See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/297738036

Conformity: Definitions, Types, and Evolutionary Grounding

Chapter · May 2015

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12697-5_15

CITATIONS READS

21 41,663

2 authors:

Julie Coultas Edwin J. C. van Leeuwen

University of Sussex University of St Andrews
14 PUBLICATIONS 529 CITATIONS 69 PUBLICATIONS 1,599 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Edwin J. C. van Leeuwen on 11 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Conformity: Definitions, Types,
and Evolutionary Grounding 15
Julie C. Coultas and Edwin J. C. van Leeuwen

Conformity is the act of fitting in with the group. instance, chimpanzees behave as if they desire to
As a group-living species, much of our behav- be like others (Hopper et al. 2011; Whiten et al.
ior is focused on preserving group cohesion. The 2005), capuchin monkeys develop group-specific
tendency to change one’s behavior to match the foraging traditions (Perry 2009), and vervet mon-
responses of others is often adaptive (Cialdini and keys acquiesce to local foraging techniques upon
Goldstein 2004). If we want to join a group, then entering a new group (van de Waal et al. 2013).
we monitor and copy the responses and actions That these closely related species show behav-
of those we observe. This copying behavior is not ioral patterns that resemble crowd-following in
always conscious (Chartrand and Bargh 1999), humans marked a starting point for exploring the
but it is often functional. If we copy those around evolutionary roots of human conformity. When
us when we are unsure of ourselves, we will often even more distantly related species like rats
adopt successful behavior, especially when indi- (Galef and Whiskin 2008; Jolles et al. 2011) and
vidually acquired information is costly (Boyd fish (Day et al. 2001; Pike and Laland 2010) were
and Richerson 1985; Henrich and Boyd 1998). found to show conformity, it led to an interest in
In the past 25 years, there has been a burgeon- the evolutionary roots of human conformity as
ing interest in conformist behavior from diverse well as the robustness of conformity as a social
disciplines including psychology, anthropology, learning heuristic (Laland 2004).
evolutionary biology, behavioral ecology, math- Recent investigations into conformity, how-
ematics, and economics. ever, have exposed several issues that may distort
The grounding of conformist behavior in evo- our understanding of conformist behavior, even
lutionary theory proved justified when nonhuman in humans. Notably, “conformity” has not been
species were similarly observed to be drawn to defined unequivocally across disciplines (e.g.,
majorities (e.g., Claidière and Whiten 2012). For Haun et al. 2013). Whereas conformity in humans
has been defined in terms of forgoing personal
convictions in the face of a majority of peers ex-
J. C. Coultas () pressing a different stance (e.g., Asch 1956; Sher-
Centre for the study of Cultural Evolution, Stockholm if 1936), “conformity” has been used to describe
University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
e-mail: [email protected] the process by which individual nonhumans ac-
quire the foraging strategy that becomes the most
Department of Psychology, University of Sussex,
Falmer BN1 9QH, UK
common variant (e.g., Hopper et al. 2011; Perry
2009). Moreover, whereas some conformity stud-
E. J. C. van Leeuwen
ies have produced conclusions by investigating
Department of Developmental Psychology, University
of Jena, Am Steiger 3/1, 07743 Jena, Germany the effects of one large group (i.e., the majority)
e-mail: [email protected] on the focal individuals in the absence of minori-

V. Zeigler-Hill et al. (eds.), Evolutionary Perspectives on Social Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology, 189
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-12697-5_15, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
190 J. C. Coultas and E. J. C. van Leeuwen

ties (e.g., van de Waal et al. 2013), others have preestablished convictions or behavior regarding
investigated the effects of one conspecific on the the observed phenomenon. Humans and many
behavioral perseverance of the focal individuals other animals form routines or habits. These hab-
(e.g., Galef and Whiskin 2008). The plethora of its may hinder the adoption of observed behavior
definitions used across these “conformity” stud- (van Leeuwen and Haun 2014). Compare this to
ies has hampered assessment of the evolution- the situation in which individuals are ignorant to
ary roots of conformist behavior and thwarted the affordances (e.g., when people visit a new
between-species comparisons (van Leeuwen and city and want to find a good restaurant)—the im-
Haun 2014). To clarify the study of conformity, a pact of observing the choice of the local majority
proposal has been made for a streamlined set of (i.e., the restaurant with the most customers on
definitions (see Haun et al. 2013; van Leeuwen a given square) would be larger than when the
and Haun 2014). In the following paragraphs, visitors had acquired local preferences. A power-
we present this set of definitions and put the dis- ful situational incentive to adopt the behavior of
parate body of terms in line with this classifica- conspecifics seems to be naivety or uncertainty
tion. Another issue distorting understanding of (Kendal et al. 2009). Given the potential impact
conformist behavior is that many “conformity” of these different starting points (i.e., experi-
findings can similarly be explained by (unbiased) enced or naïve) on the tendency to use social in-
social influences (van Leeuwen and Haun 2014). formation, it might improve accuracy to organize
Social influence can be a potent force in shap- conformity labels accordingly.
ing individuals’ behavior, even in the absence of The term majority influence refers to any ef-
majorities. In this chapter, however, we focus on fect that the majority has on its observers (Haun
streamlining the study of conformity by delineat- et al. 2013). This term includes targeted and
ing its definitions and arguing for a detailed con- nontargeted majority copying, just like effects
sideration of the type of influence that generates on experienced and naïve observers. Under the
the conformity effect. majority influence umbrella, we first identify ma-
First, it is important to consider that indi- jority-biased transmission as a general, nontar-
viduals can acquire the behavior of the majority geted way in which majorities can affect its naïve
through mechanisms that do or do not concern observers. In this case, the mere presence of a
the meta-fact that it is “the majority” that is being majority increases the likelihood that the observ-
observed (as opposed to “a minority” or any ers acquire the strategy of the majority compared
separate individual). The majority strategy could to the expectancy of acquiring this same strategy
be adopted for the reason that it is the majority in the absence of the majority (Haun et al. 2012;
strategy, or for any other reason. Examples of also see Haun et al. 2013). Different strategies
nonmajority targeted reasons are random copy- could lead to majority-biased transmission, in-
ing, where individuals randomly copy a mem- cluding random copying or copying successful
ber of their group, or the heuristic that guides individuals. Scholars across disciplines have
individuals to copy successful group members used different terms to capture processes that fall
(e.g., Laland 2004). Both these mechanisms under the term “majority-biased transmission.”
do not concern targeted majority copying, yet For instance, unbiased transmission refers to
likely cause the social learner to end up with the random copying (Boyd and Richerson 1985), just
majority strategy (see Haun et al. 2013). Since like linear transmission (e.g., Boyd 1988), linear
both targeted and nontargeted majority copying imitation (McElreath et al. 2005), and linear con-
can produce similar behavioral signatures (i.e., formity (Claidière and Whiten 2012). Majority-
within-group homogeneity; Boyd and Richerson biased transmission was proposed to refer to the
1985), it is important to distinguish their mecha- process where naïve individuals face a majority.
nisms accordingly. This scrutiny of naïve individuals’ behavior
Another aspect to consider in labeling con- has been the trademark of scholars studying cul-
formist behavior is whether the social learner had tural evolution (e.g., Boyd and Richerson 1985;
15 Conformity: Definitions, Types, and Evolutionary Grounding 191

Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981; Henrich Tomasello 2011). Most human psychology stud-
and Boyd 1998; see Aoki avd Feldman 2013). ies have not been accurate or explicit in their
Moreover, the study of cultural evolution has analyses regarding targeted and nontargeted ma-
produced a more stringent version of majority- jority copying (Mesoudi 2009; van Leeuwen and
biased transmission. In search of processes that Haun 2014). Instead, different forms of majority
could change rather than perpetuate the distribu- influences have been subsumed under the general
tion of cultural variants over generations, notably phenomenon of conformity, with the exception
towards (asymptotic) within-group homogeneity, of the distinction between two different motiva-
the hallmark of culture, it was found that within tions to conform: acquiring valuable informa-
the scope of majority influences only targeted tion ( informational conformity) and inducing
majority copying yielded the respective change, social approval ( normative conformity; Deutsch
not any form of majority-biased transmission and Gerard 1955; also see Claidière and Whiten
(e.g., Boyd and Richerson, 1985; Laland 2004). 2012). The lack of scrutiny on the level of target-
This targeted majority copying was coined con- ed and nontargeted majority copying has resulted
formist bias (Boyd and Richerson 1985; Eriksson in a common usage of the term “conformity”
and Coultas 2009; Eriksson et al. 2007), copy- for instances in which humans (and nonhuman
the-majority (Laland 2004), or hyper-conformity animals) adopt another strategy without it being
(Claidière and Whiten 2012). The related change clear whether the majority was responsible for
in the distribution of cultural variants within pop- the strategy shift or any nonmajority influence
ulations was referred to as conformist transmis- (see van Leeuwen and Haun 2014).
sion, or conformity (Boyd and Richerson 1985). Another majority influence aspect that re-
Thus, the discovered impetus towards cultural mained incompletely assessed is its evolution-
differentiation was described by a disproportion- ary framework. When the diversity of majority
ate increase in the tendency to copy the majority influence definitions hampers cross-species com-
with increasing majority sizes (e.g., Henrich and parisons, it remains unclear if there are any non-
Boyd 1998). This version of conformity has been human animal equivalents to human conformity
central to studies of cultural evolution (Morgan patterns. There is a fast-growing body of stud-
and Laland 2012; van Leeuwen and Haun 2014). ies reporting cultural group differences in non-
The term conformity has also been used in human animals, which is indicative of majority
the study of human psychology, defined as the influences accordingly (reviewed in Galef 2012;
modification of an individual’s statements or be- Hoppitt and Laland 2013). The study of cultural
havior towards matching the majority (Kiesler evolution has shown that potent majority influ-
and Kiesler 1969). Psychologists have long been ences (specifically, conformist transmission) can
interested in the extent to which humans are sus- result in relative within-group homogeneity and
ceptible to group pressure, especially in scenarios between-group heterogeneity, which in common
where people have good reasons to believe that language amounts to “cultural differences” (re-
their group expresses an erroneous statement viewed in Aoki and Feldman 2013). Hence, it
(e.g., Asch 1956; Jenness 1932; Sherif 1936). could be inferred that nonhuman animal culture
This version of conformity has become common arises through similar majority influence princi-
within popular culture. The human psychology ples. Although this hypothesis is currently under
version of conformity differs from the cultural investigation (e.g., van Leeuwen et al. 2013;
evolution version in that individuals with pre- Luncz and Boesch 2013; van de Waal et al. 2013),
established preferences, knowledge, or behavior the impetus to view majority influences from an
are being scrutinized, as opposed to naïve ones evolutionary perspective seems plausibly justi-
(for more details, see van Leeuwen and Haun fied (see also Richerson and Boyd 2005). It was
2014). This aspect of forgoing personal strategies the seminal work on modeling the evolution of
in favor of the majority has led researchers to use culture by anthropologists Boyd and Richerson
the equivalent term strong conformity (Haun and (1985) that highlighted the importance of placing
192 J. C. Coultas and E. J. C. van Leeuwen

conformity in an evolutionary framework. Their be theoretically and empirically intertwined

work not only showed that the targeted form of (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004; David and Turner
majority influence (i.e., conformist transmission) 2001). To tease apart the social influences on
could lead to cultural group differences, but was conformist behavior, we first consider Deutsch
able to explain phenomena that had been evo- and Gerard’s (1955) informational and normative
lutionary puzzles until then, most prominently social influence, then review relevant conformity
large-scale human cooperation (Boyd and Rich- experiments focusing on three types: conformity
erson 1991). To streamline the proximate forms in perceptual judgment, behavioral conformity,
of conformity, however, and provide the data- and conformity in opinions and attitudes. The
driven tools to advance the current models of foundational contribution of conformity research
gene-culture coevolution, we focus on clarifying to both early theoretical models in social psychol-
the plethora of conformity definitions and prog- ogy (Social Impact Theory, Latané 1981; Social
ress in the next section by delineating different Influence Model, Tanford and Penrod 1984) and
types of conformity and reviewing the existing a later gene-culture coevolutionary model (Con-
evidence accordingly. formist Transmission Model; Boyd and Richer-
son 1985) is acknowledged. However, the con-
text of the experiment (e.g., field or laboratory)
Types of Conformity and the prior “habits” and self-perceptions of the
participants (self-categorization theory; Turner
Early conformity experiments within social psy- 1991) need to be taken into account.
chology (e.g., Asch 1951, 1956; Gerard et al. In a recent review of conformity, Cialdini and
1968; Milgram et al. 1969; Sherif 1935) and Goldstein (2004) focus on Deutsch and Gerard’s
theory (e.g., Deutsch and Gerard 1955; Latané (1955) concept of informational and normative
1981; Tanford and Penrod 1984) are still impor- social influence. This approach to conformity
tant in our thinking about conformity, but more has been influential, as it draws attention to the
recent accounts informed by evolutionary theory fact that different processes of influence could
challenge us to take another look at the phenom- be present in different situations. Deutsch and
enon (e.g., Boyd and Richerson 1985; Cladière Gerard describe normative social influence as
and Whiten 2012; Henrich and Boyd 1998; Rich- an influence to conform to the positive expecta-
erson and Boyd 2005) and empirical work (e.g., tions of another person or group, which can lead
Coultas 2004; Efferson et al. 2008; Eriksson and to solidarity and informational social influence
Coultas 2009; Griskevicius et al. 2006; McEl- (i.e., to accept information obtained from another
reath et al. 2005). person or group as evidence about reality). They
Because most studies of human psychology recognize that these two types of influence often
have focused on the “conformity” operationaliza- emerge together, but that it is possible to conform
tion as outlined in the previous section, we focus behaviorally by agreeing publically with the be-
on research shedding light on this phenomenon, liefs of others even though they are counter to
with an occasional excursion to the “conform- one’s own beliefs (normative influence; see also
ist transmission” operationalization when stud- Kelman 1961; Mann 1969). In addition, it is pos-
ies are of particular relevance. There has been a sible to accept an opponent’s belief as evidence
recent proposal to separate conformity research about a particular aspect of reality (informational
into two categories: studies where information- influence) even though there may be no intention
al social influence comes into play and studies of accepting all the opponent’s beliefs (Deutsch
where the influence is normative (Campbell and and Gerard 1955).
Fairey 1989; Cladière and Whiten 2012; Deutsch Festinger’s (1950, 1954) social comparison
and Gerard 1955). There is utility in thinking theory encourages us to be cautious in accepting
about different types of social influence, but in- the distinction between normative and informa-
formational and normative influences can often tional influence without acknowledging some ad-
15 Conformity: Definitions, Types, and Evolutionary Grounding 193

ditional factors. People tend not to evaluate their The flexible nature of conformity studies on at-
opinions or abilities by comparing themselves titudes and opinions means that they can take
to others who are divergent from themselves place in the laboratory or in naturalistic environ-
(Festinger 1950). We are more strongly influ- ments. Next, we address the evidence for confor-
enced by people who are similar to us. Turner mity classified by the type of experiment, both
(1991) also argues that the processes of normal- regarding task features and the context in which
ization, conformity, and innovation are intercon- the study takes place.
nected with the formation, maintenance, and
change of in-group norms. Conversely, Campbell
and Fairey (1989) argue for the relative impor- Conformity in Perceptual Judgment
tance of normative and informational influences
in conformity experiments where they manipulate Earlier conformity studies (e.g., Asch 1951, 1956;
public and private agreement using an Asch-type Crutchfield 1955; Sherif 1935) were explorations
paradigm. Cladière and Whiten (2012) base their of situational uncertainty where people some-
argument for dissecting conformity research into times denied the evidence of their own senses
these two categories on Campbell and Fairey’s and accepted others’ perceptual judgments. The
(1989) work. However, although normative and effect of different group sizes on people’s con-
informational influences are important notions, formist tendencies was measured in these ex-
we argue for an explicit appraisal of the type of periments, but not always systematically (Bond
conformity experiment in which the respective 2005). Additionally, the proportion of people
behavior is elicited. producing the target behavior (majority) com-
Conformity experiments are not homoge- pared to those who were producing the minority
neous; some studies take place in laboratories behavior was not always clearly reported (e.g.,
(e.g., Allport 1924; Asch 1951 1956; Sherif Moscovici et al. 1969; Nemeth et al. 1977). One
1935), others in natural environments where par- earlier perceptual judgment study did systemati-
ticipants are unaware that they are in an experi- cally manipulate unanimous and nonunanimous
ment (e.g., Allport 1934; Coultas and Eriksson majorities to measure the level of conformist
2014; Mann 1977; Milgram et al. 1969), oth- behavior (Jacobs and Campbell 1961), but it is
ers use naturalistic methods in a formal setting only in the past decade, inspired by gene-culture
(e.g., Coultas 2004), whereas other studies influ- coevolutionary models, that conformity experi-
ence people’s opinion in the laboratory or in the ments have begun to systematically manipulate
natural environment (Crutchfield 1955; Eriksson both group size and proportion.
and Coultas 2009; Latané and Davis 1974). This Perceptual judgment experiments have a spe-
methodological variation creates problems for cial place in social psychology, where Asch’s
making comparisons across conformity studies. work on perceptual judgment is most frequently
For instance, group size needs to be greater than reported. However, in an earlier experiment, All-
three for naturalistic experiments when people port (1924) had participants judge—both alone
are unaware that they are taking part in a study; and in groups—the pleasantness or unpleasant-
both Mann (1977) and Coultas (2004) found that ness of odors, ranging from putrid to perfumes.
there needed to be at least five or six models of Participants judged the putrid odors as less un-
the target behavior before any conformist behav- pleasant when they were in a group than when
ior was observed.1 Similarly, most behavioral they were on their own and the pleasant smells as
conformity experiments take place in the field, less pleasant when they made their judgment in
whereas perceptual judgment experiments focus- the group rather than on their own. People modi-
ing on conformity take place in the laboratory. fied their opinion about the odors when work-
ing in a group and avoided extreme judgments.
1
Asch proposed that conformity leveled off at a group The reported olfactory experiences changed
size of three in perceptual judgment experiments. depending on whether they were in a group or
194 J. C. Coultas and E. J. C. van Leeuwen

on their own which indicates that a group norm participants to match the length of a line on one
was formed. Sherif’s (1935) perceptual judg- card with one line out of three lines of unequal
ment experiments using the “autokinetic” effect length on another card. In a control group, Asch
also demonstrated that artificially created norms found that the error rate was very small. In the
or judgments in groups could alter the judgment main study, confederates made unanimously in-
of an individual. He presented a stationary point correct line judgments two thirds of the time (on
of light at a distance of about 5 m from partici- 12 out of 18 trials). Naïve participants were then
pants in a darkened room and asked them (both asked to give their answer. Three quarters of par-
in groups and alone) to make oral estimations ticipants were influenced by the incorrect major-
about the movement of the light. The participants ity some of the time. In total, just over two thirds
in groups were influenced by the overestimation of the choices made by the real participants were
of confederates. correct despite the pressure of the majority. Asch
Utilizing the situational ambiguity of Sherif’s used unanimous groups of various sizes (1, 2, 3,
(1935) autokinetic effect, Jacobs and Campbell 4, 8, 16) and found that when there was one con-
(1961) asked groups of two, three, or four partici- federate and one naïve participant the majority
pants to make judgments on how far the light had effect all but disappeared. Asch was convinced
moved. In the first set of 30 trials, all but one of that the effect was present in full force when
the participants were confederates and gave wide- there was a majority of three (though it is impor-
ly discrepant judgments compared to that of the tant to note that Asch’s assertion was based on a
one naïve participant. In subsequent blocks of 30 sample of ten participants). The larger majorities
trials (generations), a confederate was removed of four, eight, and sixteen did not produce effects
and another naïve participant was included in that were substantially greater than a majority of
the group. By the second, third, or fourth genera- three. He therefore predicted a nonlinear effect
tion, there were no confederates left in the group. of conformity. It would be judicious to accept
Jacobs and Campbell (1961) continued their these results with a note of caution due to the
experiment by replacing the most experienced small sample size and concerns about consisten-
naïve participant with another naïve participant cy across Asch’s studies (Bond 2005). Another
up to the 11th generation. They found that control reason for caution is that an early Asch replica-
groups estimated the light movement around the tion (Gerard et al. 1968) found that conformity
4-inch mark, but naïve participants in the presence increased linearly with group size, although the
of confederates who were radically overestimat- first few models of the behavior had the most im-
ing the light movement (e.g., 16 inches) would pact.
provide much greater estimates than those in the One of the defining characteristics of percep-
control condition (e.g., 14 inches). Even when all tual judgment tasks is that there is often scope
the confederates had been replaced, the influence for situational ambiguity. In Sherif’s autokinetic
of the confederates remained, with naïve partici- technique, even the control participants believed
pants estimating the light movement at around that the stationary light had moved a short dis-
the 10-inch mark. Jacobs and Campbell’s results tance. Recently, there have been critical assess-
indicate that the majority can have a significant ments of Asch’s studies in a meta-analysis of
effect on how others make perceptual judgments Asch-type perceptual judgment task studies
even after those who made up the majority are (Bond and Smith 1996). Bond and Smith also
no longer present. The experimental procedures note that conformist behavior as defined by per-
used by Jacobs and Campbell (1961) suggest the formance on the Asch perceptual judgment task
existence of conformist transmission (Boyd and has declined in the USA since the 1950s. Bond
Richerson 1985; Henrich and Boyd 1998). (2005) comments that “given the pre-eminent
Asch (1951) wanted to test conformity in a status of Asch’s (1951,1955, 1956) conformity
situation where, unlike Sherif’s autokinetic ef- experiments, it is surprising to find inconsisten-
fect, there was a right or wrong answer. He asked cies in the reports of what size of majority was
15 Conformity: Definitions, Types, and Evolutionary Grounding 195

employed” (p. 338). A large number of percep- stare up at a building in New York and counted
tual judgment experiments have used nonunani- how many people looked up as they walked
mous majorities, but have not systematically test- past or stopped and stared alongside the group.
ed proportion (e.g., Asch 1951, 1956; Moscovici They found that the size of the stimulus group
et al. 1969; Nemeth et al. 1977). The predictions significantly affected the proportion of passersby
made by theoretical models (Boyd and Richerson who looked up or stopped alongside the group.
1985; Latané 1981; Tanford and Penrod 1984) The larger the stimulus crowd staring up at the
encourage researchers to carefully plan studies building, the greater the effect.2 More recently,
where both group size and proportion are varied this field study has been replicated in the UK
systematically. and Sweden (Coultas and Eriksson 2014; Gallup
et al. 2012) producing a similar linear pattern of
influence with increase in group size. However,
Behavioral Conformity far fewer people were influenced to stare up at
a building in the UK and Sweden compared to
A key aspect of many behavioral conformity ex- the earlier New York study, leading to the ques-
periments is that participants are unaware that tion of whether these differences in conformity
they are taking part in a study. Bargh and Char- are situational. Potential influences on behavioral
trand’s (1999) work on automatic imitation, in conformity include location (e.g., city size; Mil-
which people adopt the behavior of those around gram 1970; Newman and McCauley 1977; Mul-
them without being aware, has made a contri- len et al. 1990), change in conformist behavior
bution to our thinking about conformity experi- across time (Bond and Smith 1996), and different
ments in naturalistic environments. Our predis- types of groups or entities. Knowles and Bassett
position for affiliative (Cialdini and Goldstein (1976) manipulated the type of stimulus groups
2004) or docile (Simon 1990) behavior means in a similar field experiment to Milgram et al.
we often copy those around us without any con- and found that those standing silently while star-
scious intent. This form of behavioral conformity ing up had greater influence on passersby com-
would fall under the heading of the ethological pared to groups who interacted with one another.
approach to human behavior—observing hu- Coultas and Eriksson’s (2014) replication of Mil-
mans in their natural habitat (Hinde 1982). Many gram et al.’s (1969) study, which ran in three dif-
years before Asch’s studies, Allport (1934) had ferent locations in the UK and one in Sweden,
developed his J-curve conformity hypothesis also established that the type of stimulus group is
by observing people stopping their cars at street an important factor.
crossings, people parking their cars, the degree of The fundamental difference between conformi-
kneeling in two Catholic churches, and participa- ty field studies and laboratory experiments is that
tion in congregational singing. He argued that in participants in the laboratory know that they are tak-
order for conformity to occur there had to be a ing part in an experiment. The ethological method
purpose for the behavior, there had to be some focuses on humans in their natural habitat—walk-
rule in society related to it, and over half the pop- ing along the street, sometimes making decisions
ulation needed to be behaving in that particular consciously, while at other times automatically fol-
way. Allport’s main conformity hypothesis was lowing the crowd. Mann (1977) looked at the in-
that if over half the population were producing a fluence of stimulus groups on people’s queue-join-
particular behavior then that behavior was likely ing behavior in Jerusalem where this was not the
to be adopted. This is similar to the predictions social norm. Mann observed the effect of stimulus
made by Boyd and Richerson’s (1985) conform- queues of two, four, six, and eight confederates on
ist transmission model. 569 commuters waiting at a bus stop. Congruent
Following the tradition of naturalistic obser-
vation, Milgram et al. (1969) sent out groups 2
Lumsden and Wilson (1981) used these findings when
of stooges (group sizes 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and 15) to constructing their trend-watcher curve.
196 J. C. Coultas and E. J. C. van Leeuwen

with findings by Milgram et al., Mann found that appeared in both columns an equal number of
a larger stimulus queue had a greater influence on times. Even though a proper baseline measure
commuters. However, unlike in Milgram et al.’s was absent in their study (i.e., how people would
study, Mann found that a six-person queue was re- behave if there were no signatures), they found
quired to induce a reliable level of queue-joining that conformity increased systematically with the
behavior. These findings reinforce the need to take number of signatures up to a majority of 12.
the situation into account when designing experi- Importantly, individuals’ habitual behavior
ments and manipulating group size. will influence how they respond to a novel behav-
Field studies are used extensively to demon- ior. In a study of behavior in a computer labora-
strate how humans behave in everyday life. In tory, participants—unaware that they were taking
their naturalistic study of environmental conser- part in an experiment—were influenced to place
vation, Aronson and O’Leary (1983) found that their keyboard covers in an unusual position (on
a sign instructing students to save water by turn- top of their computers) by the presence of models
ing off the shower while they soaped up had little of that behavior (Coultas 2004). However, con-
effect, whereas two thirds turned off the shower trary to Asch’s findings, group size needed to be
with two models of the behavior. Similarly, two greater than three before anyone copied the novel
field experiments by Goldstein et al. (2008) behavior and conformed to the majority which
found that hotel guests were not influenced by demonstrated that the strongest predictor of con-
a sign in their room encouraging environmental formity, once group size was greater than five,
conservation (e.g., reuse their towels), but were was the proportion of individuals who were al-
influenced by the information that the majority ready producing the behavior. In a subsequent ex-
of hotel guests reuse their towels. Situational periment, participants who had signed up for clin-
influence was also present, as hotel guests who ical psychology experiments also (unknowingly)
were informed that the majority of guests who took part in a conformist transmission study in
had stayed in their current room had reused their which they were influenced to change the way
towels were more likely to produce the same be- they wrote the date by those who had filled in the
havior than those guests who only saw the sign sheets and signed the date before them (a com-
encouraging environmental conservation. mon method, e.g., “14/5/96,”3 and a rare meth-
Goldstein et al. (2008) report a study of con- od, e.g., “14th May 1996”; Coultas 2004). The
formity to the unseen and anonymous majority. relative size of the majority (i.e., proportion) was
Inevitably, there will be studies of conformist be- shown to be a significant predictor of conformity
havior that do not fall easily into the categories and participants were more likely to be influ-
of behavioral conformity, perceptual judgment, enced by the majority if their behavior was rare
or attitudes. An unpublished study by Latané (e.g., 14th May 1996) and the majority behavior
and Davis (1974 cited in Latané and Wolf 1981) was the common behavior (e.g., 14/5/96). In this
is an example of conformity to the anonymous case, the data fitted the conformist transmission
majority’s opinion. In this field experiment, col- curve. However, when an individual who wrote
lege students were approached and asked to sign the date in the most common form (14/5/96)
a questionnaire concerning the adequacy of local was presented with a sheet where the majority of
newspapers. Each page of the questionnaire had people (forged) had written the date analogically
one question at the top and two columns labeled (14th May 1996), conformity occurred only when
“yes” and “no” below. This dichotomous choice approximately three quarters of the forged dates
was a constrained behavior with little commit- were written analogically. People were less likely
ment required other than to sign one’s name in to adopt a rare behavior even if that behavior was
a column. The questionnaires already contained common in the context of the experiment.
a varying number of signatures before being pre-
sented to the respondent. These signatures were 3
Note that this is the UK numerical version of the date.
either all in the “yes” column or all in the “no” US version would be 5/14/96. The difference in US/UK
column and were counterbalanced so that they date-signing was used as a variable in an unpublished
study by Moore and Coultas (2010).
15 Conformity: Definitions, Types, and Evolutionary Grounding 197

The two studies by Coultas (2004) were a di- have affective, cognitive, and behavioral compo-
rect test of the conformist transmission model nents and involve favoring or disfavoring some
(Boyd and Richerson 1985), as both the influ- particular entity (e.g., Eagly and Chaiken 1993).
ence of group size and proportion was measured Moreover, attitudes are relatively deep-rooted
for each individual. Recapitulating, conformist and change only gradually over time. Opinions
transmission is the disproportionately increasing are more flexible and prone to change and there-
tendency to adopt the majority strategy with in- fore are the most relevant in a review of confor-
creasing relative majority size and can thus only mity research. However, there is empirical evi-
be measured when group size and majority pro- dence that both people’s opinions and attitudes
portion are varied. Its importance follows from are influenced by those around them (Crutchfield
the fact that only this disproportionate tendency 1955; Eriksson and Coultas 2009; Newcomb
to copy the majority will yield behavioral patterns et al. 1967; Wolf and Latané 1983).
typical of what we consider to be “culture” (i.e., Most of the studies in this section focus on
relative within-group homogeneity and between- participants changing their opinion about a par-
group heterogeneity; see also Richerson and ticular aspect within an experiment. However, in
Boyd 2005). The computer laboratory and date- a longitudinal study begun in 1935, Newcomb
signing studies also illustrate that the conformist (1943) studied attitude change across time at a
transmission model needs to be modified on the college with predominantly conservative stu-
basis of the “habits” that people bring with them dents and liberal professors. Over time, students
to naturalistic experiments. Our predispositions increasingly adopted the liberal attitudes of their
to behave in certain ways can override the influ- new reference group, the professors. When New-
ence of the majority if we are strongly attached comb et al. (1967) interviewed the students 25
to our personal strategy (van Leeuwen and Haun years later, they found that the adopted attitudes
2014) or the specific behavior that is being stud- persisted. Indeed, opinion change has been a topic
ied is not a social norm. In their review, Cialdini within social psychology for many years (e.g.,
and Goldstein (2004) also acknowledge that pre- Allport 1924; reviewed in Cialdini and Gold-
existing attitudes, prior behaviors, and commit- stein 2004). Opinions can be manipulated both
ments will influence our behavior towards novel in the laboratory (e.g., Crutchfield 1955) and in
stimuli. These habits or predispositions that peo- the field (e.g., Eriksson and Coultas 2009; Latané
ple bring to a situation are related to the concept and Davis 1974; Stang 1976; White 1975). For
of social identity (Tajfel and Turner 1979; Turner instance, in Crutchfield’s (1955) study, where
et al. 1987); the phenomenon that describes how participants agreed or disagreed with particular
people’s perception of who they are is based on statements, there was a shift to change opinion
their identifying with certain groups (see also and agree with the unanimous majority, but when
the concept of self-categorization (Turner 1991) participants provided a subjective judgment
and the drive to maintain a favorable self-con- (preference) about two simple line drawings they
cept (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004). However, were not influenced by the majority.
the adoption of a group norm may not always be The study of the effects of different motiva-
a conscious action (Bargh and Chartrand 1999; tions on tendencies to conform has been extended
Chartrand and Bargh 1999; Nisbett and Wilson beyond the distinction between informational and
1977). normative influences. In a coherent set of experi-
ments, two motives pivotal to evolutionary success
were studied in the context of conformity: self-pro-
Conformity in Opinion and Attitude tection (survival) and mate attraction (reproduc-
tion; Griskevicius et al. 2006). By theorizing about
The terms opinions and attitudes are sometimes the possible ramifications of conformity in light
incorrectly used interchangeably (e.g., Nowak of these two motives, these scholars were able to
et al. 1990; Haddock and Maio 2008). Attitudes predict the existence of (sex-specific) behavioral
198 J. C. Coultas and E. J. C. van Leeuwen

patterns likely shaped by evolutionary processes. theory, inspired by population genetics and past
In line with these predictions, being primed with a research within social psychology, to develop
self-protective mindset caused both males and fe- their conformist transmission model. This evo-
males to increase their conformist responses. This lutionary model of conformity made predictions
finding was interpreted to be evolutionarily ad- about behavior which had echoes of an earlier
vantageous in the sense that avoiding standing out model of conformity within social psychology
from the crowd lowers predation risk (Griskevi- (Allport 1934). Boyd and Richerson’s conformist
cius et al. 2006). Additionally, the activation of transmission model emphasized the importance
mate attraction motives resulted in sex-specific of proportion (frequency) in conformity research
conformity responses, congruent with predictions and enabled researchers to formalize their empiri-
based on sex-specific mating strategies where men cal work in order to test the model both in simula-
chose to stand out of the crowd to highlight the tions (Henrich and Boyd 1998) and in the field
qualities generally preferred by women (assertive- (Coultas 2004; Eriksson and Coultas 2009). How-
ness, independence, leadership; see Buss 2003) ever, for reasons of direct relevance to the evolu-
and women preferred to emphasize the qualities tion of culture, their theoretical focus has not been
generally liked by men (agreeableness, facilitating on the aspect of changing perceptions, behavior,
group cohesion; see Campbell 2002) by conform- or opinions, but rather on the more pronounced
ing to the majority (Griskevicius et al. 2006).This form of conformist behavior (i.e., “conformist
study nicely illustrates how evolutionary theory transmission”) in which typically naïve individu-
could be used to set up specific empirical studies als are under investigation. At the intersection of
revolving around conformist tendencies. social psychology’s focus on “conformity” and
A useful approach to understanding different the conformist variant central to analyses of cul-
types of influence is to examine the situations in tural evolution (“conformist transmission”), we
which conformist behavior occurs. Why would would envision fruitful cross-fostering leading to
conformist behavior have been useful in our evo- the incorporation of individuals’ habits or predis-
lutionary past? In situations where there is uncer- positions, and the evidenced circumstances under
tainty about the correct behavior, the best strat- which they would be abandoned, into models of
egy is often to adopt the most common behavior cultural evolution (cf. Strimling et al. 2009; see
(Boyd and Richerson 1985). From this perspec- also van Leeuwen and Haun 2014).
tive, both group size and proportion are important This section has aimed to emphasize the im-
factors in conformity research. Two theoretical portance of taking into account the type (percep-
models in social psychology sought to formal- tion, behavior, or opinion) and context (laboratory,
ize predictions of conformist behavior, using field) of conformity, while at the same time ad-
both group size and proportion; whereas Latané vancing the idea that individuals’ current habits or
(1981) used the findings from Asch (1951) and mind-sets need to be factored in when interpreting
Milgram et al. (1969) as the foundations of social any kind of conformist or nonconformist behavior.
impact theory (SIT), Tanford and Penrod (1984)
used jury decision making in the development of
their social influence model (SIM).4 This means Concluding Remarks
that SIT used both laboratory (e.g., Asch) and
field studies (e.g., Milgram et al.) synonymously, In this chapter, we hope to have conveyed how
whereas social influence theory used jury deci- evolutionary theory can elucidate the study of
sion making to represent social influence in gen- conformity. By taking seriously the predictions
eral. In an alternative approach, Boyd and Richer- and ramifications of the early gene-culture co-
son (1985) used the gene-culture coevolutionary evolution models (Boyd and Richerson 1985;
Henrich and Boyd 1998) and by appreciating
4
The SIM equation in Tanford and Penrod (1984) is­ the conformity evidence from nonhuman animal
­incorrect (see Coultas, 2004; MacCoun, 2012). studies, our understanding of conformist behavior
15 Conformity: Definitions, Types, and Evolutionary Grounding 199

can transcend the unfounded sphere of plausible Allport, F. H. (1934). The j-curve hypothesis of con-
forming behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 5,
evolutionary scenarios to become a substantiated 141–185.
research endeavor including testable hypotheses Aoki, K., & Feldman, M. W. (2013). Evolution of learning
stemming from evolutionary theory. However, strategies in temporally and spatially variable envi-
we have identified several proximate issues that ronments: A review of theory. Theoretical Population
Biology, 90, 64–81.
cloud our current appreciation of the scope of Aronson, E., & O’Leary, M. (1983). The relative effec-
conformity. In order to achieve a coherent field tiveness of models and prompts on energy conserva-
of conformity research in the future, we have tion. Journal of Environmental Systems, 12, 219–224.
three simple pieces of advice for researchers. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the
modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetz-
Firstly, define conformity in the context of your kow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 117–
experimental manipulation. Social psychology 190). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.
typically focuses on another form of conformity Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scien-
than scholars investigating cultural evolution, and tific American, 193, 31–35.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and confor-
even within social psychology, there are several mity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority.
different definitions; only by specifying the oper- Psychological Monographs, 70, 1–70.
ationalization of conformity will we be able to in- Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable
terpret and compare the phenomena validly. Sec- automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54,
462–479.
ondly, make sure that different types of confor- Bond, R. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Pro-
mity are not subsumed under the same heading. cesses & Intergroup Relations, 8, 331–354.
Different patterns are expected based on whether Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and confor-
the conformity scenario entails perceptual, behav- mity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b,
1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119,
ioral, or opinion features. Moreover, field studies 111–137.
and laboratory studies yield very different results. Bonnie, K. E., Horner, V., Whiten, A., & de Waal, F. B. M.
In general, group size needs to be larger in field (2007). Spread of arbitrary conventions among chim-
studies than in the laboratory before conformist panzees: A controlled experiment. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 274, 367–372.
behavior is elicited. Furthermore, it would be Boyd, R. (1988). Is the repeated prisoner’s dilemma game
fruitful to formally acknowledge that participants’ a good model of reciprocal altruism? Ethology and
preestablished views and habits will inevitably in- Sociobiology , 9, 211–221.
fluence the outcome of any conformity study. By Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evo-
lutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago
operationalizing this idiosyncratic aspect and in- Press.
corporating this measure into conformity models, Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1991). Culture and coop-
in both social psychology and the study of cul- eration. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Coopera-
tural evolution, we will gain a more fine-grained tion and prosocial behavior (pp. 27–48). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
understanding of the effects of majorities. Finally, Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies
taking an evolutionary perspective on conformity of human mating (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
is an exciting proposition, but take care not to Campbell, A. (2002). A mind of her own: The evolution-
overestimate the presence of conformity based on ary psychology of women. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
models and simulations. It makes good sense to Campbell, J. D., & Fairey, P. J. (1989). Informational and
conform to the group in some situations, but non- normative routes to conformity: The effect of faction
conformity and independence are also adaptive size as a function of norm extremity and attention to
under certain circumstances. the stimulus. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 57, 457–468.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural
transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach.
References Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon
Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Hough- effect: The perception—b ehavior link and social
ton Mifflin. interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 76, 893–910.
200 J. C. Coultas and E. J. C. van Leeuwen

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influ- culture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive
ence: Conformity and compliance. Annual Review of Science, 3, 581–592.
Psychology, 55, 591–621. Galef, B. G., & Whiskin, E. E. (2008). ‘Conformity’ in
Claidière, N., & Whiten, A. (2012). Integrating the study Norway rats? Animal Behaviour, 75, 2035–2039.
of conformity and culture in humans and nonhuman Gallup, A. C., Hale, J. J., Sumpter, D. J. T., Garnier, S.,
animals. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 126–145. Kacelnik, A., Krebs, J. R., & Couzin, I. D. (2012).
Claidière, N., Bowler, M., & Whiten, A. (2012). Evidence Visual attention and the acquisition of information in
for weak or linear conformity but not for hyper-con- human crowds. PNAS, 109, 7245–7250.
formity in an everyday social learning context. PLoS Gerard, H. B., Wilhelmy, R. A., & Connolley, E. S.
One, 7, e30970. (1968). Conformity and group size. Journal of Per-
Coultas, J. C. (2004). When in Rome… An evolutionary sonality and Social Psychology, 8, 79–82.
perspective on conformity. Group Processes & Inter- Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008).
group Relations, 7, 317–331. A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to moti-
Coultas, J. C., & Eriksson, K. (May, 2014). Milgram vate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of
revisited: Imitative behaviour is influenced by both Consumer Research, 35, 472–482.
the size and entitativity of the stimulus group. Paper Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R.,
presented at the Annual British Psychological Society, Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Going along
Birmingham. versus going alone: When fundamental motives facili-
Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. tate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality
American Psychologist, 10, 191–198. and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294.
Darley, J. M. (1966). Fear and social comparison as deter- Haddock, G., & Maio, G. R. (2008). Attitudes: Content,
minants of conformity behavior. Journal of Personal- structure and function. In M. Hewstone, W. Stroebe,
ity and Social Psychology, 4, 73–78. & K. Jonas (Eds.), Introduction to social psychology:
David, B., & Turner, J. C. (2001). Majority and minority A European perspective (4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
influence: a single process self-categorisation analy- Haun, D. B. M., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Conformity to
sis. In C. K. W. De Dreu & N. K. de Vries (Eds.), peer pressure in preschool children. Child Develop-
Group consensus and minority influence: Implications ment, 82, 1759–1767.
for innovation (pp. 91–121). Malden: Blackwell. Haun, D. B. M., Rekers, Y., & Tomasello, M. (2012).
Day, R. L., MacDonald, T., Brown, C., Laland, K. N., Majority-biased transmission in chimpanzees and
& Reader, S. M. (2001). Interactions between shoal human children, but not orangutans. Current Biology,
size and conformity in guppy social foraging. Animal 22, 727–731.
Behaviour, 62, 917–925. Haun, D. B. M., van Leeuwen, E. J. C., & Edelson, M.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of norma- G. (2013). Majority influence in children and other
tive and informational social influences upon indi- animals. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 3,
vidual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social 61–71.
Psychology, 51, 629–636. Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (1998). The evolution of con-
Dindo, M., Whiten, A., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2009). In- formist transmission and the emergence of between-
group conformity sustains different foraging traditions group differences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19,
in capuchin monkeys ( Cebus apella). PloS One, 4, 215–241.
e7858. Hinde, R. (1982). Ethology: Its nature and relations with
Eagly A. H., & Chaiken S. (1993). The psychology of atti- other sciences. Glasgow: Fontana Press.
tudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace. Hopper, L. M., Schapiro, S. J., Lambeth, S. P., & Brosnan,
Efferson, C., Lalive, R., Richerson, P. J., McElreath, R., S. F. (2011). Chimpanzees’ socially maintained food
& Lubell, M. (2008). Conformists and mavericks: The preferences indicate both conservatism and confor-
empirics of frequency-dependent cultural transmis- mity. Animal Behaviour, 81, 1195–1202.
sion. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 56–64. Hoppitt, W., & Laland, K. N. (2013). Social learning: An
Eriksson, K., & Coultas, J. C. (2009). Are people really introduction to mechanisms, methods, and models.
conformist-biased? An empirical test and a new math- Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press.
ematical model. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The perpetuation
7, 5–21. of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of
Eriksson, K., Enquist, M., & Ghirlanda, S. (2007). Criti- a laboratory culture. Journal of Abnormal and Social
cal points in current theory of conformist social learn- Psychology, 12, 649–658.
ing. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 67–87. Jenness, A. (1932). The role of discussion in changing
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psy- opinion regarding a matter of fact. Journal of Abnor-
chological Review, 57, 271–282. mal Social Psychology, 27, 279–296.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison pro- Jolles, J. W., de Visser, L., & van den Bos, R. (2011). Male
cesses. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. Wistar rats show individual differences in an animal
Galef, B. G. (2012). Social learning and traditions in ani- model of conformity. Animal Cognition, 14, 769–773.
mals: Evidence, definitions, and relationship to human Kameda, T., & Nakanishi, D. (2002). Cost-benefit analy-
sis of social/cultural learning in a nonstationary uncer-
15 Conformity: Definitions, Types, and Evolutionary Grounding 201

tain environment—An evolutionary simulation and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13,
an experiment with human subjects. Evolution and 79–82.
Human Behavior, 23, 373–393. Moore, C., & Coultas, J. C. (March, 2010). Strangers in
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Pub- a strange land: Social norms, situational variables and
lic Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78. the conformist bias. Paper presented at the 5th Euro-
Kendal, R. L., Coolen, I., & Laland, K. N. (2004). The pean Human Behaviour and Evolution Association
role of conformity in foraging when personal and Conference, University of Wroclaw, Poland.
social information conflict. Behavioral Ecology, 15, Morgan, T. J. H., & Laland, K. (2012). The biological
269–277. bases of conformity. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 87.
Kendal, R. L., Coolen, I., & Laland, K. N. (2009). Adap- Morgan, T. J. H., Rendell, L., Ehn, W., Hoppitt, W., &
tive trade-offs in the use of social and personal infor- Laland, K. (2011). The evolutionary basis of human
mation. In R. Dukas & J. Ratcliffe (Eds.), Cognitive social learning. Proceedings of the Royal Society
ecology II (pp. 249–271). Chicago: University of Chi- B-Biological Sciences, 279, 653–662.
cago Press. Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969).
Kiesler, C., & Kiesler, S. B. (1969). Conformity. Reading: Influence of consistent minority on the responses of
Addison Wesley. a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32,
King, A. J., & Cowlishaw, G. (2007). When to use social 365–379.
information: the advantage of large group size in indi- Mullen, B., Copper, C., & Driskell, J. E. (1990). Jaywalk-
vidual decision making. Biology Letters, 3, 137–139. ing as a function of model behavior. Personality and
Knowles, E., & Bassett, R. (1976). Groups and crowds Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 320–330.
as social entities: Effects of activity, size and member Nemeth, C., Wachtler, C., & Endicott, J. (1977). Increas-
similarity on nonmembers. Journal of Personality and ing the size of the minority: Some losses and some
Social Psychology, 34, 837–845. gains. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7,
Krützen, M., Willems, E. P., & van Schaik, C. P. (2011). 15–27.
Culture and geographic variation in orangutan behav- Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change.
ior. Current Biology, 21, 1808–1812. New York: Dryden Press.
Laland, K. N. (2004). Social learning strategies. Learning Newcomb, T. M., Koenig, K. E., Flacks, R., & Warwick,
& Behavior, 32, 4–14. D. P. (1967). Persistence and change: Bennington
Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. College and its students after twenty five years. New
American Psychologist, 36, 343–356. York: Wiley.
Latané, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of Newman, J. & McCauley, C. (1977). Eye contact with
majorities and minorities. Psychological Review, 88, strangers in city, suburb and small town. Environment
438–453. and Behavior, 9, 547–558.
Lumsden, C. J., & Wilson, E. O. (1981). Genes, mind and Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D., (1977). Telling more than
culture: The coevolutionary process. London: Harvard we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
University Press. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
Luncz, L., & Boesch, C. (2013). Tradition over trend: Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From pri-
Neighboring chimpanzee communities maintain vate attitude to public opinion. Psychological Review,
differences in cultural behavior despite frequent 97, 362–376.
immigration of adult females. American Journal of Perry, S. (2009). Conformism in the food processing
Primatology, 76, 649–657. techniques of white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus
MacCoun, R. J. (2012). The burden of social proof: capucinus). Animal Cognition, 12, 705–716.
Shared thresholds and social influence. Psychological Pike, T. W., & Laland, K. N. (2010). Conformist learning
Review, 119, 345–372. in nine-spined sticklebacks’ foraging decisions. Biol-
Mann, L. (1969). Social psychology. London: Wiley. ogy Letters, 6, 466–468.
Mann, L. (1977). The effect of stimulus queues on queue- Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone:
joining behavior. Journal of Personality and Social How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago:
Psychology, 6, 437–442. University of Chicago Press.
McElreath, R., Lubell, M., Richerson, P. J., Waring, T. M., Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in per-
Baum, W., Edsten, E., et al. (2005). Applying evolu- ception. Archives of Psychology, 27, 187.
tionary models to the laboratory study of social learn- Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms.
ing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 483–508. Oxford: Harper.
Mesoudi, A. (2009). How cultural evolutionary theory can Simon, H. (1990). A mechanism for social selection and
inform social psychology and vice versa. Psychologi- successful altruism. Science, 250, 1665–1668.
cal Review, 116, 929–952. Stang, D. J. (1976). Group size effects on conformity.
Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Sci- Journal of Social Psychology, 98, 175–181.
ence, 167, 1461–1468. Strimling, P., Enquist, M., & Eriksson, K. (2009).
Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, L. (1969). Note Repeated learning makes cultural evolution unique.
on the drawing power of crowds of different sizes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
106, 13870–13874.
202 J. C. Coultas and E. J. C. van Leeuwen

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory van Leeuwen, E. J. C., & Haun, D. B. M. (2014). Con-
of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel formity without majority? The case for demarcating
(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations social from majority influences. Animal Behaviour,
(pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole. 96, 187–194.
Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social influence model: van Leeuwen, E. J. C., Cronin, K. A., Schütte, S., Call,
A formal integration of research on majority and J. & Haun, D. B. M. (2013). Chimpanzees flexibly
minority influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, adjust their behaviour in order to maximize payoffs,
95, 189–225. not to conform to majorities. PloS One, 8(11), e80945.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Belmont: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080945.
Wadsworth. White, G. M. (1975). Contextual determinants of opinion
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. judgments: Field experimental probes of judgmental
D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the relativity boundary conditions. Journal of Personality
social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: and Social Psychology, 32, 1047–1054.
Blackwell. Whiten, A., Horner, V., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). Con-
van de Waal, E., Borgeaud, C., & Whiten, A. (2013). formity to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees.
Potent social learning and conformity shape a wild Nature, 437(7059), 737–740.
primate’s foraging decisions. Science, 340, 483–485. Wolf, S., & Latané, B. (1983). Majority and minority
van Leeuwen, E. J. C., & Haun, D. B. M. (2013). Confor- influences on restaurant preferences. Journal of Per-
mity in primates: Fad or fact? Evolution and Human sonality and Social Psychology, 45, 282–292.
Behavior, 34, 1–7.

View publication stats