Activities‎ > ‎talks_calendar‎ > ‎

Digital conformism

Brief Presentation

The most popular idea that communication technology has certain fixed effects on human interaction (technological determinism) is increasingly challenged by research showing the different effects of these media. Many theories now emphasize the reciprocal influence of technology and the social context in shaping the ways in which the medium is used (Postmes, Spears & Lee, 200). The study of the digital confomism pose a non banal challenge to the research which have to consider a wide number of aspect about the social influence in online environment (e.g. physical isolation, anonimity, identifiability) and their interactions .
The aim of this report is to show some of the latest methodology which have been used to study digital conformism in CMC, starting from classic experiment (e.g. Asch paradigm), passing through implicit social influence (e.g conversational silence) and cultural neuroscience, up to the study of social influence with non-human agents.
 Sketch presentation

Digital Conformism

  • Bae, M. (2016). The effects of anonymity on computer-mediated communication: The case of independent versus interdependent self-construal influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 300-309.
  • Beran, T., Drefs, M., Kaba, A., Al Baz, N., & Al Harbi, N. (2015). Conformity of responses among graduate students in an online environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 63-69.
  • Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111–137.
  • Brandstetter, J., Rácz, P., Beckner, C., Sandoval, E. B., Hay, J., & Bartneck, C. (2014, September). A peer pressure experiment: Recreation of the Asch conformity experiment with robots. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2014), 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (pp. 1335-1340). IEEE.
  • Christie, C., & Dill, E. (2016). Evaluating peers in cyberspace: the impact of anonymity. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 292-299.
  • Devers, C., Steenbergh, T., Devers, E., Brighton, R., Ayers, B., Carmichael, E., ... & Hannum, P. (2012, October). Social conformity in online environments: A Comparison between text and video. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1777-1781). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  • Edelson, M., Sharot, T., Dolan, R. J., & Dudai, Y. (2011). Following the crowd: brain substrates of long-term memory conformity. science, 333(6038), 108-111.
  • Fujita, Y., & Mori, K. (2017). Group versus Individual Reward in the Asch Experiment without Confederates. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5(05), 396.
  • Huang, G., & Li, K. (2016). The effect of anonymity on conformity to group norms in online contexts: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Communication, 10, 18.
  • Hughes, M., & Louw, J. (2013). Playing games: The salience of social cues and group norms in eliciting aggressive behaviour. South African Journal of Psychology, 43(2), 252-262.
  • Koudenburg, N., Postmes, T., & Gordijn, E. H. (2013). Resounding silences: Subtle norm regulation in everyday interactions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 76(3), 224-241.
  • Laporte, L., van Nimwegen, C., & Uyttendaele, A. J. (2010, October). Do people say what they think: Social conformity behavior in varying degrees of online social presence. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (pp. 305-314). ACM.
  • Nook, E. C., Ong, D. C., Morelli, S. A., Mitchell, J. P., & Zaki, J. (2016). Prosocial conformity: Prosocial norms generalize across behavior and empathy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(8), 1045-1062.
  • Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer‐mediated communication. Human communication research, 26(3), 341-371.
  • Reysen, M. B. (2003). The effects of social pressure on group recall. Memory & Cognition, 31, 1163–1168.
  • Rosander, M., & Eriksson, O. (2012). Conformity on the Internet–The role of task difficulty and gender differences. Computers in human behavior, 28(5), 1587-1595.
  • Rösner, L., & Krämer, N. C. (2016). Verbal venting in the social web: Effects of anonymity and group norms on aggressive language use in online comments. Social Media+ Society, 2(3), 2056305116664220.
  • Sacconi, L., & Faillo, M. (2010). Conformity, reciprocity and the sense of justice. How social contract-based preferences and beliefs explain norm compliance: the experimental evidence. Constitutional Political Economy, 21(2), 171-201.
  • Schlosser, A. E. (2009). The effect of computer-mediated communication on conformity vs. nonconformity: An impression management perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 374-388.
  • Xu, K., & Lombard, M. (2017). Persuasive computing: Feeling peer pressure from multiple computer agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 152-162.
  • Wei, Z., Zhao, Z., & Zheng, Y. (2013). Neural mechanisms underlying social conformity in an ultimatum game. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7.
  • Wasylyshyn, N., Hemenway, B., Garcia, J. O., Cascio, C. N., O'Donnell, M. B., Bingham, C. R., ... & Falk, E. B. (2017). Global Brain Dynamics During Social Exclusion Predict Subsequent Behavioral Conformity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.00869.
  • Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.