Three studies assessed the impact of White individuals’ mere membership in racially diverse or homogeneous groups on conformity. In Study 1, White participants were randomly assigned to four-person groups that were racially diverse or homogeneous in which three confederates routinely endorsed clearly inferior college applicants for admission. Participants in diverse groups were significantly less likely to conform than those in homogeneous groups. Study 2 replicated these results using an online conformity paradigm, thereby isolating the effects of racial group composition from concomitant social cues in face-to-face settings. Study 3 presented a third condition—a diverse group that included one other White member. Individuals conformed less in both types of diverse groups as compared with the homogeneous group. Evidence suggests this was because Whites in homogeneous (vs. diverse) settings were more likely to reconsider their original decision after learning how other group members responded.
AbramsD.HoggM. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195–228. doi:10.1080/14972779108401862
2.
ApfelbaumE. P.PhillipsK. W.RichesonJ. A. (2014). Rethinking the baseline in diversity research: Should we be explaining the effects of homogeneity?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 235–244. doi:10.1177/1745691614527466
3.
ApfelbaumE. P.SommersS. R.NortonM. I. (2008). Seeing race and seeming racist? Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 918–932. doi:10.1037/a0011990
4.
AschS. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In GuetzkowH. (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
5.
AschS. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70, 1–70. doi:10.1037/h0093718
6.
BaumanC. W.TrawalterS.UnzuetaM. M. (2014). Diverse according to whom? Racial group membership and concerns about discrimination shape diversity judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1354–1372. doi:10.1177/0146167214543881
7.
BondR. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 331–354. doi:10.1177/1368430205056464
8.
BondR.SmithP. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111–137. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111
9.
BrockT. C. (1965). Communicator-recipient similarity and decision change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 650–654. doi:10.1037/h0022081
10.
CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
11.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414
12.
DinoA.ReysenS.BranscombeN. R. (2008). Online interactions between group members who differ in status. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28, 85–93. doi:10.1177/0261927X08325916
13.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
14.
GoethalsG. R. (1972). Consensus and modality in the attribution process: The role of similarity and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 84–92. doi:10.1037/h0031915
15.
GoethalsG. R.NelsonR. E. (1973). Similarity in the influence process: The belief-value distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 117–122. doi:10.1037/h0034266
16.
GoncaloJ. A.DuguidM. M. (2012). Follow the crowd in a new direction: When conformity pressure facilitates group creativity (and when it does not). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 14–23. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.12.004
17.
HayesA. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
18.
HoggM. A. (2007). Uncertainty–identity theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 69–126. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39002-8
19.
HoggM. A.AdelmanJ. R.BlaggR. D. (2010). Religion in the face of uncertainty: An uncertainty-identity theory account of religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 72–83. doi:10.1177/1088868309349692
20.
JanisI. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
21.
KimJ. (2009). “I want to be different from others in cyberspace.” The role of visual similarity in virtual group identity. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 88–95. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.06.008
22.
LaporteL.van NimwegenC.UyttendaeleA. J. (2010). Do people say what they think: Social conformity behavior in varying degrees of online social presence. In HvannbergE. B.LárusdóttirM. K.BlandfordA.GulliksenJ., Eds., Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on human–computer interaction: Extending boundaries (pp. 305–314). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery Press. doi:10.1145/1868914.1868951
23.
LatanéB. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.343
24.
LevineS. S.ApfelbaumE. P.BernardM.BarteltV. L.ZajacE. J.StarkD. (2014). Ethnic diversity deflates price bubbles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 18524–18529. doi:10.1073/pnas.1407301111
25.
LevineM.CassidyC.BrazierG.ReicherS. (2002). Self-categorization and bystander non-intervention: Two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1452–1463. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01446.x
26.
MacDonaldG.NailP. R.LevyD. A. (2004). Expanding the scope of the social response context model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26, 77–92. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2601_7
27.
MackieD. M.WorthL. T.AsuncionA. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812–822. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.812
28.
McKennaK. Y.GreenA. S.GleasonM. E. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction?Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00246
29.
OriveR. (1988). Social projection and social comparison of opinions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 953–964. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.953
30.
PettigrewThomas F.LindaR. Tropp. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
31.
PhillipsK. W.MannixE. A.NealeM. A.GruenfeldD. H. (2004). Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 497–510. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.10.003
32.
PlantE. A.DevineP. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811
33.
PlatowM. J.HaslamS. A.BothA.ChewI.CuddonM.GoharpeyN.…GraceD. M. (2005). “It’s not funny if they’re laughing”: Self-categorization, social influence, and responses to canned laughter. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 542–550. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.09.005
34.
RichesonJ. A.SommersS. R. (2016). Toward a social psychology of race and race relations for the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 439–563. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115115
35.
RosanderM.ErikssonO. (2012). Conformity on the Internet—The role of task difficulty and gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1587–1595. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.023
36.
SacerdoteB. (2001). Peer effects with random assignment: Results for Dartmouth roommates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 681–704. doi:10.3386/w7469
37.
SekaquaptewaD.ThompsonM. (2002). The differential effects of solo status on members of high- and low-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 694–707. doi:10.1177/0146167202288013
38.
ShteynbergG.ApfelbaumE. P. (2013). The power of shared experience: Simultaneous observation with similar others facilitates social learning. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 738–744. doi:10.1177/1948550613479807
39.
SiegelA. E.SiegelS. (1957). Reference groups, membership groups, and attitude change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 360–364. doi:10.1037/h0041502
40.
SmilowitzM.ComptonD. C.FlintL. (1988). The effects of computer mediated communication on an individual’s judgment: A study based on the methods of Asch’s social influence experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 311–321. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(88)90003-9
41.
SommersS. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 597–612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597
42.
TurnerJ. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In TajfelH. (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
43.
TurnerJ. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In LawlerE. J. (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (pp. 77–122). Greenwich, England: JAI Press.
44.
TurnerJ. C.WetherellM. S.HoggM. A. (1989). Referent informational influence and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 135–147. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00855.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
