Five studies examined the hypothesis that people will strategically portray the self as being more group influenced the more junior they feel within the group. Among social psychologists (Study 1), ratings of self-conformity by group members were greater when the status of the participant was low than when it was high. These effects were replicated in Studies 2, 3, and 4 in which relative intragroup status was manipulated. In Study 3, the authors found junior group members described themselves as more conformist than senior members when they were addressing an ingroup audience, but when they were addressing an outgroup audience the effect disappeared. Furthermore, junior members (but not senior members) rated themselves as more conformist when they were led to believe their responses were public than when responses were private (Study 5). The discussion focuses on the strategic processes underlying low-status group members’ self-reports of group influence and the functional role of conformity in groups.
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M.A., & Turner, J.C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97-119.
2.
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
3.
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2000). You can’t always do what you want: Social identity and self-presentational determinants of the choice to work for a low-status group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 891-906.
4.
Barreto, M., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Shahinper, K. (2003). Who wants to know? The effect of audience on identity expression among minority group members. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 299-318.
5.
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26.
6.
Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford.
7.
Braver, S. L., Linder, D. E., Corwin, T. T., & Cialdini, R. B. (1977). Some conditions that affect admissions of attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 565-576.
8.
Cartwright, D. (1959). A field theoretical conception of power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 86-103). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
9.
Cialdini, R. B., Braver, S. L., & Lewis, S. K. (1974). Attributional bias and the easily persuaded other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 631-637.
10.
Codol, J.-P. (1984). Social differentiation and non-differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 314-337). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Farr, R. M. (1996). The roots of modern social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
12.
Friend, R., Rafferty, Y., & Bramel, D. (1990). A puzzling misinterpretation of the Asch conformity study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 29-44.
13.
Guinote, A., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (2002). Effects of power on perceived and objective group variability: Evidence that more powerful groups are more variable. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 708-721.
14.
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
15.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16.
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117-127.
17.
Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1970). Studies in leader legitimacy, influence, and innovation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 485-537). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18.
Hoorens, V. (1993). Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 113-139.
19.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 248-264.
20.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2005). Loyalty without conformity: Tailoring self-perception as a means of balancing belonging and differentiation. Self and Identity, 4, 81-95.
21.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of group think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
22.
Jetten, J., Branscombe, N.R., & Spears, R. (in press). Living on the edge: Dynamics of intragroup and intergroup rejection experiences. In R. Brown & D. Capozza (Eds.), Social identities: Motivational, emotional and cultural influences. London: Sage.
23.
Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & McKimmie, B. M. (2003). Predicting the paths of peripherals: The interaction of identification and future possibilities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 130-140.
24.
Jetten, J., Hornsey, M.J., Spears, R., Haslam, S.A., & Cowell, E. (2005). Keeping up appearances: The conditional nature of peripheral group members’ loyalty expressions and actions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
25.
Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. J. (2002). We’re all individuals: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification, and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 189-207.
26.
Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 785-800.
27.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.
28.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 305-336.
29.
MacDonald, G., & Nail, P. R. (2005). Attitude change and the public-private attitude distinction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 15-28.
30.
Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., & Serôdio, R. G. (2001). Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 436-447.
31.
McAuliffe, B. J., Jetten, J., Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). Individualist and collectivist norms: When it’s OK to go your own way. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 57-70.
32.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
33.
Moreland, R. L. (1985). Social categorization and the assimilation of “new” group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1173-1190.
34.
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
35.
Moscovici, S., & Faucheux, C. (1972). Social influence, conformity bias, and the study of active minorities. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 149-202.
36.
Nail, P. R., MacDonald, G., & Levy, D. A. (2000). Proposal of a four-dimensional model of social response. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 454-470.
37.
Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127-137.
38.
Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161-198.
39.
Sassenberg, K., & Postmes, T. (2002). Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: Effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 463-480.
40.
Schofield, J. (1975). Effect of norms, public disclosure, and need for approval on volunteering behavior consistent with attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1126-1133.
41.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
42.
Sherif, M. (1965). Formation of social norms: The experimental paradigm. In H. Proshansky&B. Seidenberg(Eds.), Basic studies in social psychology (pp. 461-470). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
43.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1964). Reference groups. New York: Harper &Row.
44.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
45.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
46.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
47.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
48.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762.
49.
Worchel, S. (1998). A developmental view of the search for group identity. In S. Worchel, J.F. Morales, D. Paez,&J-C. Deschamps (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives (pp. 53-74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
Worchel, S., & Brehm, J. W. (1971). Direct and implied social restoration of freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 294-304.
51.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reasons, and order versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237-307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
