Social Psychology
Sweetness668
Conformity_in_Groups_The_Effe.pdf
ORIGINAL PAPER
Conformity in Groups: The Effects of Others’ Views on Expressed Attitudes and Attitude Change
Lindsey C. Levitan1 • Brad Verhulst2
Published online: 15 August 2015
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract Two experiments demonstrate the powerful influence of others’ views on individual attitudes and attitude expression. Those around us can influence our
views through persuasion and information exchange, but the current research
hypothesizes that exposure to alternate views even without discussion or exchange
of persuasive arguments can also alter what attitudes are expressed, and even
generate long term shifts in attitudes. In an initial study, naı̈ve participants were
asked their attitudes on a range of standard survey items privately, publicly in a
group with trained confederates, and again privately following the group setting.
Findings indicate significant attitudinal conformity, which was most pronounced
when participants were faced with a unanimous (versus non-unanimous) group. The
group experience continued to influence participants’ views when they were again
asked their views in private. A second experiment varied whether participants heard
views from live confederates or via computer, demonstrating that these effects could
not be attributed only to issue-relevant information provided by or inferred from
group members, and that attitude change persisted long after participants had left the
laboratory. In summary, when people are asked their attitudes publicly, they adjust
their responses to conform to those around them, and this attitude change persists
privately, even weeks later. Accordingly, such purely social processes of attitude
change may be every bit as important as more traditional cognitive informational
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9312-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
& Lindsey C. Levitan [email protected]
1 Psychology Department, Shepherd University, Shepherdstown, WV 25443, USA
2 Virginia Commonwealth University, 800 E. Leigh Street, PO Box 980126, Richmond,
VA 23298-0126, USA
123
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
DOI 10.1007/s11109-015-9312-x
processes in understanding where people’s political attitudes come from, and how
they may be changed.
Keywords Social influence � Political attitudes � Group processes
Those who surround us have a profound influence on how we understand the world
in general, and politics in particular. Ideally, this influence happens through
thoughtful exchanges of views and careful consideration, leading people to hold
carefully constructed attitudes, make logical and informed decisions, and generally
behave consistently with their underlying preferences (Fishkin 1991; Putnam 2000).
Unfortunately, this is not always the case (Converse 1964). How, otherwise, can we
account for the existence of political attitudes and movements that persist despite
objective disproof of their beliefs? For example, ‘‘Birthers’’ insist that President
Obama was not born in the US, despite various birth records, reports of those who
were there, and even testimony of the Republican governor of the state in which he
was born (Henig 2008; Malcolm 2008; PPP poll 2012). It therefore behooves us to
look beyond pure logic and information, to more thoroughly consider the social
roots of attitudes and judgments.
Research has taken two major directions in understanding why views are not a
function of information alone. The first, motivated skepticism (Kunda 1990;
Redlawsk 2002; Taber and Lodge 2006; see also Redlawsk and Lau 2013),
establishes our tendency to arrive at desired (but not necessarily accurate)
conclusions through phenomena like disconfirmation bias (Taber and Lodge
2006). Though ubiquitous, motivated skepticism has limits, and can generally not be
stretched to explain disregard for overwhelming information (Kunda 1990;
Redlawsk, et al. 2010). Additional, complementary explanations are required. A
second direction of research therefore examines features of our social environment
that can alter attitudes (Huddy 2004; Smith et al. 1956; Huckfeldt et al. 2004a) and
can cause people to prioritize fitting in over correctness (see Baumeister and Leary
1995). Such social research provides some precedents for expressing erroneous
judgments in the face of complete objective disproof, albeit with politically
irrelevant stimuli (e.g. Asch 1951).
While those with whom we have social ties undoubtedly serve as sources of
useful information and arguments, they also generate social pressure, and act as
reference points for determining what is appropriate and correct. The result is often
conformity, or attitude change towards the group as a result of social information
rather than political information. 1 In order to fully understand public opinion and
the attitudes citizens hold, we must look beyond overt persuasion and information
1 Although researchers use the term ‘‘conformity’’ in various ways, it generally indicates a continuum
such that individuals may be more conforming or nonconforming (see Willis 1963; Nail and MacDonald
2007). ‘‘Movement toward an influence source is the most prominent operational definition of conformity
in the literature…’’ (Nail and MacDonald 2007, p. 195). Thus, we use ‘‘conformity’’ to mean a shift in expressed attitudes to be closer to (but not necessarily identical to) the views of others. This is especially
appropriate for views in groups, in that individuals in groups rarely hold identical views, making being
identical to a group operationally unclear.
278 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
exchange to examine social goals and influences that arise from simply knowing
what others’ attitudes are, without any justification of those attitudes.
Several particularly deleterious effects make it essential to incorporate such
social influence processes into our understanding of political attitudes. First, public
conformity of one individual may spiral to others and lead to pluralistic ignorance in
which the views of the majority are misperceived (Noelle-Neumann 1974; Prentice
and Miller 1993; Todorov and Mandisodza 2004). As the appearance of unanimity
grows, a corresponding intolerance for dissenting opinions develops (Mutz 2002b;
Mutz and Mondak 2006) increasing social pressure for attitudinal homogeneity.
Those who perceive (however inaccurately) that their views are supported by those
around them will subsequently hold those attitudes more strongly (Visser and
Mirabile 2004; Levitan and Visser 2009) and become more likely act on those
attitudes through voting and other forms of political participation (Mutz 2002a, but
see Huckfeldt et al. 2004b). Most dauntingly, public conformity may lead to private
acceptance of expressed views, without due thought. The potential negative
implications of this attitude change based upon blind conformity need little
explanation. The democratic ideal is that people base their attitudes and votes on
careful consideration of available information (e.g. Fishkin 1991), not simply on
what attitudes are most popular.
The current studies demonstrate that attitude change through social pressure can
arise simply from knowing what other people’s attitudes are, especially proximate
others. Hearing justifications of these attitudes is not a necessary precondition for
attitude change. We adopt the term ‘‘argument’’ to indicate such information about
an issue other than the view of others, in keeping with the persuasion literature (see
Shavitt and Brock, 1994, especially chapter 6). The current studies examine the
extent to which brief interactions, in which few or no persuasive arguments change
hands, can elicit public conformity and even generate enduring attitude change. We
also examine features of the situation that can heighten this effortless social
influence.
Social Influence
Our attitudes and behavior can be powerfully and often unwittingly shaped by the
people around us (Hardin and Higgins 1996). Researchers have studied this premise
from many perspectives involving different levels of analysis, mechanisms, and
domains. Researchers have examined impersonal influence of mass media (e.g.
Mutz 1998) and elites, as well as persuasion more generally (Zaller 1992), or have
taken approaches focused more on social dynamics and relationships between
individuals.
Social dynamics can unduly influence judgment and decision-making at the level
of small group interactions because concurrence-seeking and concerns about group
cohesion help generate negative phenomena like groupthink (Janis 1982; Tetlock
et al. 1992). Similarly, small group dynamics can generate extreme views through
group polarization (Myers and Lamm 1976). Experiments with small groups have
been helpful not only in clarifying small group dynamics, but also in isolating
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 279
123
specific variables to test their causal impact, demonstrating that characteristics such
as expertise (Petty and Cacioppo 1986), gender (Eagly 1983), and status (Eagly
1983) can cause some individuals to be more influential than others.
At a more abstract level, research has examined the role of social identity in
attitudes, judgments, and behaviors. Initial research demonstrated that people
sometimes change their judgments (e.g. about distribution of resources, perceptions
of others) merely due to being randomly assigned to group X or Y, both small
groups of strangers (Tajfel and Turner 1986). These beginnings developed into a
broad literature on the impact of various socially ascribed identities (race, gender,
religion, etc.) on how we view the political landscape (see Huddy 2004).
The current research, like the literature on small groups, focuses on the influence
of those around us, specifically people with whom we interact directly. Importantly,
it also emphasizes the role of social situations, rather than exchange of arguments,
in generating attitude change.
Personal Social Contact
Of late, social network research has made important strides in understanding how
direct contact with close others and political discussants can influence attitudes and
behavior (Huckfeldt et al. 2004a; Mutz 2006; Sinclair 2012; see Klofstad et al. 2013
on conceptualization and measurement). Our networks socialize us politically
(Settle et al., 2011). We borrow information and expertise from them, which in turn
influence our views (Ryan 2011) and our behavior (McClurg 2006). Disagreement
with those around us can destabilize our views, generating attitude change
(Huckfeldt and Sprague 2000; Levitan and Visser 2009), and reducing our
likelihood of acting on those attitudes (Mutz 2002a, but see Huckfeldt et al. 2004b).
Various mechanisms are involved in this influence of close others. Structural
equivalence theory emphasizes the role of information exchange with similar others,
especially discussion which leads to a mutual understanding of costs and benefits
(Burt 1987, pp. 1290–1291). Indeed, individuals embedded in attitudinally
heterogeneous networks are more aware of opposing arguments (Huckfeldt et al.
2004b; Mutz 2002b). This argument-based influence has often been the focus of
research (e.g. Ahn et al. 2010; Huckfeldt and Sprague 1987), but influence is not
limited to argument-driven persuasion. Differences of opinion in one’s network also
impact how we think about our views, influencing attitude accessibility (Huckfeldt
and Sprague 2000), information seeking (Levitan and Wronski 2014), and how
deeply we consider opposing information (Levitan and Visser 2008). This is
partially because others serve as reference points for determining what attitudes and
behaviors are correct and socially appropriate (Sherif 1936; Festinger 1954; Kelley
1952).
While those with whom we have social ties undoubtedly serve as sources of
concrete arguments, social comparison theory proposes that others’ views are
themselves used as information (Festinger 1954). This ‘‘informational influence’’
occurs when people use the views of others as heuristic cues or reference points to
280 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
determine if their own views are likely to be correct (Deutsch and Gerard 1955).
Despite the term ‘‘informational influence,’’ no arguments need to be exchanged –
mere exposure to someone else’s opinion is enough to assess the accuracy of one’s
own opinion, like students gauging whether their answer to a math question is
correct by asking what others got. People intuitively believe that if more people
share their view, then that view is more likely to be correct (Cialdini 1995).
Conversely, learning that others hold discrepant attitudes, even without learning
why, erodes confidence in that attitude (Visser and Mirabile 2004).
Informational influence is not the only means of influence without argumenta-
tion, however. Although people are motivated to be accurate and correct, they also
have other motivations, including social motives (see for example Katz 1960; Taber
and Lodge 2006). Humans are deeply social creatures, with an intense need to
belong, which motivates people to affiliate with others, and to seek their positive
regard (Baumeister and Leary 1995). People feel uncomfortable and ambivalent
when their views are inconsistent with those of people they like (Priester and Petty
2001), and they are highly motivated to avoid this discomfort often through attitude
change (Heider 1946). Such motivation to fit in is so powerful that mere postal
mailings emphasizing group norms can influence people to vote (Gerber et al. 2008;
Panagopoulos 2010; see also Cialdini et al. 1991). Indeed, some attitudes exist
primarily to serve a ‘‘social adjustment’’ function (Smith et al. 1956; see also
‘‘value-expressive’’ function: Katz 1960), although any attitude might be affected by
group norms.
‘‘Normative influence’’ (Deutsch and Gerard 1955; Kelley 1952) follows along
these lines, occurring when people we interact with serve as standards delineating
what is appropriate and acceptable to the group, regardless of what is factually
correct. The attitudes of others imply group norms, signaling what sorts of attitudes
are proper and expected. People conform to these group norms to avoid social
sanctions (Schachter 1951; Ulbig and Funk 1999), to remain in good standing with
current social partners, or to join desirable new groups (Kelley 1952).
Consistent with the expectation that people will alter their views and behavior to
fit in, one of the most remarkable findings of conformity research is that people
sometimes express clearly incorrect judgments if those around them unanimously
agree (Asch 1951; 1956; Deutsch and Gerard 1955). In Asch’s classic studies,
participants were easily able to determine the relative lengths of printed lines when
alone, but gave the wrong answer a stunning 37 % of the time in the presence of
other ‘‘participants’’ who had just unanimously voiced a wrong answer (Asch 1956).
A less touted, but also remarkable aspect of this research is that strangers had this
influence. This suggests that, although research naturally focuses on close others,
perhaps strangers and those with whom we have weak ties (who are more likely to
disagree with us, Mutz and Martin 2001) have an underappreciated impact on our
views.
While information exchange clearly affects attitudes, subtle features of the social
context also have an impact. The underlying mechanisms of both normative and
informational social influence rely on the knowledge of what others’ views are,
without the necessity of any concrete arguments being exchanged. As such, the
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 281
123
attitudes of others provide a social yardstick by which to evaluate both the
correctness and appropriateness of one’s own preferences.
Conformity with Political Attitudes?
Political attitudes are quite different than the stimuli used in much of the conformity
literature, allowing some to suggest that political attitudes may not be susceptible to
such striking levels conformity as in classic conformity studies. This makes it
especially important to empirically establish people’s susceptibility to political
conformity.
Much of our knowledge of conformity is based on unimportant perceptual tasks
(e.g. judging the lengths of lines), whereas political attitudes are quite important and
self-relevant (Katz 1960). As attitude importance increases, people are more likely
to act in accordance with that attitude, and are therefore less susceptible to attitude
change (Boninger et al. 1995), and so people may be more willing to risk social
conflict by posing a dissenting opinion. People may also be more willing to resist
conforming politically because of the relative subjectivity of political issues. To
disagree politically may be uncomfortable, but to disagree on objective matters risks
‘‘appearing incompetent, foolish, or even mad,’’ because one can be proven wrong
(Ross et al. 1976, p. 149). The subjectivity of political views therefore reduces the
social cost of non-conformity (see Ross et al. 1976).
Thus, there are valid reasons to doubt that the conformity so compellingly
established in other domains will generalize to politics. Still, when there is no
objective evidence, people are particularly reliant on social information to gauge the
correctness of their attitudes and judgments (Festinger 1954; Kelley 1952; Deutsch
and Gerard 1955), making it necessary and enlightening to test whether the purely
social effects that psychologists tout are truly present with regard to political views.
Lasting Attitude Change?
Even temporary conformity in the face of disagreement has dramatic implications
for the democratic process, but the possibility that it may presage lasting attitude
change makes it critically important. Social information, even in brief interactions,
can exert an influence on people’s perceptions even months later (Sherif 1936).
Consequently, the attitudes that people possess may not only be a function of their
initial attitude, but also of past social encounters.
Previous research on conformity and normative influence has often neglected the
possibility of lasting changes (after all, one does not expect persistent inability to
judge length of lines after a group interaction), but with political attitudes this
perseverance is a real possibility. Beyond any direct impact of social influence, the
mere act of expressing an attitude (or not) can solidify it (or weaken it). Publicly
stated attitudes are more resistant to subsequent persuasion than views that remain
unexpressed (Roese and Olson 1994). More critically, the simple act of expressing a
counter-attitudinal view can shift one’s private attitude to be more similar to the
282 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
expressed view, generating persistent attitude change (Bem 1972; Festinger 1957;
Cooper 2007). Thus, we expect that conformity may produce some lasting private
attitude change, as well as public conformity.
Factors Influencing Political Conformity and Subsequent Attitude Change
In addition to hypothesizing about social influence, we anticipate that several factors
will affect people’s susceptibility to this influence. The range of views voiced by
others is one such variable. The narrower the range of expressed attitudes, the more
clearly the group norm is established. This makes deviation from that norm more
evident, and normative influence more powerful. The more people agree amongst
themselves, the less tolerant they are of disagreement (Laumann 1973; Mutz and
Mondak 2006), and the more likely they are to apply pressure to deviants and
ultimately ostracize them (Schachter 1951). When a group is unanimous, people
therefore feel increased pressure to conform (Asch 1951). Even one other dissenter
can make it easier to resist conforming (Nemeth and Chiles 1988). Reciprocally,
when group members express a range of views, it becomes unclear whether or not a
group norm exists and what that norm might be, even if the discordant group has the
same ideological central tendency as the unanimous group. Dissention from the
norm becomes less noticeable, more difficult to punish, and more acceptable.
Hence, unanimity of others is expected to increase conformity.
The degree of difference between an individual’s views and those of group
members is also of interest. When an individual’s views grow more distant from the
group’s mean view, the distinction between the group norm and the individual’s
view becomes more apparent. Clear deviants are the subject of greater social
pressure, whereas minor deviations from the group’s attitudinal norm may go
unnoticed by group members, thereby failing to elicit attempts at social influence
(Schachter 1951). If individuals’ attitudes are close enough to the group to seem
similar to those of others, this diffuses the social influence, reducing its impact (see
Latane 1981). Additionally, assimilation effects may cause individuals who hold
similar views to those around them to see little or no difference between their views
and those of others (Hovland et al. 1949; see also Mussweiler 2003), and therefore
feel no pressure to change to views with which they already ‘‘agree’’. Ultimately,
the more an individual is exposed to disagreement by close others (or perhaps even
strangers) the more likely they are to change those views (Huckfeldt and Sprague
2000; Visser and Mirabile 2004). Therefore, the distance of the ego from the group
is also expected to relate to conformity.
These same contextual variables are also expected to influence the degree of
continued attitude change. Attitudes expressed in the group might be mere public
conformity for the sake of getting along, but social motives for public agreement
often influence private attitudes expressed outside of the group context, as well (see
Wood 2000; Kelman 1958, 1989). Additionally, expressing views to others is
known to encourage persistent attitude change through both self-perception and
cognitive dissonance. Either individuals take the fact that they have expressed a
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 283
123
view to indicate that they hold that view (Bem 1972), or they are uncomfortable
with having expressed views at odds with their own, and so find ways to change
their views (Festinger 1957, Cooper 2007). In either case, we anticipate that the
likelihood of lasting attitude change should be greatest among those who initially
conformed. As such, those factors that influence initial conformity should also
influence likelihood of persistent change. We therefore expect that likelihood of
persistent attitude change should increase when groups exhibit unity and when the
ego is farther from the group mean both because these factors should affect
normative and informational influence, and also because these factors first
influenced expression of views within the group.
The Current Studies
The current studies (Stony Brook University IRB #82695) assess the degree to
which people conform to the attitudes expressed by others without the necessity of
exchanging persuasive arguments, and whether lasting attitude change results from
this process. The above discussion points to two primary and several supplementary
hypotheses.
Primary H1 Individuals in the presence of others will express attitudes more in line with the attitudes of those others than their initial attitudes had been.
Primary H2 Rather than reverting to their initial private attitudes after leaving the group context, individuals will exhibit persistent attitude change.
2
Supplementary H3a Likelihood of immediate public conformity will be greater when others are unanimous.
Supplementary H3b Likelihood of persistent attitude change will be greater when others are unanimous.
Supplementary H4a Likelihood of immediate public conformity will be greater when the individual’s attitude is more different from the group.
Supplementary H4b Likelihood of persistent attitude change will be greater when the individual’s attitude is more different from the group.
Supplementary H5a Likelihood of immediate public conformity will be due, at least in part, to normative influence.
3
Supplementary H5b Likelihood of persistent attitude change will be due, at least in part, to normative influence (see Footnote 3).
2 Note that we do not hypothesize that later private attitudes will be exactly the same as attitudes
expressed in the group, only that they will be more like those of the group than initial private attitudes had
been. 3 Informational influence may, of course, also play a role, and will be held constant in tests of normative
influence.
284 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
Two laboratory experiments were conducted during 2008 and 2009: a prelim-
inary experiment and a second, expanded experiment. Study 1 examines the social
pressures within a group and subsequent attitude change, as well as social and
personality factors that enhance change. Study 2 demonstrates that the social
pressures identified in study 1 were the result of not only informational influence,
but also normative influence. Findings indicate that the physical presence of group
members enhances the level of conformity considerably, indicating that participants
changed their attitudes not just because the attitudes of others are useful
information, but also because individuals feel especially motivated to hold attitudes
that are similar to those with whom they interact. The second study also examines
the longevity of these social influence effects over days and weeks, rather than
minutes. 4
Study 1 Introduction and Method
In order to understand the role of merely knowing others’ attitudes in encouraging
conformity and attitude change, we examined the reactions of participants to small
groups of others (confederates) with varying attitudes. We experimentally
manipulated both the unanimity of confederates and the average attitude of the
confederates. The latter manipulation allowed us to vary the attitudinal distance
between the participant and confederates without compromising the internal validity
of the experiment. Both of these experimental manipulations were conducted in a
within-subjects design to allow efficient causal inferences. The within-subjects
design allows greater power and efficiency in our design. 5
After providing consent, participants reported their attitudes about various issues
privately, via computer. They then heard the attitudes of a small group of
confederates, and were asked to state their own views verbally in the presence of the
confederates in order to establish whether merely knowing the views of strangers
could alter their views. Participants then reported their attitudes again privately, via
computer, to establish whether persistent attitude change was occurring, rather than
simply public agreement. Participants were then thanked and debriefed.
4 The results of both studies are presented in order to demonstrate a basic finding and an extension, and to
demonstrate the reliability and robustness of these results, in accordance with the recommendations of
King (1995). 5 For those who are less familiar, the within-subjects design is an experimental design in which a
participant experiences more than one experimental condition (see, e.g., Keppel and Wickens (2004) for
further discussion). Counterbalancing is employed for maximum internal validity. It enables causal
conclusions, and is particularly valued in fields like medicine and psychology because each participant
serves as their own control group, enabling greater power and efficiency than a between-subjects design.
Within-subjects designs are especially well suited to circumstances when: (1) individual differences are
expected to be large enough to obscure treatment effects by generating large within-group variability, or
(2) trials are quite brief (as in our study), making it more efficient to have a participant take part in
several different trials, rather than having multiple participants take part in only one brief trial apiece. In
this study, there is an additional benefit: if participants were assigned to only one condition across
attitudes, hearing their group members responding the same way on every trial would undoubtedly
generate unnecessary suspicion.
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 285
123
Participants
We recruited 54 undergraduate participants from a large public university, 8 of
whom were excluded from all analyses for indicating suspicion when probed during
debriefing. 6 Of the remaining participants, 24 were male, and 23 identified as
Democrats, 6 as Republicans, and 11 as independents.
Procedure and Cover Story
Participants were recruited in exchange for extra credit, under the auspices of a
study about group-based political discussions, although no group discussion actually
occurred. Participants were told that they would complete a short questionnaire,
then engage in a group activity, and finally complete another questionnaire (Fig. 1).
The consent form framed the initial, group, and post-group study phases as separate
tasks.
Upon arriving at the lab, participants completed an attitude questionnaire (Online
Resource, Appendix A) and filler questions anonymously on a computer. They were
then taken to a separate room where three confederates were being seated for the
anticipated group discussion. The same student confederates were used for every
participant (2 male, 1 female, 1 minority). Once the naı̈ve participant was seated, the
experimenter told the group that in order to choose the best discussion topic he
would ask them some ‘‘standard political attitudes questions’’ and requested that
they respond verbally, one at a time, with the answer option only (i.e. ‘‘somewhat
agree’’), so that he could record their responses. These were the attitude questions
previously asked, without the filler questions. The naı̈ve participant by ‘‘chance’’
became the fourth participant in the group, such that each confederate answered a
question in turn before them, ensuring that naı̈ve participants always knew others’
responses prior to responding themselves. A round of responding to a particular item
took a fraction of a minute. After the final verbal question, participants were told
that in their specific case a discussion would not be useful (supposedly because their
group’s attitudes were redundant with previous groups) and they were then taken
back to their original room without any discussion of issues. The entire group
portion of the study, including answering all 30 questions, took less than 15 min. All
participants then completed a post-test questionnaire that consisted of the same
survey questions embedded in a series of questionnaires about personality traits,
demographics, and filler items to obscure the repeated questions.
Contextual Factors Influencing Conformity
Both unanimity of confederates views and the average attitude of those confederates
were randomly assigned in within-subjects experimental manipulations. The
6 Suspicious participants questioned the naivety of the confederates, and a few mentioned group
influence or verbal conformity. No participants guessed that we were examining persistent or private
attitude change. Related research suggests that demand effects make attitudes less prone to our predicted
social influences because of concern about appearing weak-willed to the experimenter (Deutsch and
Gerard, 1955), minimizing concerns about demand effects.
286 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
manipulation of group unanimity kept the group average on an item constant, while
altering the degree of pressure toward uniformity. On the unanimous condition
items, confederates gave identical responses on a particular attitude item, whereas in
the non-unanimous condition items, each confederate answered slightly differently
from the other two (e.g. positions 1, 2, and 3 versus 2, 2, and 2). The confederates’
average response was also experimentally manipulated to vary along the continuum
from agreeing to disagreeing with the item. To avoid issue-specific confounding,
both unanimity and the ideological direction of the average group response across
issues were counterbalanced (e.g. which items were unanimous varied across
participants by random assignment to a condition schedule). Confederates gave only
the response option of their answer (e.g. ‘‘somewhat favor’’), and were trained to
react neutrally both when responding and when others were speaking (passive
expressions and no comments).
To gauge the dissimilarity of the participant from the group, the absolute
attitudinal distance between a participant’s pre-discussion private response and the
average response of the confederates was assessed for each item. This attitudinal
Fig. 1 Experimental procedures
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 287
123
distance varied as a function of the experimental manipulation of the average group
attitude and participants’ initial attitudes. Therefore, although the distance between
the individuals’ initial attitudes and the group’s mean response was not itself
experimentally assigned, it varied probabilistically as a function of experimental
treatment.
Individual Differences
We also assessed party identification and political sophistication to gain additional
insights. Those who have greater political sophistication are better able to resist
persuasion through counter-arguing (Zaller 1992), and so sophistication was
assessed by summing the number of correct responses to 10 factual questions
(Online Resource, Appendix D, Cronbacha = 0.79; M = .53, SD = .27). Party
identification was measured with the standard branched item from the ANES, in
which Republicans are at the high end of the scale.
Conformity and Attitude Change Measures
Changes in participants’ response to the same attitude items across the phases of the
study were used to assess conformity and persistent attitude change. Following
Kelman (1958), we deemed a participant to have conformed if his or her verbal
response in the group was more similar to the group’s average response than his or
her initial private response. Similarly, we deemed participants to have experienced
true attitude change if they continued to express views more congruent to those of
the group even when the group (and the attendant social pressure) was no longer
present.
Study 1 Results and Discussion
We present our analyses in several stages (conducted using Stata, throughout the
paper). First, we provide some preliminary analyses to demonstrate that social
influence and conformity are in fact occurring, and to what extent. We then examine
which factors especially encourage conformity. Finally, we examine whether these
social influence factors induce persistent attitude change.
Overall Attitude Change
To develop a broad picture of the extent of conformity and persistent attitude
change, our initial analyses examined the overall magnitude of conformity in the
group and private attitude change thereafter, regardless of experimental treatment.
Specifically, we investigated the degree to which participants altered their views to
be more similar to the average attitude of the group by correlating their initial
attitudinal distance from the group mean with the amount of change toward the
group. The resulting positive correlation indicates that when participants were
assigned to a group that was more conservative than them on an issue, participants
288 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
became more conservative, and when their group was more liberal, they became
more liberal on that issue (top panel of Fig. 2). This strong positive relationship
demonstrates that the more participants’ initial views differed from those of their
group, the more they changed the attitudes they expressed in the group (r = 0.507,
p \ .001), consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 4a. For example, when the group was more conservative, perhaps opposing something the participant was neutral about
(X = -2), the participant could be expected to become more conservative, typically
covering about � the distance between their initial position and that of the group (Y = -1), and when the group was more liberal, the participant likewise became
more liberal. 7
Interestingly, attitude change persisted even after the group dispersed, consistent
with Hypotheses 2 and 4b (Fig. 2, bottom panel). The more participants’ attitudes
stood out from the group, the more they changed, even after participants were no
longer in the group setting (r = 0.238, p \ .001). Thus, the impact of social influence persisted even when the source of that influence was removed. The
magnitude of the correlation for the post-discussion responses is noteworthy, though
predictably not as large as the correlation for responses while in a group. The drop
in the correlation when the participants were no longer with the group suggests some
initial compliance that was purely intended to minimize social conflict. Nonetheless,
people changed their attitudes overall to be more like those of the group,
demonstrating social influence even in the absence of discussion or exchange of
arguments.
While these data deserve more detailed examination (below), these preliminary
results have important implications. The perseverance of the significant correlation
between initial difference of opinion and subsequent attitude change even after
participants were no longer with others demonstrates that participants changed their
private views to be more like those of the group. They did not simply verbally ‘‘go
along to get along’’ with the group and immediately revert back to their private
attitudes after the group dissolved, as might have been expected based on
compliance alone (Asch 1951, Kelman 1958, 1961). When people are in a group
they conform politically, and this conformity translates into actual attitude change
that persists beyond the group setting.
Level of Initial Conformity
Having examined the magnitude of conformity, we next examine some descriptive
information about the frequency of overall initial conformity irrespective of
condition, followed by more in-depth analyses of the factors that make such initial
conformity more likely. On some issues, the participant’s initial attitude matched
the average group attitude, as a consequence of random assignment of group views
(as expected by chance &1/7th of the time, n = 183). In this case not changing one’s attitude is the expected response for conformists and for those who are
unaffected by the group. Due to this ambiguity, these responses were excluded from
7 Attesting to the robustness of these results, t tests confirm that participants’ attitudes became more like
the group attitudes to which they were randomly assigned (whether liberal or conservative).
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 289
123
all subsequent analyses. Note that this occurred randomly across conditions because
of the within-subjects manipulation of group attitude, and that particular observa-
tions, but not participants, were removed. The excluded observations did not
significantly differ based on any of the condition or individual difference variables.
On the remaining 1197 responses, participants conformed most of the time (57 %)
and polarized away from the group only 7 % of the time (Fig. 3). Indeed,
participants conformed disproportionately often (v2 = 26.17, p B .001), more often than polarizing and maintaining the same attitude combined. Importantly, every
participant conformed on at least 6 of the 30 responses (20 %). This level of
conformity is notably higher than the prior literature on non-political judgments
Fig. 2 The relationship between the participant’s initial deviance from the group and the amount of initial conformity and persistent attitude change in study 1. These scatterplots represent how a participant initially differed from the group mean on an item, and how much they subsequently changed on that item. The r values indicated are Pearson’s correlations
290 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
where approximately � of the participants are able to completely resist conformity pressures on all trials (Bond and Smith 1996).
Some might argue that some of these results (particularly the correlations) might
be vulnerable to a ‘‘regression to the mean’’ interpretation, in that the effect might
be a result of those who are most different from their group (i.e. most extreme)
changing toward both the mean and their group. The counterbalancing of group
issue positions make this account unlikely by making regression towards the mean
and conformity toward the group statistically distinguishable. Specifically, some
neutral or liberal participants who become more conservative are deemed to be
conforming because their group mean was conservative on an item, but others are
considered not conforming on that same item because their group mean was liberal
(and vice versa for conservatives), cancelling out any overall effect. Thus,
significant effects indicate change not to ‘‘the’’ mean (as in regression to the mean),
but toward the different means of participants’ groups. Additionally, regression to
the mean cannot account for significant differences between experimental condi-
tions. Regression to the mean dictates a general drift of initially extreme scores
toward the average, rather than two equivalent experimental groups showing
differing results. Significant effects of condition therefore rule out this concern, and
so we turn to analyzing factors that encourage conformity.
Fig. 3 The frequency of conformity and persistent attitude change in study 1. As noted, of the 46 participants, and 1,380 observations, participants reported agreeing with the group before the group session 183 times (*1/7, or at chance), such that change would not indicate conformity. For clarity, these observations were not included above, leaving 1,197 observations
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 291
123
Conditions Encouraging Conformity
To examine the antecedents of conformity, we assessed whether or not participants’
attitudes expressed in the group were closer to the group average response than their
initial attitude on each item. We chose this measure so as not to give undo weight to
those who begin with the most extreme attitudes, and therefore have the most room
to change. If a participant changed their attitude to align better with the group, the
observation scored 1, and if not a 0.
Several statistical strategies were used to examine which factors encourage
conformity, each yielding similar results to those reported here. These included
different ways of coding the dependent variable and differing analyses. Attesting to
the robustness of these results, parameter estimates changed minimally (generally
within rounding error) and the substantive interpretation of the results was highly
consistent across every method used. 8,9
For the sake of clarity to the broadest
audience, the simplest and most directly relevant analytic method is presented here.
Thus, we report logistic regression analyses with nonconformity as the baseline
condition (see Table 1, Col 1). Each response for each participant was treated as a
separate observation. Responses were then clustered by the participant in the
analysis to account for their non-independence. These analyses were conducted first
on attitude change expressed in the group, then on attitudes expressed after the
group phase to examine persistent attitude change.
Social Factors and Influence
In accordance with Hypotheses 3a and 4a, the contextual variables of unanimity and
attitudinal distance from the group strongly influenced the likelihood that
participants would conform on any given response (Table 1, Col 1). The probability
of conforming significantly increases when the group is unanimous (predicted
probability increases by 9 percentage points, holding all other variables at their
means), 10
supporting the idea that unanimity sends a clear message about what is
correct and appropriate, generating increased conformity. Additionally, the
significant coefficient for attitudinal distance indicates that the more the group
members’ average attitude differed from a participant’s initial attitude, the more
8 Dependent variables included those already discussed, and a three category variable (move toward,
stay, move away). Interpretation was substantively similar across dependent variable codings (Online
Resource, Appendix F). 9 Due to the multi-stage responses of participants, nested logit models and conditional logistic regression
models were also estimated. These models reduce to a multinomial logistic regression as a result of the
structure of this data. The multinomial results closely resemble presented results (Online Resource,
Appendix F) because too few participants polarized away from the group to provide additional leverage.
Parallel logistic regression models were also run to examine subsequent responses contingent on behavior
in the group. Again, results did not change substantively (Appendix F). Multilevel modeling proved
untenable due to the cross-nesting of within-participant observations across times and conditions, and the
need to use the outcome at time 1 to condition the effects in later stages. 10
Predicted probabilities throughout the paper were calculated based on the relevant logistic regressions,
holding all other variables at the mean. Discussion of change of predicted probability indicates that the
probability changed by the number of percentage points indicated.
292 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
likely that participant was to conform (the most discrepant being an estimated 39
percentage points more likely than the least discrepant). This is consistent with the
idea that people who differ more feel more pressure to bring their views in line with
those of others.
Individual Differences
Importantly, not every individual was equally likely to conform. The politically
sophisticated were significantly less likely to conform (a predicted 26 percentage
points less likely than the least sophisticated), suggesting that sophisticates are less
susceptible to social influence (consistent with Zaller 1992). Importantly, although
sophisticates were generally less likely to conform, sophistication did not
completely inoculate participants against the social pressure created in the group
setting. Predicted probabilities indicate that those with the highest levels of political
Table 1 Logistic regression models explaining participant attitude change in Study 1
In group setting After group setting
Unanimity 0.366** 0.299*
(0.143) (0.147)
[.010] [.041]
Attitudinal distance 1.679*** 1.488***
(0.377) (0.375)
[\.001] [\.001]
Political sophistication -1.084* -0.252
(0.474) (0.404)
[.022] [.534]
Party identification -0.556 -0.282
(0.424) (0.387)
[.190] [.466]
Constant 0.081 -1.399***
(0.316) (0.287)
[.798] [\.001]
Number of participants 40 40
Number of observations 1041 1041
Pseudo R 2
0.052 0.032
Log pseudolikelihood -675 -633
Note In the group setting model, the dependent variable is whether or not a participant conformed to the
group on a trial (1 = conformed). In the after-group model, the dependent variable is whether or not a
participant persisted in holding attitudes more similar to the group on a trial, after having left the group
(1 = persistence). All variables were recoded to range from 0 to 1. To correct for the non-independence
of observations, standard errors (presented in parentheses) are clustered by the participant. P-values are
listed in brackets. In addition to prior exclusions, 6 participants (156 observations not previously
excluded) were dropped from these analyses for listing ‘‘other’’ as their party ID ?
p \ .10, * p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 293
123
sophistication could still be expected to conform on 45 % of trials, with all other
variables held at their means (compared to the observed 57 % conformity across all
respondents). There were no significant interactions between sophistication or party
ID and unanimity or distance. 11
Persistent Attitude Change
The presence of others had an immense impact on participants’ attitudes, even after
those others were no longer present (Figs. 2, 3). Conformity was likely to persist as
real attitude change, and even some of those who did not initially conform later
showed some signs of social influence in an apparent ‘‘sleeper effect’’. 12
To get a
sense of the general frequency of persistent change, we again examine some basic
statistics.
Prior Conformity
The most intriguing effect that emerges from these data is the immense effect of
participants’ behavior while they were in the group upon their attitudes after they
left the group (Fig. 3). Consistent with Hypothesis 2, participants who initially
conformed on an issue were more likely than those who did not to retain attitudes
more similar to those of group members’ after the group was no longer present
(v2 = 266.17, p \ .001). Specifically, 58 % of initial conformers’ attitudes remained more compatible with group members’. By comparison, if the participant
initially resisted the pressure to conform, only 11 % exhibited attitude change later.
Although this analysis is somewhat coarse, the sheer magnitude of these findings
attests to the impact of actual behavior on attitudes. To examine persistent socially-
induced attitude change in more detail, we estimated another logistic regression, this
time examining which factors influenced the degree to which conformity persisted
as private attitude change rather than mere public lip-service (Table 1, Col 2). In
this case, the dependent variable was persistent attitude change, with those
observations on which a participant conformed in the group and continued to exhibit
a changed attitude being coded as 1, while other observations were coded as 0.
Social Factors and Influence
Unanimity and disparity of views both had continuing significant effects on
persistent attitude change (Table 1, Col 2) consistent with hypotheses 3b and 4b. On
attitude items where the group was unanimous, respondents were predicted to be 6
11 Throughout, we individually tested the interactions between our covariates (party id, sophistication,
and attitude strength) and our key variables of unanimity and distance. We had no a priori hypotheses
about such interactions. All were non-significant, except where noted. Here, we found a marginal
interaction between unanimity and political sophistication (p \ .1), replicated in two of four subsequent analyses (Online Resource, Appendix E). 12
The term ‘‘sleeper effect’’, coined by Hovland et al (1949), refers to a delayed attitude change,
although it is sometimes used to refer to one theoretical explanation thereof (see Cook et al 1979;
Kumkale and AlbarracÌn 2004).
294 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
percentage points more likely to exhibit continued attitude change. Further, the
participants who were most different from their group were an estimated 32
percentage points more likely to exhibit persistent change after the group session
had ended.
Overall, the attitudes expressed in the presence of strangers had impressive
implications not just for conformity, but also for the attitudes participants later
professed. As with initial conformity, unanimity and disparity of views also
influence persistent attitude change in turn. Critically, this demonstrates the
occurrence of persistent attitude change without any persuasive arguments being
exchanged.
Study 2 Introduction
Study 1 results advance our understanding of social influence by demonstrating the
power of brief, potentially offhand expressions of attitude to generate public
conformity and private attitude change without any persuasive arguments. Still,
important outstanding questions remain, most essentially the question of, ‘‘Why?’’
Although this attitude change is not the result of overt persuasion (since arguments
were not exchanged), it remains unclear whether attitude change was the result of
normative influence (change to fit in with the group, rather than because of new
information inferred from others views). Additionally, other questions remain,
particularly about the susceptibility of strong attitudes (vs weak or non-attitudes) to
this effect, and the longevity of these effects.
The most prominent concern about study 1 is whether the changes in views might
be the result of solely informational influence: taking the views of others as
evidence that an attitude is correct (e.g. ‘‘Can these 3 people all be wrong?’’), and
not normative influence per se. Put another way, participants may have had
primarily weak or non-attitudes, such that even the limited evidence of other
people’s views was sufficient to sway them. If this were the case, attitude change
might have been a result of the informational role of others’ views in indicating
which view is correct. In the case of normative influence, attitude change would be
due to the social information others’ attitudes provided about what others felt to be
socially appropriate and expected. While informational influence is interesting in its
own right for generating attitude change without supporting arguments, normative
influence is still more striking in signifying the role of purely social situations in
attitude formation and change. A changed triggered by normative influence is a
change motivated neither by correctness nor even pro-attitudinal bias, but by fitting
in.
This informational or non-attitude explanation is consistent with the observed
buffering effect of political sophistication against conformity. This alternate
explanation seems unlikely, however, given the overall high level of conformity and
that analyses indicate that even political sophisticates (who could be expected to
have stronger priors and more information) can still be expected to conform at
relatively high rates. Additionally, sophisticates were not significantly less
responsive to unanimity and attitudinal distance, and were not significantly less
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 295
123
likely to experience persistent attitude change. Indeed, sophisticates showed some
signs of being more responsive to the unanimity manipulation, which is at odds with
a non-attitude explanation (footnote 11 and Online Resource, Appendix E). Study 2
allows us to more deeply examine this issue primarily by comparing the influence of
exposure to the attitudes of real, immediately present others to the influence of
exposure to those same other’s attitudes without their immediate presence. Study 2
also assesses attitude strength, to determine whether weaker and non-attitudes
respond differently.
Study 2 Method
Study 2 is an expanded version of study 1, which includes a between-subjects
manipulation of normative influence in which participants were randomly assigned
to a live or computerized group session (see below). Additionally, study 2 focused
on 4 salient issues, and assessed attitude strength of each in the first phase of the
study. Finally, a follow-up attitude questionnaire was sent to participants to track
longer-term attitude change.
Participants
We recruited 108 undergraduates, 13 of whom were excluded from all analyses for
indicating suspicion when probed during debriefing, as in study 1. Of the remaining
participants, 49 were male, and 52 identified as Democrats, 20 as independents, and
15 as Republicans.
Procedure
The second experiment followed the same basic procedure as the first, with some
extensions (see Fig. 1). After filling out an initial attitude questionnaire and attitude
strength questions, half of study 2 participants participated in a group task, just as in
study 1. The remaining study 2 participants engaged in a similar task, but alone, and
ostensibly receiving information from others via computer (see below). As in study
1, all participants then answered more questions privately, via computer, including
repeated attitude questions. Finally, a follow-up survey was completed a week or
more later.
Normative Influence Manipulation
To better understand the psychological mechanism at work, we explicitly
manipulated the normative pressure to conform while holding constant the views
to which participants were exposed. Half of the participants were randomly assigned
to experience the group setting following the initial attitudes questionnaire, just as in
study 1, with similar confederates to study 1 (live-group condition, higher normative
pressure). The other half of the participants were exposed to exactly the same
opinions, but rather than being face to face with group members, those opinions
296 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
were presented on their computer screen (e.g. ‘‘somewhat favor’’ appeared in a text
box) and were attributed to prior participant 1 rather than being said by confederate
1. These responses were attributed to other students in the participant pool who also
participated in the study. Thus, the computerized condition offers participants the
same insight into the attitudes of others as the group situation, but without the
additional immediate normative social pressure arising from direct interactions with
others. This variation allows us to examine high and low levels of normative
influence while holding constant the informational influence of knowing others’
attitudes. This type of remote responding is the traditional means used to distinguish
these types of influence (Deutsch and Gerard 1955), and continues to be used to
distinguish informational influence from other types of social influence (e.g. Visser
and Mirabile 2004). 13
Attitudes and Attitude Strength
Attitude questions focused on 4 issues: abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and
immigration (Online Resource, Appendix B), and assessed attitude strength of each
in the first phase of the study. These issues are high profile issues on which many
have strong opinions, to ensure that the social influence demonstrated in study 1 is
not driven primarily by non-attitudes. Participant attitude strength (Krosnick and
Petty 1995) for each issue was measured through a 12-item battery of various
antecedents of attitude strength (Online Resource, Appendix C; Cronbacha for
abortion = 0.88, gay rights = 0.93, immigration, 0.90, and affirmative
action = .89).
Attitudes of Others, and Other Factors Influencing Conformity
As in study 1, unanimity and the average attitude of confederates on an issue were
manipulated within-subjects, enabling examination of the effects of unanimity and
attitudinal distance. Individual differences including party identification and
political sophistication (M = .62, SD = .22, Cronbacha = 0.73) were assessed as
in study 1.
Follow-up Questionnaire
Attitudes were reassessed in a questionnaire sent to participants via email about a
week after their participation. If the participants did not reply, reminders were sent.
Ninety-one participants (84 %, 11 suspicious) completed the follow-up question-
naire (modal time to completion: 7 days, range: 6–75 days).
13 A scripted group discussion also took place for � of study 2 participants to test orthogonal hypotheses.
This took place after participants’ reported their attitudes in the group, and therefore after conformity was
assessed. Somewhat unexpectedly, this had no 1st or 2nd order effects on any of the results discussed
herein.
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 297
123
Conformity and Attitude Change Measures
Conformity and attitude change were assessed and coded as in study 1. Longer-term
attitude change was calculated in the same manner using follow-up questionnaire
responses.
Study 2 Results and Discussion
As in study 1, we present our analyses in several stages. First, we provide some
preliminary analyses regarding overall change in views. We then present analyses to
determine whether normative influence is indeed at work, and replicate earlier
analyses regarding which factors encourage conformity. Finally, we examine
whether these same social influence factors induce persistent and longer-term
attitude change.
Overall Attitude Change
To examine the overall magnitude of conformity and persistent attitude change, we
examined the degree to which participants altered their views to be more similar to
the average attitude of their group overall, as in study 1. Our preliminary analyses
correlate the difference between participant and group attitudes with subsequent
attitude change (Fig. 4). Replicating study 1, the positive correlation demonstrates
that the greater the difference between participant and group views, the more
participants subsequently changed the attitudes they expressed in the group
(r = 0.341, p \ .001), consistent with hypotheses 1 and 4a. Observant readers may note that this moderate correlation is weaker than in study 1, but should keep in
mind two points: first, that this analysis includes all participants, including those in
the computerized condition, and second that the issues examined in study 2 were
selected specifically for their salience, and attendant strength of views.
Social influence again persisted even after the group dispersed (Hypothesis 2).
Specifically, the more participants’ initial attitudes stood out from the group, the
more they changed, even after participants were no longer in the group setting
(r = 0.234, p \ .001, Fig. 4, middle panel). Thus, the influence of others persisted even when those others were no longer present, just as in study 1.
The question then becomes, how long does this effect last? If participants in
study 1 simply did not have enough time to regress back to their initial attitudes
during the experimental session, we would expect null effects on the follow-up, but
in fact a significant relationship was maintained in follow-ups that took place a
week or more later (r = 0.182, p \ .001, Fig. 4, bottom panel). This continuation of a significant relationship between initial difference of opinion and subsequent
attitude change after the study concluded again demonstrates that participants
changed their private views to be more like those of the group. It also illustrates
(Hypothesis 2) that surprisingly durable, lasting attitude changes can be instigated
by comments as insignificant as ‘‘somewhat agree’’.
298 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
Fig. 4 The relationship between the participant’s initial deviance from the group and the amount of initial conformity, persistent attitude change, and lasting attitude change in study 2. These scatterplots represent how a participant initially differed from the group mean on each item, and how much they subsequently changed on that item. The r values indicated are Pearson’s correlations that pool live-group and impersonal computerized conditions. Subsequent logit analyses examine differences across experimental treatments
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 299
123
Level of Initial Conformity
Next, we again provide some information about the frequency of conformity, and
then examine factors encouraging conformity. As in study 1, observations were
removed when the participant’s initial attitude on that observation matched the
randomly assigned average group attitude (& 1/7th, n = 280). The excluded observations did not significantly differ based on any of the condition or individual
difference variables. Overall, participants were, indeed, more likely to conform
when faced with a live group than when faced with the same attitudes remotely, via
computer (v2 = 96.12, p \ .001), suggesting a role for normative influence (Fig. 5). Participants conformed on approximately 53 % of the live-group condition items
(similar to study 1), compared to only 29 % of the impersonal computerized
condition trials. Further, 5 % polarized in live-group condition, compared with
10 % in the computerized condition. There was, however, a noteworthy amount of
conformity in both conditions. Only one participant in the computerized condition
was able to completely resist the pressure to conform, and all participants in the
live-group condition conformed at least twice. Subsequent analyses test these
differences.
Conditions Encouraging Conformity
To examine the antecedents of conformity, we used logistic regression with non-
conformity as the baseline condition, as in study 1 (Table 2, Col 1). Responses were
again clustered by the participant to account for non-independence. 14
These
analyses were conducted first on attitude change expressed in the group, then on
change expressed after the group phase, and then in the follow-up to examine
persistent and longer-term attitude change.
Type of Influence
Study 2 allowed us to more deeply examine whether normative influence was at
work, in other words, whether participants changed to fit in with the group, rather
than solely because the new ‘‘information’’ of other people’s attitudes convinced
cFig. 5 The frequency of conformity, and persistent and lasting attitude change in study 2. As noted, of the 95 participants, and 1,900 observations, participants reported agreeing with the group before the group session 280 times (*1/7, or at chance), such that change would not indicate conformity. Additionally, participants declined to respond to an additional 3 items. For clarity, these observations were not included above, leaving 1,617 observations. An additional 15 participants did not complete the follow-up questionnaire
14 Given the nesting of responses within individuals and issues, we cluster the responses within
participants. As noted by Gelman and Hill (2007), multi-way clustering is not an option due to perfect
nesting, making clustering by the participant the more conservative test of the null hypothesis. Parameter
estimates do not change as a function of clustering choice (by issue or item). Analyses of individual issues
provide the same basic pattern of results, although with less power, so results presented here are collapsed
across issues.
300 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 301
123
them that they had been wrong. To do so, we examined the effect of our normative
influence manipulation by comparing the effect of exposure to the attitudes of real,
immediately present others to the effect of exposure to the same attitudes via
computer.
Table 2 Logistic regression models explaining participant attitude change in Study 2
In group setting After group setting Follow-up responses
Live-group condition 1.072*** 0.531** 0.513**
(0.175) (0.169) (0.180)
[\.001] [.002] [.004]
Unanimity 0.297* 0.337* 0.408*
(0.138) (0.137) (0.162)
[.032] [.014] [.012]
Attitudinal distance 1.194*** 1.000*** 1.366***
(0.265) (0.287) (0.338)
[\ .001] [\ .001] [\ .001]
Political sophistication -1.092** -0.669 -1.055*
(0.417) (0.421) (0.439)
[.009] [.112] [.016]
Party identification 0.422 ?
0.046 -0.119
(0.242) (0.242) (0.251)
[.081] [.850] [.636]
Attitude strength -1.088* -0.687 -1.355**
(0.429) (0.425) (0.512)
[.011] [.106] [.008]
Days -0.023**
(0.008)
[.006]
Constant -0.519 -1.186** -0.760
(0.368) (0.375) (0.495)
[.158] [.002] [.125]
Number of participants 87 87 72
Number of observations 1446 1446 1204
Pseudo R 2
0.090 0.036 0.064
Log pseudolikelihood -884 -805 -574
Note In the group setting model, the dependent variable is whether or not a participant conformed to the
group on a trial (1 = conformed). In subsequent models, the dependent variable is whether or not a
participant persisted in holding attitudes more similar to the group on a trial after having left the group
(1 = persistence), or during the follow-up (1 = lasting change). All variables were recoded to range from
0 to 1. To correct for the non-independence of observations, standard errors (presented in parentheses) are
clustered by the participant. P values are listed in brackets. In addition to prior exclusions, 8 participants
and a total of 174 observations were dropped from these analyses for omission of an included variable
(e.g. party ID, attitude strength). An additional 15 participants did not complete the follow-up
questionnaire ?
p \ .10, * p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001
302 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
Participants in the live-group setting were predicted to be an impressive 25
percentage points more likely to conform than when viewing the exact same
attitudes of others on a computer screen (Hypothesis 5a). The fact that people were
significantly more likely to conform when in the presence of others (Table 2, Col 1)
is strong evidence that normative influence is at work. Participants did not simply
draw broad inferences about the correctness of their own views on the basis of their
knowledge of the views of others. Nor can these results be solely a function of non-
attitudes that are easily swayed by small amounts of information like others’ views,
rather than by the social situation. If either had been the case, levels of conformity
would have been similar in both the live-group and impersonal computerized
conditions, in which identical information about others’ positions was given.
Instead we see that individuals also use the views of proximate others as a social
guideline, and are more likely to alter their views to accommodate others with
whom they interacted in person. These results underscore the importance of social
context, not just political information, in attitude change.
Social Factors and Influence
As in study 1, the contextual variables of unanimity and attitudinal distance from the
group significantly influenced the likelihood that participants would conform on any
given response (Table 2, Col 1). Unanimity increased the predicted probability of
conforming by 7 percentage points, and those whose initial attitudes differed most
from the group members’ average attitude were a predicted 27 percentage points
more likely to conform than those whose initial attitudes were the least different.
People who more clearly differ from the group feel more pressure to bring their
views in line with those of others (Hypotheses 3a and 4a).
Individual Differences
As in study 1, not every participant was equally likely to conform (Table 2, Col 1).
The politically sophisticated were significantly less likely to conform (a predicted
26 percentage points less likely than the least sophisticated). Participants with the
strongest attitudes were also significantly less likely to conform than those with the
weakest attitudes (26 percentage points less). Importantly, neither sophistication nor
attitude strength completely eliminated the conformity instigated by knowing
others’ views. Both the sophisticated and those with strong attitudes could still be
expected to conform on 29 % of trials, (compared to 39 % of all participants). 15
15 Here, the effect of unanimity was qualified by an unexpected significant sophistication by unanimity
interaction, such that the buffering effect of sophistication against social influence was reduced under
conditions of unanimity (see Appendix E). Attitudinal distance and party id also interacted significantly,
b = 2.44, SE = 0.67, p \ .001, but this interaction did not replicate in study 1 or in other study 2 analyses, and so is believed to be a statistical anomaly.
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 303
123
Persistent Attitude Change
As in study 1, others had an immense impact on participant’s attitudes (Figs. 4, 5),
even after they were no longer present, such that initial conformity transformed into
persistent attitude change. Here, again, we provide some basic information about the
frequency of persistent attitude change, followed by more in-depth analyses.
Prior Conformity
As in study 1, when participants initially conformed on an issue, they were in
general more likely to retain attitudes more similar to those of group members’ after
the group was no longer present (v2 = 525.01, p \ .001). Specifically, 67 % of initial conformers’ attitudes remained more compatible with group members’
attitudes, averaging over conditions (Fig. 5), but if participants initially resisted
conformity, they were much less likely to exhibit attitude change later (12 % chance
overall).
Type of Influence
As in study 1, we augment this coarse analysis with a logistic regression examining
the effect of specific independent variables on persistent attitude change (Table 2,
Col 2). Participants exposed to a proximal group rather than the impersonal
computerized condition were significantly more likely to show persistent attitude
change (Table 2, Col 2). The informational influence of knowing others’ attitudes
may be (and probably is) also at work in both conditions, but the impact of the
normative influence manipulation indicates that the normative influence present due
to the proximity of the group in the live-group condition generated persistent
attitude change over and above that of any informational influence present in both
experimental conditions (Hypothesis 5b).
Unanimity and disparity of views also had significant effects on persistent
attitude change, as in study 1 (Table 2, Col 2). Participants were predicted to be 6
percentage points more likely to show persistent attitude change on items on which
the group was unanimous, and those that differed most from the group were
predicted to be 19 percentage points more likely to maintain changed attitudes
outside of the group (Hypotheses 3b and 4b). When others are unanimous or when
an individual has more divergent views, it is clearer that the individual does not hold
the appropriate attitude, and the likelihood of attitude change increases. Attitude
strength also marginally reduced persistent attitude change, again suggesting that
strength of views may help buffer against social influence effects. 16
Overall, the results with respect to persistent attitude change confirm study 1
results that unanimity and attitudinal distance influence not only initial public
conformity, but also persistent private attitude change. Additionally, these results
16 Sophistication again unexpectedly interacted with unanimity such that sophistication was less of a
buffer against attitude change in unanimous groups than non-unanimous groups (Online Resource,
Appendix E).
304 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
show that exposure to differing views of immediately present others is more likely
to instigate continued attitude change than exposure to the same differing views of
others who are not present, as in an internet or ‘‘chat’’-like context, demonstrating
that a socially motivated normative influence is at work.
Lasting Attitude Change
We performed similar analyses on follow-up responses to assess whether
participants’ long term attitudes were affected by our group setting. As above, we
remove items on which the participant was initially the same as the group (237
items), leaving 1,363 observations. Again, we provide some basic information about
the frequency of persistent attitude change, followed by more in-depth analyses of
the factors that make such change more likely.
Prior Conformity
Replicating results at earlier stages, conforming in the group also had immense
effects on attitudes a week or more later (Hypothesis 2). People who had previously
conformed were significantly more likely to exhibit continued attitude change in the
follow up survey (v2 = 137.88, p \ .001), across conditions. On attitudes for which participants initially conformed, they exhibited lasting attitude change 52 % of the
time. By contrast, when participants did not initially conform, they exhibited
subsequent lasting attitude change only 21 % of the time (Fig. 5). We also see again
that moving away from the group is relatively unlikely.
Type of Influence
As above, we conduct a logistic regression to examine effects of specific variables.
Because time taken to return questionnaires varied, this delay is included as a
covariate. 17
Again, the normative influence manipulation significantly increased the
likelihood of attitude change (Table 2, Col 3). Those in the live-group condition
were more likely to show lasting attitude change, even weeks later (Hypothesis 5b).
Participants were predicted to be 8 percentage points more likely to show attitude
change in the long term, having conformed to a live group, over the computerized
condition. These results indicate that normative influence is at work, conceptually
replicating conformity and private attitude change analyses.
Group unanimity also significantly increased the likelihood of lasting attitude
change (Table 2, Col 3) such that when the group was unanimous, participants were
predicted to be 6 percentage points more likely to exhibit continued attitude change
after leaving the laboratory (Hypothesis 3b). Additionally, increased attitudinal
17 As expected, participants who took longer to complete the follow-up exhibited less long term attitude
change. These effects are not fleeting, but may slowly diminish over time, as participants’ everyday
circumstances and social networks exert their own pressures (e.g. Huckfeldt et al 2004a). As noted by a
helpful reviewer, this finding also rules out a regression to the mean account, in that the strength of
movement toward the group changes over time. Since the mean remains constant, it must be our
experimental procedures that generate this change.
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 305
123
distance was associated with a significantly increased likelihood of private attitude
change that lasted after participants left the study (Table 2, Col 3). The most
initially discrepant participants were 20 percentage points more likely to exhibit
lasting attitude change than the least discrepant from the group (Hypothesis 4b).
Individual Differences
Political sophistication and attitude strength again significantly buffered individuals
against attitude change (Table 2, Col 3). 18
Specifically, highly sophisticated
participants were predicted to be 17 percentage points less likely to change their
views, while participants with strong attitudes on the specific issue were an
estimated 22 percentage points less likely to change their views than those at the
lowest levels of sophistication or strength, respectively.
Overall, the attitudes expressed in the presence of others, or even on a computer,
had enormous implications for participants attitudes, even weeks later. Critically,
this demonstrates the occurrence of lasting attitude change without any persuasive
arguments being exchanged. The additional attitude change among those exposed to
a live group also establishes that normative influence is at work, in which people
change their attitude for social reasons rather than reasons of accuracy, and without
the necessity of overt persuasive attempts or information exchange.
General Discussion
People adjust their attitudes to tone down disagreement and express views that are
more in step with others. When people are faced with others who disagree with
them, they are quite likely to conform, and this conformity presages a shift in
underlying, private attitudes that persists for an extended period of time. These
results reveal that lasting attitude change can occur without requiring any persuasive
arguments or explicit information supporting attitude change (as has been implicitly
assumed necessary in much research on political attitude change).
Of course not everyone conforms all the time, or to the same extent, but virtually
everyone conforms sometimes, to some extent. Once people initially conform, it can
take weeks or months to revert back to their initial attitudes, if they ever do. Thus,
socially induced compliance occurring even during brief interactions with strangers
can initiate true attitude change that lasts days or months, and perhaps longer. This
finding with political attitudes contrasts with prior conformity research based on
objective tasks which circumvent the possibility of any persistent attitude change.
(In a group, I may say an 8 inch line is shorter than a 6 inch line, but I won’t come to
believe 8 inches is shorter than 6.) We demonstrate that purely social influence can
initiate a much deeper and more persistent attitude change process, rather than
merely fleeting compliance while in the presence of others.
18 Two significant interactions (unanimity by strength, b = 2.15, SE = 0.85, p = .01, and distance by
attitude strength, b = - 3.18, SE = 1.48, p = .03) did not replicate in any preceding analysis, and are
probably statistical anomalies.
306 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
This conformity and lasting attitude change in response to proximate others is not
just a function of persuasion and informational influence, but also normative
influence: individuals do not use others only as a source of information or as an
indicator of what views are correct, but also of which views are expected and
appropriate. People, particularly those with weak attitudes, may use the views of
others to heuristically assess the correctness of their own views (as with Cialdini
1995, or even Bayesian signaling), but if this informational influence was the only
cognitive mechanism at work, seeing views of others presented on a computer
screen would be sufficient information to generate a similar level of conformity to
hearing the same words from actual people. The informational value of attitudes
was equalized across conditions by attributing them to other participants (other
students at their university), and there was no other interaction with the
confederates, making it unlikely that live confederates were somehow deemed
more similar or a better guide. Further, confederates’ speech was limited to brief,
neutrally uttered phrases (‘‘somewhat oppose’’, see also footnote 13) which makes it
difficult if not impossible to impute any more or less certainty on the part of live
confederates than computerized ones. Therefore, the increased attitude change of
those in the live-group condition over the impersonal computerized condition must
be due to the social value of agreeing with a proximal group (normative influence),
rather than any information provided by their attitudes alone. In essence, people
hold some views simply because those around them do, too.
Predictors of Conformity and Persistent Attitude Change
Although the mere presence of others is a major instigator of conformity, this
research also demonstrates that other factors magnify the likelihood of conformity
and persistent attitude change. First and foremost, unanimity increases the
probability of conforming to others’ views, as does greater divergence between
an individual and others. Consistent with both informational and normative social
influence, when those around us disagree with us and agree with each other they
send a clear signal about what is correct and appropriate. As a result, individuals are
more likely to change their views in the face of a unanimous group or an
attitudinally distant group, and having conformed, they are especially likely to
persist in their new attitudes.
These studies also suggest socio-politically advantageous effects of political
sophistication and strong attitudes in buffering individuals against non-argument-
based attitude change, although even sophisticates still conform much of the time.
This is broadly consistent with suggestions made by proponents of participatory
democracy and within the attitude strength literature (Fishkin 1991; Krosnick and
Petty 1995). Political engagement increases political sophistication, strengthens
attitudes, and provides individuals with a deeper and wider pool of political
knowledge to draw from, providing tools to resist social influence. Naturally, other
related traits such as political efficacy and self-confidence may also alter
participants’ likelihood of conforming to the group, and we would expect that the
buffering effect of these traits might be similar to political sophistication and
attitude strength.
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 307
123
Limitations and Future Directions
There are two limitations that must be given due consideration. The first has to do
with the fact that these two studies rely on college student participants, and the
second rests on the fact that the experiment utilizes an admittedly contrived
scenario. While our results must be interpreted in light of these limitations, these
steps allowed us to examine causal effects, and they should not ultimately be seen as
undermining our substantive effects.
Research shows that college students are more susceptible to peer influences and
have weaker, less crystallized attitudes to begin with (Sears 1986), which would
seem to limit the generalizability of these results. Although this concern should be
taken seriously, similar effects are found in non-political studies using objective
stimuli and adult participants to study conformity (Bond and Smith 1996). Even
decisions of Supreme Court justices show some effects of social context (Granberg
and Bartels 2005), although the exact mechanism is uncertain. Further, because
student attitudes are notoriously uncrystallized, college samples may encourage
conformity, but this actually works against finding lasting attitude change because
college students’ attitudinal instability should cause attitudes to easily bounce away
from the group after the study. Yet even with this handicap, our results demonstrate
both initial conformity and persistent attitude change. Additionally, a susceptible
population cannot explain differences between conditions whose participants are
drawn from the same population.
One might also be concerned that, being a college sample, our sample skews
liberal. It is plausible to hypothesize that conservatives, who are disproportionately
authoritarian (Feldman 2003), might react more dogmatically to a threat to their
views (Jost et al. 2003; Lavine et al. 2005). Still, at minimum our results indicate
noteworthy effects for liberals and independents, and we found no significant main
effect of party ID on attitude change in general. Furthermore, we found no evidence
of an interaction between party ID and unanimity at any stage, and only one
significant interaction between party ID and distance out of 5 analyses (see footnote
15). While null results cannot completely rule out the existence of an effect, they do
leave us with scant evidence that Republicans and Democrats differ in this respect.
A larger study aimed more directly at this question may in the future identify some
additional effect of partisanship or authoritarianism, but these null and unreliable
interactions should alleviate concerns that our effects are dependent upon the
liberal-skewed sample.
In terms of realism, the situation we create in the lab is broadly analogous to a
difficult to measure real-life situation that people quickly forget, but one that is
nonetheless central to normative democratic theory: a situation in which people are
briefly exposed to opposing political ideas by those around them (e.g. neighbors
passing by, coworkers at the water cooler, or new acquaintances at a party). More
importantly, using the laboratory to control the situation allows us to break it down
and isolate the relevant pieces from extraneous variables, making it possible to
directly test causality, which, strictly speaking, cannot be done in survey or
observational studies. Accordingly, the use of experimental controls, rather than
asking respondents to recall previous naturally occurring conversations, allows us to
308 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
more clearly and reliably disentangle the causal elements of social influence. People
frequently talk haphazardly to those around them (their coworkers, neighbors,
friends, and parents of their children’s friends) in brief exchanges rather than
nuanced political debates. People comment on politics, and we politely agree so that
we can move on with our lives without heated arguments. These are the sorts of
exchanges that we may have with mere acquaintances or strangers such as cabbies or
people sitting next to us on a train, limiting our ability to avoid this mere exposure to
others’ views. These brief, incidental political exchanges are precisely the type of
conversation that people neglect to mention on surveys. People may not even
remember them at all, yet it is in these types of interactions that people are most
likely to be exposed to different political perspectives (Mutz and Martin 2001). As
we show, these seemingly irrelevant interactions exert a lasting impact on a person’s
attitudes. Moreover, people chat with the same clusters of neighbors, coworkers, and
other acquaintances not once, but regularly, possibly every day. Their influence may
be compounded with every interaction, generating larger and longer-lasting effects.
In the real world such pressure may be even stronger because others actively try to
utilize this social pressure through approval or derision, unlike these impassive
confederates. The artificial, one-shot laboratory situation may actually underestimate
the cumulative effect of these brief conversations on political attitudes.
Having established that purely social pressures are at work with regard to political
interactions, we may question when and with whom such pressures will be most
prevalent. We may expect that experts and men might generate stronger influence
(Petty and Cacioppo 1986; Eagly 1983). Similar others might also generate more
influence, by virtue of being a better comparison point (Festinger 1954; Burt 1987).
Traits of the person being influenced, such as personal experience with the issue, or
level of thought about the issue, might also be relevant (see Petty and Krosnick 1995).
Perhaps most critically in the political realm, we might examine which issues are most
open to this argument-free influence. Perhaps (being a social influence) social issues
are more impacted, or perhaps such influence will mirror the easy issue/hard issue
divide (Carmines and Stimson 1980). These results provide one component of a larger
picture illustrating the utility of looking beyond information and arguments to
understand how elements of individuals’ psychology ranging from their motivations
(Redlawsk 2002) to social goals (DeWall et al. 2006) to social norms (Panagopoulos
2010) may influence political views and behaviors.
Implications of Initial Conformity and Persistent Attitude Change
These findings have implications not just for small groups such as work groups,
church groups, or neighborhood groups, but for many situations in which we have
direct contact with others of potentially differing views, from that wedding where
we don’t know anyone at our table to Thanksgiving dinner. The use of an
experimental microcosm allows us to isolate informational and normative influence,
and provides causal insight not available if we rely on asking questions about prior
political discussions with others. Such use of a small groups experimental paradigm
to study social influence more broadly is increasingly common, especially within
the networks literature (e.g. Ahn et al. 2013; Ryan 2011), and findings tend to
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 309
123
converge well with findings derived from survey methodologies (see e.g. Visser and
Mirabile 2004). Indeed, the social pressures observed here are likely even stronger
for those with whom we have closer social ties (see Latane 1981). The current
findings represent a mechanism of influence rooted particularly in our need to fit in
and obtain the positive regard of others. This need should heightened for those who
are important to us in some way (Kelley 1952), and thus these effects should be
even more powerful in the context of close others rather than strangers. One author
remembers well a family gathering that turned into an uncanny reflection of this
research when the family matriarch went around the table asking everyone who they
were voting for, in order to pressure her son into changing his vote.
These results also demonstrate another way in which exposure to social network
heterogeneity may motivate us to change our views. Indeed, it is quite likely that
this normative influence pressuring us to ‘‘go along to get along’’ is also what
motivates those embedded in attitudinally heterogeneous networks to seek out more
opposing information from media sources (Levitan and Wronski 2014), and more
carefully consider that information (Levitan and Visser 2008). Furthermore, this
suggests one possible explanation for the paradox that disagreement with a network
member can reduce political discussion (see Bello and Rolfe 2014), and still
increase attitude change (Huckfeldt et al. 2004a), in that the influence observed here
requires only that an individual know the views of others, not that they discuss the
reasons behind those views.
Conformity effects have substantial implications for political attitudes and
discourse more generally. The combination of the spiral of silence (Noelle-
Neumann 1974) and pluralistic ignorance (Prentice and Miller 1993; Todorov and
Mandisodza 2004) dictate that the reluctance to express ones unadulterated views
that is demonstrated here will spread to others and contribute to misperceptions of
public opinion. This can lead to a perception of unanimity or homogeneity of others,
which our results indicate will amplify social influence. More troublingly, an
increased appearance of unanimity will result in a growing intolerance for
dissenting opinions (Mutz 2002b; Mutz and Mondak 2006), increasing overt social
pressure toward attitudinal homogeneity. Furthermore, when people conform
without debate, everyone is exposed to a truncated set of arguments, and the absence
of verbal dissent can lead to increased persuasion of bystanders simply because only
one side of the issue is articulated.
Public conformity also affects those who start with majority opinions. The more
attitudinal uniformity they perceive, the more their attitudes will be bolstered,
resulting in less thoughtful consideration of alternate views (Levitan and Visser
2008), greater resistance to attitude change (Levitan and Visser 2009; Visser and
Mirabile 2004), and more attitude-congruent political behavior (Mutz 2002a). In
essence, conformity can give a false sense of confidence to individuals who already
hold the majority view, with striking attitudinal and behavioral consequences.
Members of political groups from Suffragettes to the Tea Partiers may reinforce
fellow group members’ beliefs not just through shared information, but through
normative and informational social influences that reinforce their perception of the
‘‘rightness’’ (both correctness and appropriateness) of their thoughts and subsequent
actions, and diminish their need to consider other perspectives.
310 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
Most importantly, public conformity also has immense down-stream conse-
quences for the attitudes people later profess. Our studies demonstrate that people
can and do change their attitudes without any real information being exchanged at
all, and without any overt persuasive effort. This attitude change without any
deliberation suggests a troubling possibility: simply acquiescing to others can exert
a lasting impact on attitudes. The negative implications of this persistent attitude
change need little explanation. The data show a circumstance in which views are
influenced by purely socio-relational concerns, which is far from the democratic
ideal of attitude formation.
In addition to the campaign ads costing hundreds of millions of dollars, people’s
views on candidates and issues are greatly influenced by brief, content-less
exchanges like hearing someone dismissively say, ‘‘Who would vote for a guy like
Candidate A?’’ or implore, ‘‘We need stronger Issue B laws,’’ and seeing everyone
nod politely. These minor incidents can bolster the views of those who agree, and
cast doubt into the minds of those who don’t.
Closing
One of the central tenets of democratic theory is that a wide variety of arguments
should be voiced, reflected upon, and debated, such that political preferences are
based on strength of arguments. Democracy is a process that requires people to
engage in discussions with those who disagree with them, and through discourse
come to a deeper understanding of politics (Fishkin 1991; Putnam 2000). Our
experiments examined the impact of fleeting exposure to oppositional views, and
tracked how this exposure influenced subsequent attitudes. We demonstrated that
attitudes can be changed (or maintained) through ephemeral interactions, with no
rationales. This suggests that the attitudes that people hold are not simply a function
of the information they have learned, the arguments they can recall, or their political
experiences, but also the accumulation of their social experiences.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the editors and several anonymous reviewers who have contributed thoughtful comments. We would particularly like to thank Stanley Feldman and Joel
Simmons for their comments and advice on earlier drafts of this manuscript. We would also like to thank
our colleagues at Stony Brook University for their helpful input. Perhaps most importantly, we would like
to thank the research assistants who worked behind the scenes to make this research possible: Natasha
Beckford, Michael Cohan, Jordan Cushner, Christopher Horn, Natalie Mercedes, Angelo Monforte,
James O’Donnell, Jason Rose, Daniel Shapiro, and Tiffany Yip. Earlier drafts of this paper were
presented at annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, the Midwestern Political
Science Association, and the International Society for Political Psychology.
References
Ahn, T., Huckfeldt, R., Mayer, A. K., & Ryan, J. B. (2013). Expertise and bias in political communication
networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 357–373.
Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., & Ryan, J. B. (2010). Communication, influence, and informational
asymmetries among voters. Political Psychology, 31(5), 763–787.
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 311
123
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H.
Guetzkow (Ed.), Group leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous
majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 70.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Bello, J., & Rolfe, M. (2014). Is influence mightier than selection? Forging agreement in political
discussion networks during a campaign. Social Networks, 36, 134–146.
Bem, D. (1972). Self perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.
Bond & Smith. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956)
line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137.
Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Berent, M. K. (1995). Origins of attitude importance: Self-interest,
social identification, and value relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 61–61.
Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American
Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287–1335.
Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science
Review, 74(1), 78–91.
Cialdini, R. B. (1995). Principles and techniques of social influence. Advanced social psychology, 256,
281.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical
refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 24, 201–234.
Converse, Philip E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In David E. Apter (Ed.),
Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.
Cook, T. D., Gruder, C. L., Hennigan, K. M., & Flay, B. R. (1979). History of the sleeper effect: Some
logical pitfalls in accepting the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(4), 662.
Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon
individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.
DeWall, C. N., Visser, P. S., & Levitan, L. C. (2006). Openness to attitude change as a function of
temporal perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8), 1010–1023.
Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American
Psychologist, 38(9), 971.
Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology,
24(1), 41–74.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform (Vol. 217).
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a
large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(01), 33–48.
Granberg, D., & Bartels, B. (2005). On being a lone dissenter. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
35(9), 1849.
Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective
objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The
interpersonal context (pp. 28–84). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and
Applied, 21, 107–112.
Henig, J. (2008). Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate. http://factcheck.org/2008/
08/born-in-the-usa/. Accessed May 1, 2012.
Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on mass communication.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004a). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse
opinions within communication networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
312 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004b). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: the
political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65–95.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1987). Networks in context: The social flow of political information. The
American Political Science Review, 81, 1197–1216.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (2000). Political consequences of inconsistency: the accessibility and
stability of abortion attitudes. Political Psychology, 21(1), 57–79.
Huddy, L. (2004). Contrasting theoretical approaches to intergroup relations. Political Psychology, 25(6),
947–967.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated
social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2),
163–204.
Kelley, H. (1952). Two functions of reference groups. In G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, & E.
L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 410–414). New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Kelman, H. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change.
The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 699–711.
Kelman, H. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(1), 57–78.
Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority
and responsibility. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. New York: Pearson
King, G. (1995). Replication, replication. PS. Political Science and Politics, 28(3), 444–452.
Klofstad, C. A., Sokhey, A. E., & McClurg, S. D. (2013). Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict
in social networks affects political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 120–134.
Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick
(Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Kumkale, G. T., & AlbarracÌn, D. (2004). The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 143–172.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343.
Laumann, E. O. (1973). Bonds of pluralism: form and substance of urban social networks. New York:
Wiley.
Lavine, H., Lodge, M., & Freitas, K. (2005). Threat, authoritarianism, and selective exposure to
information. Political Psychology, 26(2), 219–244.
Levitan, L. C., & Visser, P. S. (2008). The impact of the social context on resistance to persuasion:
Effortful versus effortless responses to counter-attitudinal information. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 44(3), 640–649.
Levitan, L. C., & Visser, P. S. (2009). Social network composition and attitude strength: Exploring the
dynamics within newly formed social networks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5),
1057–1067.
Levitan, L., & Wronski, J. (2014). Social context and information seeking: examining the effects of
network attitudinal composition on engagement with political information. Political Behavior, 36,
793–816.
Malcolm, A. (2008). Barack Obama’s birth certificate revealed here. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/
washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html. Accessed May 1, 2012.
McClurg, S. D. (2006). The electoral relevance of political talk: Examining disagreement and expertise
effects in social networks on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3),
737–754.
Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences.
Psychological Review, 110(3), 472.
Mutz, D. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mutz, D. C. (2002a). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American
Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 313
123
Mutz, D. C. (2002b). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American
Political Science Review, 96(01), 111–126.
Mutz, D. (2006). Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mutz, D. C., & Martin, P. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The
role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114.
Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. The
Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140–155.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4),
602.
Nail, P. R., & MacDonald, G. (2007). On the development of the social response context model. The
Science of Social Influence: Advances and Future Progress (pp. 193–221). New York: Psychology
Press.
Nemeth, C., & Chiles, C. (1988). Modelling courage: The role of dissent in fostering independence.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 275–280.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication,
24, 43–51.
Panagopoulos, C. (2010). Affect, social pressure and prosocial motivation: Field experimental evidence
of the mobilizing effects of pride, shame and publicizing voting behavior. Political Behavior, 32(3),
369–386.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.
Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Prentice, D., & Miller, D. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of
misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 243–256.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2001). Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence:
Interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80(1), 19–34.
Public Policy Poling. (2012). Split decision for super Tuesday. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/
2011/PPP_Release_SuperTuesday_305.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2012.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Redlawsk, D. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on
political decision making. The Journal of Politics, 64(04), 1021–1044.
Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J., & Emmerson, K. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: do motivated
reasoners ever ‘‘get it’’? Political Psychology, 31(4), 563–593.
Redlawsk, D., & Lau, R. (2013). Behavioral Decision-making. Oxford Handbook of Political psychology.
New York: Oxford University Press
Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (1994). Attitude importance as a function of repeated attitude expression.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 39–51.
Ross, L., Bierbrauer, G., & Hoffman, S. (1976). The role of attribution processes in conformity and
dissent: Revisiting the Asch situation. American Psychologist, 2, 148–157.
Ryan, J. B. (2011). Social networks as a shortcut to correct voting. American Journal of Political Science,
55(4), 753–766.
Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 46, 190–207.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social
psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530.
Shavitt, S. E., & Brock, T. C. (1994). Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper & Row.
Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, M. B., Bruner, J. S., & White, R. W. (1956). Opinions and personality. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American
Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
314 Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315
123
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.
G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall
Publishers.
Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., McGuire, C., Chang, S.-J., & Feld, P. (1992). Assessing political group
dynamics: A test of the groupthink model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3),
403.
Todorov, A., & Mandisodza, A. N. (2004). Public opinion on foreign policy the multilateral public that
perceives itself as unilateral. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(3), 323–348.
Ulbig, S. G., & Funk, C. L. (1999). Conflict avoidance and political participation. Political Behavior,
21(3), 265–282.
Visser, P. S., & Mirabile, R. R. (2004). Attitudes in the social context: the impact of social network
composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
87(6), 779–795.
Willis, R. H. (1963). Two dimensions of conformity-nonconformity. Sociometry, 26(4), 499–513.
Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1),
539–570.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge.
Polit Behav (2016) 38:277–315 315
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
- c.11109_2015_Article_9312.pdf
- Conformity in Groups: The Effects of Others’ Views on Expressed Attitudes and Attitude Change
- Abstract
- Social Influence
- Personal Social Contact
- Conformity with Political Attitudes?
- Lasting Attitude Change?
- Factors Influencing Political Conformity and Subsequent Attitude Change
- The Current Studies
- Study 1 Introduction and Method
- Participants
- Procedure and Cover Story
- Contextual Factors Influencing Conformity
- Individual Differences
- Conformity and Attitude Change Measures
- Study 1 Results and Discussion
- Overall Attitude Change
- Level of Initial Conformity
- Conditions Encouraging Conformity
- Social Factors and Influence
- Individual Differences
- Persistent Attitude Change
- Prior Conformity
- Social Factors and Influence
- Study 2 Introduction
- Participants
- Procedure
- Normative Influence Manipulation
- Attitudes and Attitude Strength
- Attitudes of Others, and Other Factors Influencing Conformity
- Follow-up Questionnaire
- Conformity and Attitude Change Measures
- Study 2 Results and Discussion
- Overall Attitude Change
- Level of Initial Conformity
- Conditions Encouraging Conformity
- Type of Influence
- Social Factors and Influence
- Individual Differences
- Persistent Attitude Change
- Prior Conformity
- Type of Influence
- Lasting Attitude Change
- Prior Conformity
- Type of Influence
- Individual Differences
- General Discussion
- Predictors of Conformity and Persistent Attitude Change
- Limitations and Future Directions
- Implications of Initial Conformity and Persistent Attitude Change
- Closing
- Acknowledgments
- References
