Extant research shows that social pressures influence acts of political participation, such as turning out to vote. However, we know less about how conformity pressures affect one’s deeply held political values and opinions. Using a discussion-based experiment, we untangle the unique and combined effects of information and social pressure on a political opinion that is highly salient, politically charged, and part of one’s identity. We find that while information plays a role in changing a person’s opinion, the social delivery of that information has the greatest effect. Thirty three percent of individuals in our treatment condition change their opinion due to the social delivery of information, while ten percent respond only to social pressure and ten percent respond only to information. Participants that change their opinion due to social pressure in our experiment are more conservative politically, conscientious, and neurotic than those that did not.

Citation: Mallinson DJ, Hatemi PK (2018) The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change. PLoS ONE 13(5): e0196600. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196600

Editor: Yong Deng, Southwest University, CHINA

Received: August 17, 2017; Accepted: April 16, 2018; Published: May 2, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Mallinson, Hatemi. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data are available from the corresponding author’s Harvard Dataverse (http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YVCPDT).

Funding: This project was supported by a $1,000 internal grant from the Penn State Department of Political Science (awarded to DJM). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Information and persuasion are perhaps the most important drivers of opinion and behavioral changes. Far less attention, however, has been given to the role of social pressure in opinion change on politically-charged topics. This lacuna is important because humans have a demonstrated proclivity to conform to their peers when faced with social pressure. Be it in the boardroom or on Facebook, Solomon Asch and Muzafer Sherif’s classic studies hold true today. Individuals conform based on a desire to be liked by others, which Asch [1, 2] called compliance (i.e., going along with the majority even if you do not accept their beliefs because you want to be accepted), or a desire to be right, which Sherif et al. [3] termed private acceptance (i.e., believing that the opinions of others may be more correct or informed than their own). These two broad schemas encompass many specific mechanisms, including, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, utility maximization, conflict avoidance, and pursuit of positive relationships, among others. Information-based social influence and normative social influence (i.e., conformity pressure) both play important, albeit distinct, roles in the theories of compliance and private acceptance (see [4]). In both cases, humans exhibit conformity behavior; however only in private acceptance do they actually update their beliefs due to the social delivery of new information.

Extensions of Asch and Sherif’s path-breaking works have been widely applied across a number of behavioral domains [5–9], to include political participation. For example, significant attention has been focused on the import of conformity on voter turnout and participatory behaviors [10], including the effects of social pressure on the electoral behavior of ordinary citizens [11–15]. This body of work points to both the subtle and overt power of social influence on electoral behavior, yet little is known about the import of social conformity for politically charged topics in context-laden circumstances, particularly those that challenge one’s values and opinions.

Testing conformity pressure in the ideological and political identity domain may explicate whether the pressure to align with an otherwise unified group is different when dealing with politically charged topics versus context-free topics such as the size of a line or the movement of a ball of light [2, 16]. Opinions on politically charged topics are complex, value laden, aligned with cultural norms, and not easily changed [17–21]. It remains unknown if the effects of social conformity pressures on political opinions are conditioned by the personal nature of the locus of pressure. To be sure, social conformity is a difficult concept to measure without live interaction. An observational approach makes it difficult to untangle if or how social pressure independently affects behaviors given these variegated casual mechanisms, and whether changes in opinion that result from social interaction are due to compliance or private acceptance. Nevertheless, experiments provide one means to gain insight into how and why opinion change occurs. Here, we undertake an experiment to test the extent to which opinion change is due to persuasion through new information, social conformity pressure, or a combination of the two in a more realistic extended discussion environment.

Both observational and experimental research has addressed different aspects of the impact of socially-delivered information on individual behavior. Observational analyses of social networks form the backbone of much of the recent research on social influence and political behavior. Sinclair [22], for instance, demonstrates that citizen networks convey a bounded set of political information. Individuals may turn to highly informed peers [23] or aggregate information from trusted friends and family [24] in order to reduce the cost of gathering the information required to engage in political behavior (e.g., voting). In turning to their network, they are open to privately accepting this useful information. Political information, however, is not the only type of information transmitted through personal networks. Social pressure helps the network induce compliance with desired social norms [25–27]. In this case, members of the network provide information regarding the group’s expectations for appropriate engagement in politics. Individuals that are concerned about whether or not the group will continue to accept them therefore conform out of a desire to be liked, broadly defined. Norms are often self-enforcing, with merely the perceived threat of potential sanctions being enough to regulate behavior through compliance and self-sanctioning [28, 29].

The debate over the practicality and reality of deliberative democracy further highlights the importance of understanding the role of political conformity in public and elite discourse. Scholars and theorists argue that political decisions are improved and legitimized under a deliberative process [30–34], even though deliberation does not necessarily result in consensus [35]. The crux of democratic deliberation is that participants are engaging in a rational discussion of a political topic, which provides the opportunity for each to learn from the others and thus privately update their preferences (i.e., out of a desire to be right). It results in a collectively rational enterprise that allows groups to overcome the bounded rationality of individuals that would otherwise yield suboptimal decisions [36]. This requires participants to fully engage and freely share the information that they have with the group.

Hibbing and Theiss-Morse [37], however, raise important questions about the desirability of deliberation among the public. Using focus groups, they find that citizens more often than not wish to disengage from discussion when they face opposition to their opinions. Instead, they appear averse to participation in politics and instead desire a “stealth democracy,” whereby democratic procedures exist, but are not always visible. In this view, deliberative environments do not ensure the optimal outcome, and can even result in suboptimal outcomes. In fact, the authors point directly to the issue of intra-group conformity due to compliance as a culprit for this phenomenon. The coercive influence of social pressure during deliberation has been further identified in jury deliberations [38, 39] and other small group settings [40].

Beyond politics, there is experimental evidence of the propensity to conform out of a desire to either be liked or to be right [25, 41–45]. Using a simple focus group format and pictures of lines, Asch [1, 2] demonstrated that individuals would comply with the beliefs of their peers due to a desire to be accepted by the group, even if they disagree and even when they believe the group opinion does not match reality. To do this, Asch asked eight members of a group to evaluate two sets of lines. The lines were clearly either identical or different and group members were asked to identify whether there was a difference. Unknown to the participant, the seven other group members were confederates trained to act in concert. At a given point in the study, the confederates began choosing the wrong answer to the question of whether the lines were equal. Consequently, the participant faced social pressure from a unified group every time they selected their answer. Asch varied the behavior of the group, including the number of members and number of dissenting confederates. Participants often exhibited stress and many eventually complied with the group consensus, even though the group was objectively wrong and participants did not agree with them privately.

Using a much more complex and context-laden format—a youth summer camp with real campers—Sherif et al. [3] demonstrated private acceptance whereby humans internalize and conform to group norms because consensus suggests that they may have converged on a right answer. In this case, the boys in the camp quickly coalesced into competing factions and initial outliers in the groups conformed out of a desire to win competitions (i.e., be right). While the groundbreaking Robbers Cave experiments revealed a great deal about group behavior well beyond conformity, we focus specifically on this particular aspect of the findings, which have stood the test of time in numerous replications and extensions across a wide variety of social domains [46–52].

Replication of Asch’s experimental work, in particular, has met varying degrees success. Lalancette and Standing [53]found that Asch’s results were mixed when using a prompt more ambiguous than unequal lines. Further, Hock [54] critiques the Asch design for not replicating a real life situation. Focusing on divorce attitudes, Kenneth Hardy provided an early application of Asch’s public compliance and Sherif’s private acceptance theories to political opinions using a similar small-group format with six confederates and one participant. Confederates offered not only their opinions, but also reasons for their opinions, which provided a methodological innovation by introducing more information than just the confederates’ votes. Hardy’s work provided an important starting point for identifying the process of conformity in the political realm, but it remains limited. He only utilized men in his study and did not allow for repeated discussion to assess how long participants hold up to conformity pressure. In a more recent study, Levitan and Verhulst [55]found persistence in political attitude change after interaction with a unanimously-opposing group, but they did not incorporate any discussion.

Our experiment builds on these works by examining the micro-process underlying opinion change for a politically charged topic discussed in a real context. We bridge between studies that allow for no discussion with those that study day-long deliberations in order to determine if group influence has a stronger effect, even when the discussion centers on an attitude closely tied with social identity. Our interaction of about an hour simulates a likely real-world example of dialogue. More importantly, our design allows us to speak to the debate over social influence by pulling apart the desires to be right (private acceptance) and liked (compliance). Our main goal is not to completely predict the general public’s behavior, but rather to identify the independent causal role of social pressure on opinion change, given the known import of information effects. We expect conformity pressure and information to have joint and independent effects on opinion change.

In order to explicate the independent and joint effects of compliance and private acceptance, we designed an experiment, conducted at the Pennsylvania State University from May to December of 2013, which placed participants in a deliberative environment where they faced unified opposition to their expressed opinion on a political topic that is relevant to their local community. We assessed participants’ privately-held opinions, absent the group, before and after the treatment in order to determine whether those who expressed a change in opinion during the discussion only did so verbally in order to comply with the group and gain acceptance or if they privately accepted the group’s opinion and truly updated their own values. The group discussed the topic openly, for approximately 30–45 minutes, also allowing us to assess participant behavior throughout the discussion. We discuss the specifics in more detail below.

In designing the experiment, we leveraged a unique time in Penn State’s history, the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal and the firing of longtime Head Coach Joe Paterno. The firing provided an ideal topic of discussion and a hard test of conformity pressure given the fact that it exhibited high salience on campus, was politically charged, and connected to the participants’ identities as Penn State students. The question posed to our participants was whether or not they felt that Coach Paterno should have been fired by the University’s Board of Trustees in November 2011. Previous research demonstrates that undergraduates may not have as clearly defined political attitudes as older adults on many topics and thus may be more susceptible to conformity pressure from peers due to non-attitudes [68]. This informed our choice of the discussion topic, as Paterno’s role in the abuse was not only highly salient on the Penn State campus, but typically invoked strong and diametrically opposed opinions in the undergraduate population and the general Penn state community. We begin by providing some background on this issue and its connection to identity and politics.

The core finding of this study revolves around the question to what extent will people conform to an opposing opinion on a topic that is salient, politically charged, and informs some aspect of their identity? Furthermore, can we evoke deviation rates similar to the foundational studies that relied on less complex aspects of one’s psychology [1]? And most important, what type of change is occurring? For those participants who changed their opinions, was it due to new information (i.e., private acceptance), social pressure (i.e., public compliance), or some combination of the two? To answer these questions, we first examined the degree of opinion change in both the treatment and control groups. For the control group, we compared their initial opinion from the pre-test survey with the opinion they provided after reading the information sheet and counter-arguments. Fig 3displays the percentage of each group that did and did not change their opinion. Within the control group, which received the same information as the discussion group, but had no social interaction, only 8 percent of the participants changed their opinion. The information-based change we observed is consistent with extant research [84, 85]. In addition, though a large proportion of the control group did not change their opinion, some did moderate it (i.e., strengthened or weakened) based on the receipt of new information alone. See S5 File for a further breakdown of these changes.

Turning to the treatment group, 38 percent of our treated participants changed their opinion between the initial vote (after receiving information and prior to the discussion) and the final secret ballot. Our complex, identity, and value-laden topic returned findings that comport remarkably close to the deviation rates of Asch [2] and those that follow (for a meta-analysis, see [6]). If we consider all other things equal, the 30 percent increase in opinion change is dependent on the treatment of participating in the group discussion (χ² = 5.094, p < 0.05). This finding remains unchanged if the 16 non-randomized members of the pilot study are removed from the treatment group (though the p-value of the chi-square declines to 0.10, due to the smaller n, see S3 File). As further evidence, Table 1 presents logistic regression results demonstrating the treatment effect. Namely, being in the treatment condition increases the odds of opinion change by 581 percent. Meaning, social pressure and/or the personal delivery of information, as opposed to simple exposure to new information, had a profound influence on either true opinion change through private acceptance or conformity through public compliance. Due to the small sample size, we are hesitant to include additional covariates in this model, but instead use t-tests below to examine differences in the characteristics of participants who changed their opinion and those who did not.

We wish to call attention to two specific limitations of this study that are discussed above and in the supplementary materials, but warrant further mention. The first limitation is the inclusion of a meaningful, relative to the overall sample size, non-randomized pilot of the treatment condition. While this had no substantive effect on the results, it is important to recognize and we discuss this in more detail in the S3 File. Second, Fig 1 makes apparent that we use two similar, but slightly different scales for opinion throughout the study. Namely, pre-test opinion is measured on a five-point Likert scale and the remaining opinion measures are dichotomous (yes/no), with an additional strength question for the control group. Our primary analyses, however, rely on the comparison of the two yes/no answers in the treatment group; the verbal designation of yes/no at the beginning of the discussion section and the yes/no in the post discussion ballot. We further discuss this in the S5 File.

Finally, to some the small sample size of the study may be a limitation, especially those concerned about a replication crisis in Social Psychology [87]. We would respond, however, that the intensive nature of this study in terms of researcher hours and treatment condition makes it difficult to scale-up. Thus, a multi-site replication is likely the best approach to assessing the veracity of these findings [88, 89]. We encourage such replication and have provided all materials necessary on the corresponding author’s Dataverse (http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YVCPDT). Additional lessons relevant to replication work and laboratory experiments in political science can be found in Mallinson (2018) [90].

While researchers have examined the roles of social influence (public compliance) and new information (private acceptance) on opinion change, the two are less often examined concurrently and the explicit causal arrows are more often assumed than tested through an experiment. Furthermore, social conformity is a complex concept to measure through surveys or interviews alone. Live interaction provides an optimal means to understand social pressures. Our experiment was designed specifically to further unpack the causal mechanisms underlying opinion change and test whether a person’s values and identity are subject to social pressure. Furthermore, the selection of the topic of study, the firing of an important symbol of Penn State, also allowed us to explicate the extent to which information and social pressure challenge a person’s deeply held values and identity. We find that while information has an important role in changing people’s opinions on a highly salient topic that is attached to a group identity, the social delivery of that information plays a large and independent role. Most individuals that changed their opinion did so out of some combination of the two forces, but there were people who only changed their opinion overtly in order to gain social acceptance as well as those who did not want to give the appearance of changing their mind, but still wanted to be right.

These findings have important implications for research on social and political behavior. They reinforce the understanding that citizens and elites cannot be simply viewed as rational utility maximizers independent of group dynamics. Yet, at the same time, the desire to be right and information remain critical components of opinion change. Furthermore, there are important individual differences such as ideology, self-esteem, and personality that appear to have a role in conformity. Exposure to politics and political discussion are fundamentally social, and therefore behavior is conditioned on the combination of the information one receives, and the social influence of the person or group providing that information interacting with one’s disposition. All should be considered when examining any inter-personal, social or political outcome. Be it a deliberative setting like a jury or a town hall meeting or informal gatherings of citizens, or political elites for that matter, changes in behavior are not simply due to rational information-driven updating, and even when they are, that updating may be pushed by the social forces that we experience in our interactions with other humans in variegated ways dependent upon the characteristics of the individual (for example, see [91]). This was the case for simple and objective stimuli, like Asch’s lines, and it is also the case in our context-laden experiment that focuses on the complexities of personal identity and opinion. That is, the conformity of social and political values relies on the same psychological mechanisms underlying general conformity.

Beyond theoretical and empirical importance for the study of social and political behavior, these findings also hold normative importance for democratic society. The normative implications are perhaps best exemplified by the organizational and personal turmoil that followed the revelation of child abuse by priests in the Catholic Church. Politics forms important aspects of the social and personal identities of elites and citizens, more so today than ever before [92, 93]. People include their political party, positions on particular issues (e.g., environmentalism), and membership in political, religious, social and academic organizations, among other things, as key aspects of their identities. Our experiment helps us better understand how individuals behave when part of that identity is challenged.

That being said, no design is perfect, and this experiment only unpacks part of the causal mechanism. Like the early work on social conformity, it serves as a foundation for future studies to extend upon and further explicate the causal mechanism. For example, an extension on this design, such as controlling variation in the type and number of confederates [44, 94], could help us better understand the nature and amount of pressure necessary to induce conformity across a variety of individual characteristics. For example, a potentially fruitful avenue of extension would be to provide the participant with one supportive confederate who verbally changes their opinion during the discussion. Having support reduces conformity pressure, but deviation by that support should increase it. Additionally, while we identify individuals whose behavior was prompted by either social pressure or information, the largest group responded to a combination of the two. Further parsing out the interaction between information, persuasion, pressure and the complexity of human dynamics will require an even more complex research design on a larger scale. The numerous extensions of Asch’s original experiment demonstrate the wealth of potential extensions of this design that can help unpack this black box. Doing so requires an incremental approach that will be time and resource intensive. This study provides the foundation for those next steps.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2013 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois, and the April 2014 Center for American Political Responsiveness Brown Bag in State College, Pennsylvania. We would like to thank the editor, the anonymous reviewer, Ralf Kurvers, Rose McDermott, and conference attendees for their helpful comments and suggestions on this manuscript. We are also grateful to Ralf Kurvers for providing Fig 1. We would like to thank our research assistants, Ronald Festa, Emilly Flynn, Christina Grier, Christopher Ojeda, Kimberly Seufer, and Matthew Wilson, that helped make this experimental protocol a success.

1. 1. Asch SE. Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments. In: Guetzkow H, editor. Groups, leadership and men; research in human relations. Oxford, England: Carnegie Press; 1951.
2. 2. Asch SE. Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American. 1955;193:31–5.
3. 3. Sherif M, Harvey OJ, White BJ, Hood WR, Sherif CW. Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: Institute of Group Relations; 1954/1961.
4. 4. Deutsch M, Gerard HB. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1955;51(3):629.
5. 5. Berns GS, Chappelow J, Zink CF, Pagnonni G, Martin-Skurski ME, Richards J. Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation. Biological Psychiatry. 2005;58(3):245–353. pmid:15978553
6. 6. Bond R, Smith PB. Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin. 1996;119(1):111.
7. 7. Deuker L, Muller AR, Montag C, Markett S, Reuter M, Fell J, et al. Playing Nice: A Multi-Methodological Study on the Effects of Social Conformity on Memory. Fronteirs in Human Neuroscience. 2013;7(79):1–11.
8. 8. Mori K, Arai M. No Need to Fake It: Reproduction of the Asch Experiment Without Confederates. International Journal of Psychology. 2010;45(5):390–7. pmid:22044061
9. 9. Yu R, Sun S. To Conform or Not to Conform: Spontaneous Conformity Diminishes the Sensitivity to Monetary Outcomes. PLOS One. 2013;8(5):e64530. pmid:23691242
10. 10. Coleman S. The Effect of Social Conformity on Collective Voting Behavior. Political Analysis. 2004;12(1):76–96.
11. 11. Gerber AS, Green DP, Larimer CW. Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review. 2008;102(1):33–48.
12. 12. Kenny CB. Political Participation and Effects from the Social Environment. American Journal of Political Science. 1992;36(1):259–67.
13. 13. Knoke D. Networks of Political Action: Toward Theory Construction. Social Forces 1990;68(4):1041–63.
14. 14. Leighley JE. Social Interaction and Contextual Influences on Political Participation. American Politics Quarterly. 1990;18(4):459–75.
15. 15. McClurg SD. Social Networks and Political Participation: The Role of Social Interaction in Explaining Political Participation. Political Research Quarterly. 2003;56(4):449–64.
16. 16. Sherif M. The Psychology of Social Norms. Oxford, England: Harper; 1936.
17. 17. Achen CH. Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response. The American Political Science Review. 1975;69(4):1218–31.
18. 18. Alwin DF, Cohen RL, Newcomb TM. Political attitudes over the life span: The Bennington women after fifty years. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press; 1991. xxviii, 422 p. p.
19. 19. Converse PE. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In: Apter D, editor. Ideology and Discontent. New York, NY: Free Press; 1964.
20. 20. Jennings MK, Markus GB. Partisan Orientations over the Long Haul: Results from the Three-Wave Political Socialization Panel Study. American Political Science Review. 1984;78(4):1000–18.
21. 21. Zuckerman AS. The Social Logic of Politics: Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; 2005.
22. 22. Sinclair B. The Social Citizen: Peer Networks and Political Behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2012.
23. 23. Huckfeldt R. The Social Communication of Political Expertise. American Journal of Political Science. 2001;45(2):425–38.
24. 24. Huckfeldt R, Johnson PE, Sprague J. Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
25. 25. Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology. 2004;55:591–621. pmid:14744228
26. 26. Cialdini RB, Trost MR. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Gardner L, editors. The Handbook of Social Psychology. 4 ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Son; 1998. p. 151–92.
27. 27. Scheff TJ. Shame and the Social Bond: A Sociological Theory. Sociological Theory. 2000;18(1):84–99.
28. 28. Ellickson RC. The Evolution of Social Norms: A Perspective from the Legal Academy. In: Hecter M, Opp K-D, editors. Social Norms. NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 2001. p. 35–75.
29. 29. Horne C. Sociological Perspectives on the Emergence of Social Norms. In: Hecter M, Opp K-D, editors. Social Norms. NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 2001. p. 3–34.
30. 30. Cooke M. Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies. 2000;48(5):947–69.
31. 31. Fearon JD. Deliberation as Discussion. In: Elster J, editor. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
32. 32. Gastil J. Democracy in Small Groups: Participation, Decision Making, and Communication. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers; 1993.
33. 33. Habermas J. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996.
34. 34. Rawls J. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999.
35. 35. Cooke M. Are Ethical Conflicts Irreconcilable? European Journal of Philosophy. 1997;1(3):247–67.
36. 36. Smith G, Wales C. Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies. 2000;48(1):51–65.
37. 37. Hibbing JR, Theiss-Morse E. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
38. 38. Abramson J. We, the Jury. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1994.
39. 39. Kalven HJ, Zeisel H. The American Jury. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1970.
40. 40. Verba S. Small Groups and Political Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1961.
41. 41. Crutchfield RS. Conformity and Character. American Psychologist. 1955;10(5):191.
42. 42. Insko CA, Drenan S, Solomon MR, Smith R, Wade TJ. Conformity as a function of the consistency of positive self-evaluation with being liked and being right. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1983;19(4):341–58.
43. 43. Insko CA, Sediak AJ, Lipsitz A. A two-valued logic or two-valued balance resolution of the challenge of agreement and attraction effects in p-o-x triads, and a theoretical perspective on conformity and hedonism. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1982;12(2):143–67.
44. 44. Insko CA, Smith RH, Alicke MD, Wade J, Taylor S. Conformity and Group Size The Concern with Being Right and the Concern with Being Liked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1985;11(1):41–50.
45. 45. Strickland BR, Crowne DP. Conformity under conditions of simulated group pressure as a function of the need for social approval. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1962;58(1):171–81.
46. 46. Bohm R, Rockenbach B. The Inter-Group Comparison—Intra-Group Cooperation Hypothesis: Comparisons between Groups Increase Efficiency in Public Goods Provision. PLOS One. 2013;8(2):e56152. pmid:23405262
47. 47. Bonner BL, Baumann MR. Informational Intra-Group Influence: The Effects of Time Pressure and Group Size. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2008;38(1):46–66.
48. 48. Bonner BL, Sillito SD, Baumann MR. Collective Estimation: Accuracy, Expertise, and Extraversion as Sources of Intra-Group Influence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2007;103(1):121–33.
49. 49. Gaertner SL, Dovidio JF, Banker BS, Houlette M, Johnson KM, McGlynn EA. Reducing Intergroup Conflict: From Superordinate Goals to Decategorization, Recategorization, and Mutual Differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2000;4(1):98–114.
50. 50. Rabbie JM, Benoist F, Oosterbaan H, Visser L. Differential Power and Effects of Expected Competitive and Cooperative Intergroup Interaction on Intragroup and Outgroup Attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1974;30(1):46–56.
51. 51. Smith LGE, Postmes T. Intra-group Interaction and the development of Norms Which Promote Inter-group Hostility. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2009;39(1):130–44.
52. 52. Tyerman A, Spencer C. A Critical Test of Sherifs’ Robber’s Cave Experiments. Small Group Research. 1983;14(4):515–31.
53. 53. Lalancette M-f, Standing L. Asch Fails Again. Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal. 1990;18(1):7–12.
54. 54. Hock RR. Forty Sudies That Changed Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2006.
55. 55. Levitan LC, Verhulst B. Conformity in Groups: The Effects of Others’ Views on Expressed Attitudes and Attitude Change. Political Behavior. 2015:1–39.
56. 56. Imai K, Strauss A. Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects from Randomized Experiments, with Application to the Optimal Planning of the Get-out-the-vote Campaign. Political Analysis. 2011;19(1):1–19.
57. 57. Imai K, Ratkovic M. Estimating Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in Randomized Program Evaluation. The Annals of Applied Statistics. 2013;7(1):443–70.
58. 58. Herringer LG. Relating Values and Personality Traits. Psychological Reports. 1998;83(3):953–4.
59. 59. Cavazza N, Mucchi-Faina A. Me, us, or them: Who is more conformist? Perception of conformity and political orientation. The Journal of Social Psychology. 2008;148(3):335–46. pmid:18605181
60. 60. Mann RD. A Review of the Relationships between Personality and Performance in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin. 1959;56(4):241.
61. 61. Sistrunk F, Halcomb CG. Liberals, conservatives, and conformity. Psychonomic Science. 1969;17(6):349–50.
62. 62. DeYoung CG, Peterson JB, Higgins DM. Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences. 2002;33(4):533–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00171-4.
63. 63. Digman JM. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annul Review of Psychology. 1990;41(1):417–40.
64. 64. Roccas S, Sagiv L, Schwartz SH, Knafo A. The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2002;28(6):789–801.
65. 65. Ehrlich HJ, Lee D. Dogmatism, learning, and resistance to change: A review and a new paradigm. Psychological Bulletin. 1969;71(4):249. pmid:4894700
66. 66. Lavine H, Lodge M, Freitas K. Threat, Authoritarianism, and Selective Exposure to Information. Political Psychology. 2005;26(2):219–44.
67. 67. Dollinger SJ, Leong FT, Ulicni SK. On traits and values: With special reference to openness to experience. Journal of Research in Personality. 1996;30(1):23–41.
68. 68. Sears DO. 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. 1986;51(3):515–30.
69. 69. Viera M. Paterno is Finished at Penn State, and President Is Out. New York Times. 2011 November 9.
70. 70. Wiley S, Dahling JJ. Being Penn State: The Role of Joe Paterno’s Prototypicality in the Sandusky Sex-Abuse Scandal. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2013;6(2):152–5.
71. 71. Grandey AA, Krannitz MA, Slezak T. We Are…More Than Football: Three Stories of Identity Threat by Penn State Insiders. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2013;6(2):134–40.
72. 72. Guarino M. Penn State riot: If university can’t fire Joe Paterno, is something wrong? Christian Science Monitor. 2011 November 10.
73. 73. Mooney CZ. The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy. New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers; 2001.
74. 74. CBS. Obama: ‘Soul-searching’ from Penn State Scandal.2011 February 3, 2014. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-soul-searching-from-penn-state-scandal/.
75. 75. Keppel G, Wickens TD. Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2004.
76. 76. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Belief in the Law of Small Numbers. Psychological Bulletin. 1971;76(2):105–10.
77. 77. Wilson GD, Patterson JR. A New Measure of Conservatism. The British journal of social and clinical psychology. 1968;7(4):264–9. Epub 1968/12/01. pmid:5706461.
78. 78. Everett JA. The 12 Item Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS). PLOS One. 2013;8(12):e82131. pmid:24349200
79. 79. Milas G, Mlačić B, Mikloušić I. Construct validation of a General Social Attitudes Scale (SAS_G). Journal of Individual Differences. 2013;34(4):203.
80. 80. Rosenberg M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1965.
81. 81. McCrae RR, John OP. An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications. Journal of Personality. 1992;60(2):175–215.
82. 82. Freeh SS, LLP. Report of the Special Investigative Counsel Regarding the Actions of The Pennsylvania State University Related to the Child Sexual Abuse Committed by Gerald A. Sandusky. 2012.
83. 83. Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin. 1971;76(5):378–82.
84. 84. Druckman JN. Does Political Information Matter? Political Communication. 2005;22(4):515–9.
85. 85. Gilens M. Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences. American Political Science Review. 2001;95(2):379–96.
86. 86. Milgram S. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. 1st ed. New York: Harper & Row; 1974. xvii, 224 p. p.
87. 87. Bardi A, Zentner M. Grand Challenges for Personality and Social Psychology: Moving beyond the Replication Crisis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017;8:2068. pmid:29234296
88. 88. Maxwell SE, Lau MY, Howard GS. Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? American Psychologist. 2015;70(6):487–98. pmid:26348332
89. 89. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015;349(6251):943.
90. 90. Mallinson DJ. Lessons on Running a Laboratory Experiment (in Graduate School). PS: Political Science & Politics. 2018:1–4. Epub 01/30.
91. 91. Grimmer J, Messing S, Westwood SJ. Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects and the Effects of Heterogeneous Treatments with Ensemble Methods. n.d.
92. 92. Baldassarri D, Gelman A. Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion. American Journal of Sociology. 2008;114(2):408–46. pmid:24932012
93. 93. Iyengar S, Westwood SJ. Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization. American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.
94. 94. Farrar C, Green DP, Green JE, Nickerson DW, Shewfelt S. Does Discussion Group Composition Affect Policy Preferences? Results from Three Randomized Experiments. Political Psychology. 2009;30(4):615–47.