Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Coultas, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 7, No. 4, 317-331 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430204046141
© 2004 SAGE Publications

When in Rome... An Evolutionary Perspective on Conformity

Julie C. Coultas

University of Sussex, j.c.coultas{at}sussex.ac.uk

Is proportion as important as group size when exploring conformity in small groups? Two tests of Boyd and Richerson’s (1985) conformist transmission model were undertaken. In experiment one, 378 individuals were observed in a computer laboratory. A rare behaviour was modelled by a number of naive models. As each individual entered the laboratory the proportion of models of the behaviour and the behaviour of the newcomer was recorded. In experiment two, 476 participants in psychology experiments took part (unknowingly) in an additional experiment where both proportion and group size were manipulated. Logistic regression indicated that the proportion of models, but not group size, was a significant predictor of conformity in both experiments. The findings are discussed in terms of their contribution to an evolutionary theory of human cooperative behaviour.

Key Words: conformity • gene-culture co-evolution • group size • proportion

References

  • Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgements. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leaders, and men (pp. 177-190). New York: Russell and Russell Inc.
  • Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press .
  • Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
  • Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1991). Culture and cooperation. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Cooperation and prosocial behaviour. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
  • Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon .
  • Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893-910 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Feldman, M. F., & Laland, K. N. (1996). Gene-culture coevolutionary theory . Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 453-457 .[CrossRef]
  • Gerard, H. B., Wilhelmy, R. A., & Connolley, E. S. (1968). Conformity and group size . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 79-82 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (1998). The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences . Evolution and Human Behaviour, 19, 215-241 .[CrossRef]
  • Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of laboratory microculture . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 12, 649-658 .[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kameda, T., & Nakanishi, D. (2002). Cost-benefit analysis of social/cultural learning in a nonstationary uncertain environment: An evolutionary simulation and an experiment with human subjects . Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 373-393 .[CrossRef]
  • Kameda, T., Tindale, R. S., & Davis, J. H. (2003). Cognitions, preferences, and social sharedness: Past, present, and future directions in group decision making. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgement and decision research (pp. 458-485). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
  • Laland, K. N., & Brown, G. R. (2002). Sense and nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on behaviour. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press .
  • Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact . American Psychologist, 36, 343-356 .[CrossRef]
  • Latané, B. (1996). Dynamic social impact: The creation of culture by communication . Journal of Communication, 46, 13-25 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Latané, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of majorities and minorities . Psychological Review, 88, 438-453 .[CrossRef]
  • Mann, L. (1977). The effect of stimulus queues on queue-joining behaviour . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 437-442 .
  • Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, L. (1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different sizes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 79-82 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task . Sociometry, 32, 365-379 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Nemeth, C., Wachtler, C., & Endicott, J. (1977). Increasing the size of the minority: Some losses and some gains . European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 15-27 .[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact . Psychological Review, 97, 362-376 .[CrossRef]
  • Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). The evolution and psychology of unselfish behaviour. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press .
  • Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes . Psychological Bulletin, 95, 189-225 .[CrossRef]
  • Tindale, R. S., Kameda, T., & Hinsz, V. B. (2003). Group decision making. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), SAGE handbook of social psychology (pp. 381-403). London: SAGE .

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Coultas, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?