After convergence, the group norm for judgment averaged about three to four inches. Further, the groups retained their initial norms throughout the other two group sessions. In the individual trials, the participants further continued to use the same group norms for judgment. This occurred even when the individual trials occurred as much as six months after the group sessions. Divergence among the participants’ judgments did begin to occur during the end of the individual series. It would be interesting to discover how much more divergence from the group norm would have occurred if the participants had performed more individual sessions.
They pick and choose, conforming to most and rejecting atleast few. We conducted additional simulations using the same bandit task setups as we used in the online experiment, confirming that the results do not change across conditions. Please find the details of this point in our reply to the review from reviewer #2 above.
Thereafter, communication will decrease if the perceived disagreement continues to rise. Increasing levels of pressure will be offset by decreasing dependence levels. The group feels more strongly that it needs to bring Mark “back in line.” Soon, however, Mark is not playing full games, and he often leaves in a huff. When this higher level of disagreement is reached, the group still thinks it should pressure Mark to conform, but the feelings of the group are not much stronger than when Mark started to argue in the first place. The group is beginning to wonder if it is worth the effort to make Mark conform.
The authors then conducted a series of online experiments and observed the same effect in their experimental data as well. The research question is timely, and the modelling has been done carefully. However, I have some comments and concerns about the interpretations of their findings. We have confirmed through agent-based model simulations that the collective behavioural rescue could emerge in tasks equipped with the experimental settings (Figure 1—figure supplement 5). We have also confirmed that risk seeking does not always increase when risk premium is negative (Figure 1—figure supplement 6).
Accountability increases conformity, if an individual is trying to be accepted by a group which has certain preferences, then individuals are more likely to conform to match the group. Similarly, the attractiveness of group members increases conformity. If an individual wishes to be liked by the group, they are increasingly likely to conform. This experiment was conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram in order to portray obedience to authority.
All subjects declared their residence in the United Kingdom, the United States, Ireland, or Australia. All subjects consented to participation through an online consent form at the beginning of the task. We excluded subjects who disconnected from the online task before completing at least the first 35 rounds from our computational model-fitting analysis, resulting in 467 subjects for the positive RP tasks and 118 subjects for the negative RP task . The task was available only for English-speaking subjects and they had to be 18 years old or older.
This brings us to the distinction between informational and normative influence. For example, a recent study showed that copying others is not necessarily motivated by maximising accuracy (Mahmoodi et al. 2018, see also Cialdinin and Goldstein 2004). In their experimental data, the authors found that participants do not copy others as much as they should do.
The majority, and normally they comply or come to privately accept the majority view. However, we should not forget that, at times, the minority can also successfully exert persuasive forces upon the majority. In the mock jury research academy sports fayetteville minorities were successful persuaders about 5 percent of the time. The deviant supplies a group with a problem that the group needs to solve. The members can unite against this problem as they try to do something about it.
Individuals who had an intermediate level of σ achieved relatively higher performance within the group than those who had either higher or lower σ. As a result, the average performance decreased with increasing diversity in σ. In 1961 Stanley Milgram published a study in which he utilized Asch’s conformity paradigm using audio tones instead of lines; he conducted his study in Norway and France. He found substantially higher levels of conformity than Asch, with participants conforming 50% of the time in France and 62% of the time in Norway during critical trials.