norm-oriented and those that are information-oriented.
This study structure in analyzing the effect of anonymity on conformity, the participants
performed the experiment in full or partial anonymity in order to manipulate the anonymity
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 4
levels (Perfumi et al. 2019). The subjects of the study performed the experiments alone or with
other participants but notably, the subjects who performed the experiment in group were not
allowed interactions with other subjects. To manipulate ambiguity, the study developed new
tasks, cultural and appreciative. The subjects were placed under pressure directly and the
majority pressure was set to move towards answers considered to be entropic.
This study revealed that the consequence of normative impact in situations where social
distinctiveness is not fortified is almost non-existent. There was also the fact that anonymity
impacted negatively saliency if groups. Given that the subjects of the study could not
communicate with each other and similarly could not share any kind of information, concerning
the group members also built on anonymity (Perfumi et al. 2019).
They Came, They Liked, They Commented: Social Influence on Facebook News Channels
Social Networking sites have taken over the news industry and there has been a drastic
decrease in the circulation of newspapers. The news organizations have consequently been
forced to reach their audience via online platforms, and importantly, Facebook, has emerged as
an instrumental channel for passing information. Studies have revealed that social networking is
not the only reason why people use Facebook, sourcing information on politics as well as
contemporary affairs is among the top reasons why people use Facebook (Winter et al. 2015). It
is prudent to note that Facebook places much emphasis on the reaction of readers, in spite of the
fact that there are provisions for comments and likes. This specific study sought to understand
the effect of the reactions of different users in the news channels operating on Facebook as well
as the psychological mechanisms that underlie processing of information.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 5
The study was conducted by showing participants a screenshot of a reputable news
magazine which presented a short summary of a story. The participants were later allowed to
read the complete version of the story. The topic under study was touching on the legalization
of Marijuana, this was because the study sought to ensure that the topic was moderately relevant
to the readers and also it could not bring about strong as well as polarized attitudes previously
held by the participants (Winter et al. 2015). The study revealed that statements that were in
congruence with the article and which were published by news sources that were renowned did
not influence persuasive effects with regard to the article. On the issue of the quality relating to
comments of readers, there was the consistency of argumentative comments. Notably, these
comments did not have any influence on the perception as held by the public.
Morality and Conformity: The Asch Paradigm Applied to Moral Decisions
Kantian theory on moral judgment hypothesized that moral judgment is simply the
outcomes of conscious deliberations that are based on innate moral rules. This was the position
as held before a recent study. The recent studies reveal that the judgment passed by people on
actions are skewed towards thinking the actions as morally wrong if disgust is the primary
feeling the person feels before making a moral judgment (Kundu & Cummins, 2013). This study
sought to investigate the impact that social consensus has on moral decision making. The study
asked the participants to offer moral judgment on a series of dilemmatic issues. There were
thirty-three participants where seventeen of them were in control conditions while the rest were
in experimental conditions. Twelve dilemmatic issues were selected from materials that were
used by Greene et al. (2008).
The outcomes extant, in this case, showed that there was a sturdy conformism effect
and this implied that ethical decision making was predisposed greatly by social consensus. This
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 6
should be understood from the fact that the materials used along with three magnitudes namely,
use of personal force, permissible judgments, as well as whether the mischief exacted were
deliberate or a side consequence of taken action (Kundu & Cummins, 2013). Conformity in the
case of these studies was considered to be irrational in the case that one believed that social
consensus should be given inconsiderable weight when it comes to decision making when
compared to the information and beliefs as held by different persons.
The Strategic Moral Self: Self-Presentation shapes Moral dilemma Judgments
In this study by Rom & Conway (2018), seven studies were conducted and they revealed
that meta-perceptions are accurately held by people regarding dilemma decisions. The study
concluded that the participants of the study did hold a view of an accurate meta-insight with
regard to how meta-insight into how earnest and proficient their verdicts of the dilemmatic
issues would portray them to others. It is prudent to note that amidst the dilemmatic wars people
tend to select decisions that will portray them to appear competent at the inescapable cost of
warmth. These studies present interesting concepts with regard to social consensus. Some of the
consensuses arrived at, are motivated by contextual factors such as anonymity and ambiguity.
While the urge to conform to general consensus, is incessantly on the rise, some of the
contributing factors are issues that have been portrayed by Asch in the theory that seeks to
explain moral judgment.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 7
Methods
Participants
One hundred and thirty-nine participants were randomly selected and requested to fill a
questionnaire during the study. Every one of the 48 researchers looked for about 3 participants
each who were strangers to them or students at FIU. The participants needed to have not taken
a psychology research methods class in the fall of 2019.
Male participants for the study were 53 which accounted 38.1% while female
participants were 86 which accounted for 61.9% of the total number of participants (N=139).
Caucasian participants were 36 (25.9%), Hispanic participants were 55 (39.6%), and Native
Indian participants were 3 (2.2%), African Americans were 24 (17.3%) Asian Americans were
9 (6.5%) and other ethnicities had 12 (8.6%) participants. The minimum age for the participants
was 17 years while the maximum age was 59 years. The median age was 22 years, the mode
was 21 years, and the mean age M was 24.09 years and the standard deviation S.D was 7.522.
Materials and Procedure
The participants were requested of an oral consent to participate in the study. The
researchers explained to prospective participants that the research they were carrying out was for
their psychology research methods and requested for the participants’ consent to participate.
Participants who consented were presented with one of three research study questionnaires. The
participants were asked to read through the instructions on top of the questionnaire and read
through a scenario on a Facebook page. The participants were asked to read through a Facebook
post by a user named Abigail Foster who had cheated in a statistical test. Apparently, she had
been finding her statistical class daunting and while she was working very hard revising, she was
sure she would not perform very well in the test. When the instructor was handing the tests to
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 8
students, she was accidently handed her with an answer key which she used and get high scores
which made the instructor not to curve scores as he would had everybody failed. Abigail
therefore asked her friends for help since she was feeling bad about it. Facebook page contained
a picture of Abigail, its owner, as well as background picture of her university. In the about
section, generic information about Abigail was included. There was a list of her friends with
profile pictures of their selfies. There were also fake adverts to make the page appear real.
Below the Facebook posts were eight comments from her friends.
The Facebook post comments consisted of the first part of the survey. The comments
sections were tailored in three different conditions in each of the three surveys that were used
for the study. The first survey exclusively contained comments of Abigail’s friends who
unanimously supported her for cheating citing that it was her luck and she had not intended to
cheat at the first place. The second survey exclusively contained comments from Abigail’s
friends who unanimously opposed her decision to cheat citing such sentiments as it was wrong,
unethical and immoral. The third survey contained comments that were mixed. That is, some
comments were opposing and others supporting Abigail’s behavior. Each participant was
presented with a survey that contained only one of three conditions. That is, where comments
were either unanimously supportive, unanimously opposing or mixed. As such, a third of the
participants received comments that were unanimously supportive, a third received comments
that were unanimously opposing while the other third received surveys with comments that were
mixed.
In part II of the survey, the participants were asked to rate their impressions of Abigail’s
performance on a scale from 1(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The rates of were
expected to be different for each of the above-named conditions. Those who received surveys
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 9
with support consensus were expected to give ratings closer to 6(strongly agree). Those who
received surveys with oppose consensus were expected to give rates closer to one while those
with mixed consensus condition would give rates around the center of the ratings (Brida, &
Alvarez, 2017).
In part III, participants were asked to rate a number of statements on how they would
advise Abigail. This was the manipulation check question. The statements “I would advise
Abigail to keep silent”, “I would try to comfort Abigail”, and “I would give Abigail the same
advice that her friends gave her” were given the first three positions. The fourth and fifth
statements were aimed at establishing how the participants would respond in a similar situation
testing for social desirability bias. The other statements from sixth to twelfth consisted of
competency/ warmth scales as developed by Fiske (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990).
In part IV of the survey, the participants were asked to provide other dependent variables.
The dependent variables were in the form of demographic variables. The participants were asked
to provide demographic data. Any questions that they found uncomfortable answering they were
asked to pass. The data that was asked for included participants’ age, gender and ethnicity.
In part V, the participants were asked to rate the feedback that Abigail received from
her friends as either opposing, supportive or mixed from what they remembered (Sijtsma et al.,
2017). The rating was nominal rather than numerical. This rating would be analyzed using chi-
square method unlike the interval scales above that were to be analyzed using ANOVA and t-
tests (Wike, 2018).
After completing the survey, the participants were debriefed about the study. During
the brief, they were thanked for participating in the study. It was explained to them that
different participants were asked to provide feedback regarding Abigail’s post. Different
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 10
comments which were either unanimously supportive, unanimously opposing as well as mixed
was used to test predictions regarding conformity/consensus. The first prediction being tested
was that those participants who were presented with comments that were unanimously
supportive would rate Abigail’s behavior as acceptable (Scholz et al., 2014). On the other
hand, those who encountered comments that were unanimously opposing would rate her
behavior as unacceptable while those who encountered mixed comments would give back
ratings between the two extremes. The second prediction that was being tested is that it is
easier for a person to make a true opinion in the case where the comments were mixed more
than in the extreme cases of unanimous support and unanimous opposing. These predictions,
which were the study’s hypotheses would be tested during the researchers’ method course in
the semester.
Results
i. Chi-Square
The Facebook consensus condition was used as the independent variable (support,
oppose, mixed) and the participants recall of Abigail’s friends’ feedback to her, a significant χ
(4) =135.50, p<0.001. A big portion of participants in the “support” condition recalled
feedback that was supporting Abigail’s behavior (98%); most of the participants in the
“opposing” condition recalled opposing feedback (94%); and those who participated in the
“mixed” condition recalled mixed feedback (93%). This was an indicator that the participants
saw the researchers’ manipulation as intended.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 11
ii. ANOVA
A consensus condition (support vs. oppose vs. mixed) as the independent variable and the
ratings of “I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave her”, we found a
significant condition effect, F (2, 139) = 9.221, p<.05. This necessitated Tukey post hoc tests
that revealed that participants would have given the same advice to Abigail in the support
condition (M =4.5, S.D = 0.86) than participants in oppose condition (M = 3.4, S.D =1.00) as
well as mixed condition (M = 3.8, S.D = 0.73). It was also seen that participants in the mixed and
oppose conditions did not differ from each other. This supports the prediction of the researchers
that participants who had earlier been exposed to unanimously supportive comments would give
supportive advice to Abigail while those who were exposed to opposing comments, unanimous
and mixed, would give her opposing advice.
iii. T-test
A t-Test was carried out using the consensus condition (support vs. oppose) and as our
independent variable ratings of “I would give Abigail the same advice that her friends gave
her”, a significant condition effect was found, t (139) = 1.12, p > .05. As such, participants
exposed to the support condition (M =4.5, S.D = 0.86) would give the same advice to Abigail as
her friends gave to her as would those subjected to the opposing condition would (M = 3.4, S.D
=1.00)). This is an indicator that the participants are sensitive to consensus and are happy to
conform to the opinions of the consensus.
Another t-Test was carried out using the consensus condition (support vs. oppose) and as
our independent variable ratings of “I would advise Abigail to be silent”, a significant condition
effect was found, t (139) = 1.22, p > .05. As such, participants exposed to the support condition
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 12
(M =4.5, S.D = 0.86) would give the same advice to Abigail as her friends gave to her as would
those subjected to the opposing condition would (M = 3.4, S.D =1.00). As well, this is an
indicator that the participants are sensitive to consensus and are happy to conform to the
opinions of the consensus.
Discussion
The first hypothesis in this study was that those participants who were presented with
comments that were unanimously supportive would rate Abigail’s behavior as acceptable. On the
other hand, those who encountered comments that were unanimously opposing would rate her
behavior as unacceptable while those who encountered mixed comments would give back
ratings between the two extremes. The second hypothesis that was being tested is that it is easier
for a person to make a true opinion in the case where the comments were mixed more than in the
extreme cases of unanimous support and unanimous opposing. As per the results, the hypothesis
shows that participants are sensitive to consensus and are happy to conform to the opinions of
the consensus was supported.
Study Two: Sensitivity to Consensus
According to Reiss, (2006), a family exhibits Consensus Sensitivity. This more
specifically happens when mutual agreement are valued more as compared to the optimal
solution to any given challenge. When this kind of consensus happens in any society, there tends
to be a blurring of boundaries existing between themselves. This helps in sealing the society
hermetically from the external surroundings. Similarly to online platforms like Facebook, people
tend to lean to the point where consensus are in a unanimously supporting or unanimously
opposing. It’s due to consensus sensitivity that helps this individuals to come into a solid stand.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 13
From the first case study of Abigail’s behavior, it’s as a result of consensus sensitivity that to
one group was acceptable while to the other it wasn’t acceptable. However, it’s important to note
that the consensus sensitivity usually tend to mislead many individuals from making the right
decision when it comes to making right or wrong judgment (Rossi, 2019).
Consensus sensitivity can be compared to majority rule, and the reason as to why it tends
to mislead individuals is that, there are others who can’t stand firm to defend their point of view
on a certain issue, and for such a reason they end up looking for the side where there is more
supporters or opposes of a given situation. It’s after they observe where there is many supporters
then they also join to support (Tan, et al. 2019). When this happens, it’s clear that they didn’t
follow their concise in making such decision but rather following the compact majority. This is
the same thing which happens in democracy. This is the reason as to why the study result
indicated that there are three types of groups which includes, the unanimous supporters of
Abigail’s behavior, those who are unanimously opposing Abigail’s behavior as well as those
who neither support nor oppose the behavior (Bauer, et al. 2019).
Minority and Consensus Sensitivity
This is another instance which can be related to the case study that is being undertaken in
this study. Minority can be classified under group three of those individual opinions aren’t
influenced by the decision of other individuals (Bingham, 2019). These group may be the one
with correct judgment concerning Abigail’s behavior but they didn’t make their take on
Abigail’s behavior. This is a group whose point views aren’t heard since they are always silent
concerning their decisions. According to the second hypothesis, that was being tested is that it is
easier for a person to make a true opinion in the case where the comments were mixed more than
in the extreme cases of unanimous support and unanimous opposing (Tan, et al. 2017). The
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 14
mixed comments in Facebook are those that are represented by the minority group in this
research.
According to results, there is a t-Test that was carried out using the consensus condition
(support vs. oppose) using the independent variable ratings of “I would advise Abigail to be
silent”, it’s important to note that a significant condition effect was found where, t (139) = 1.22,
p > .05. This indicated that, the participants supported the condition (M =4.5, S.D = 0.86). This
proved that the individuals who have the ability of not being swayed by compact majority tends
to make the right judgments in daily life (Knutti, Rugenstein, & Hegerl, 2017). That is why I
preferred as a friend to Abigail that I would give her advice to follow the support condition of
this t-Test as compared to those subjected to the opposing condition would (M = 3.4, S.D =1.00),
a result which tend to prove to an indicator that the participants are sensitive to consensus and
are happy to conform to the opinions of the consensus, which is generally a dangerous option to
follow (Cardona, et al. 2019).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it’s from study one and two, it’s important to say that, anonymity,
ambiguity, as well as consensus sensitivity are some of the co-factors which contribute to the
decisions that we make as far as social medias like Facebook are a concern. While the urge to
conform to general consensus, is incessantly on the rise, some of the contributing factors are
issues that have been portrayed by Asch in the theory that seeks to explain moral judgment (Del
Campo, 2017).
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 15
References:
Bauer, T. W., Bedair, H., Creech, J. D., Deirmengian, C., Eriksson, H., Fillingham, Y., ... &
Lazarinis, S. (2019). Hip and knee section, diagnosis, laboratory tests: proceedings of
International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections. J Arthroplast, 34, S351-S359.
Bingham, M. (2019). International Consensus Report on CGM Data and Recommendations for
Achieving Time in Range. Diabetes Care, 42, 1355.
Cardona, D. M., Detweiler, C. J., Shealy, M. J., Sung, A. D., Wild, D. M., Poleski, M. H., ... &
Sullivan, K. M. (2018). Use of the National Institutes of Health consensus guidelines
improves the diagnostic sensitivity of gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease. Archives
of pathology & laboratory medicine, 142(9), 1098-1105.
Del Campo, A. G. (2017). A conceptualisation framework for building consensus on
environmental sensitivity. Journal of environmental management, 200, 114-122.
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(2-3), 57–68. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2017.1323007
Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A., & Hegerl, G. C. (2017). Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Nature Geoscience, 10(10), 727-736.
Tan, W. C. J., Inoue, K., AbdelWareth, L., Giannitsis, E., Kasim, S., Shiozaki, M., ... & Lim, S.
H. (2019). The Asia-Pacific Society of Cardiology (APSC) Expert Committee Consensus
Recommendations for Assessment of Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome Using High-
Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T in the Emergency Department. Circulation Journal, CJ-
19.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CONSENSUS 16
Tan, J. W. C., Lam, C. S., Kasim, S. S., Aw, T. C., Abanilla, J. M., Chang, W. T., ... & Topipat,
P. (2017). Asia-Pacific consensus statement on the optimal use of high-sensitivity
troponin assays in acute coronary syndromes diagnosis: focus on hs-TnI. Heart Asia,
9(1), 81-87.
Rossi, S. (2019). Multiple chemical sensitivity: pursuit of a scientific consensus, need for a
public health response. Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 55(4), 319-322.
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.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.017