Social Conformity

Abstract

Social conformity is a type of social behavior: the adjustment of one's attitudes, beliefs, or actions to match those of a group. MeSH defines it as a person's behavior that conforms to the behavioral patterns of the group. Cognitive psychology studies conformity along converging lines: the Asch paradigm, which showed that a unanimous majority can lead people to endorse a plainly wrong perceptual judgment; the distinction between normative influence (conforming to be accepted) and informational influence (conforming because others are evidence about reality); minority influence, in which a consistent minority converts a majority; the neuroscience of conformity, which casts disagreement as a reward-prediction error; and social-impact and social-norm accounts that quantify group pressure and separate descriptive from injunctive norms. A worked social-impact example and three interactive demonstrations follow.

Keywords: social conformity, normative influence, informational influence, minority influence, social norms

What Social Conformity Is

Social conformity is the process by which a person adjusts their attitudes, beliefs, or actions to align with those of a group, together with the resulting match between individual and collective behavior. MeSH defines social conformity as a person's behavior that conforms to the behavioral patterns of the group, and files the descriptor under social behavior, of which conformity is one species. The placement is apt: conformity is intrinsically interpersonal, visible only in how an individual's conduct tracks that of others, even though its engine — the weighing of social evidence and social consequence — is cognitive.

A conceptual distinction organizes the whole field and is easy to blur. A person may change only their public behavior while privately retaining their own view — this is compliance, conformity on the surface — or they may change their private judgment as well, genuinely coming to believe what the group believes, which is private acceptance or conversion. The two look identical in a single observation but diverge over time and across situations: compliance evaporates when the group is absent, whereas private acceptance persists. Much of the research below is an attempt to say which process a given manipulation produces, because the same visible act of agreement can spring from a wish to fit in or from a genuine revision of belief.

Conformity sits within a family of influence terms worth keeping apart. Compliance is agreement with a direct request; obedience is compliance with an order from an authority; and conformity proper is the subtler adjustment to a group's prevailing pattern, often with no request or order made at all. Social conformity is the broadest and quietest of the three, which is part of what makes it powerful. The sections that follow take up its classic demonstration, the two motives behind it, the countervailing force of minority influence, its neural signature, and its basis in social norms; Table 1 orients the reader to these converging lines before each is developed in turn.

The Asch Paradigm

The empirical study of conformity begins with Solomon Asch's deceptively simple experiment. A participant joined a group of others — in fact confederates of the experimenter — and judged aloud which of three comparison lines matched a standard line. The task was easy: alone, people erred less than one percent of the time. But on certain trials the confederates unanimously gave the same wrong answer before the participant responded, and under that pressure about a third of responses conformed to the incorrect majority, with roughly three-quarters of participants conforming on at least one trial (Asch, 1956). The result was arresting precisely because the stimulus was unambiguous: people were not resolving uncertainty but siding with a group against the plain evidence of their own eyes (Asch, 1955).

Asch's follow-up variations are as important as the basic finding, because they reveal what the pressure depends on. Two manipulations stand out. First, unanimity is critical: when a single confederate broke ranks and gave the correct answer, conformity collapsed to a fraction of its former level, even if that ally's answer differed from both the majority's and the participant's. A lone dissenter shatters the majority's power far out of proportion to the one vote it represents. Second, the effect of group size saturates quickly: conformity rose as the majority grew from one to about three members and then changed little as further members were added, so a unanimous group of three exerts nearly the pressure of a unanimous group of a dozen. Richard Crutchfield later replicated the core phenomenon with a cubicle apparatus that let several participants be tested at once without live confederates, confirming that the effect was robust and not an artifact of face-to-face staging, and linking individual differences in conformity to personality (Crutchfield, 1955).

How large is the Asch effect, and does it travel? Rod Bond and Peter Smith answered both questions with a meta-analysis of 133 studies using the line-judgment task across 17 countries. They found the effect reliable but historically and culturally variable: conformity in the United States had declined since the 1950s, and it was higher in collectivist cultures, where fitting in with the group carries greater value, than in individualist ones (Bond & Smith, 1996). Conformity is thus not a fixed human constant but a quantity tuned by era and culture — a theme the social-norm literature later develops.

The AschConformityLab demonstration below makes the two key moderators interactive: varying the size of the unanimous majority and toggling the presence of a dissenting ally shows how the predicted conformity rate rises with group size, plateaus, and then falls away sharply once a single ally breaks the unanimity.

Normative and Informational Influence

Why do people conform at all? The organizing answer came from Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard, who distinguished two kinds of social influence that are often tangled together (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). Normative influence is conformity driven by the desire to meet others' positive expectations and to be accepted; the person goes along with the group to avoid disapproval or rejection, and the result is typically compliance — public agreement without private change. Informational influence is conformity driven by the treatment of others' judgments as evidence about reality; when a person is uncertain, what others believe is genuinely useful data, and taking it on board can produce private acceptance — a real revision of belief.

The distinction does explanatory work on Asch's own results. Because the line task was objectively easy, informational influence should have been weak — the participant had no real uncertainty to resolve — so the conformity Asch observed was largely normative, a reluctance to stand alone against a unanimous group rather than genuine doubt about the lines. Deutsch and Gerard confirmed this by weakening the normative pressure: when participants responded anonymously, writing answers privately rather than announcing them to the group, conformity fell substantially, because the social cost of deviating had been removed. The same manipulation would barely matter if conformity were purely informational. Conversely, making the judgment harder and more uncertain increases the informational component, because now the group really does carry information the individual lacks.

This dual-process framework remains the backbone of the field. In their authoritative review, Robert Cialdini and Noah Goldstein organized decades of work on compliance and conformity around the motives it serves — accuracy (getting it right, the informational goal), affiliation (being accepted, the normative goal), and maintaining a positive self-concept — showing that which motive is active determines when and how much a person conforms (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). The two routes also map onto the compliance-versus-acceptance distinction from the opening section: normative influence tends to produce compliance that fades without an audience, whereas informational influence can produce durable private acceptance.

Minority Influence

Conformity research began by studying how majorities bend individuals, but influence runs the other way too. Serge Moscovici argued that a minority — even a lone individual or a small faction — can move a majority, provided it holds its position with consistency. In his color-perception experiment, a consistent minority who called blue slides green led a significant proportion of majority participants to make the same judgment, and, tellingly, shifted their private perceptual thresholds in later tasks even when the minority was no longer present (Moscovici et al., 1969). The consistency was essential: a minority that answered green only sometimes had no effect. Minority influence is therefore not a weak version of majority influence but a different process — slower, latent, and more likely to produce genuine conversion than surface compliance.

Charlan Nemeth sharpened the contrast into a cognitive account. Majorities and minorities, she argued, induce different styles of thought. A majority position, carrying the threat of being out of step, produces convergent thinking: the person narrows attention to the majority view itself and looks for ways to agree, often complying publicly without deep processing. A persistent minority, by contrast, provokes divergent thinking: because the minority is surprising and cannot be dismissed as the obvious truth, it prompts people to reconsider the problem from multiple angles, attend to more information, and generate novel solutions (Nemeth, 1986). The practical consequence is striking — exposure to minority dissent improves the quality of group decisions even when the minority is wrong, because the value lies in the broader search it stimulates rather than in the correctness of its position. Minority influence thus reframes conformity pressure as something a group needs to counterbalance, not merely to understand.

The Neuroscience of Conformity

If conformity is driven in part by the aversiveness of deviating from a group, that aversiveness should have a neural signature — and it does. Vasily Klucharev and colleagues scanned participants who rated faces and then learned the group's average rating. When a person's rating conflicted with the group's, activity dropped in the ventral striatum and rose in the rostral cingulate zone — the same reinforcement-learning circuitry that signals a reward-prediction error when an outcome is worse than expected. Crucially, the size of this error-like signal predicted how much the person later shifted their rating toward the group, so conformity behaves as if social disagreement were a negative reward that the brain learns to minimize (Klucharev et al., 2009). Deviating from the group registers like an error to be corrected, and conforming is the correction.

Converging imaging work fills in the picture. Gregory Berns and colleagues, using a mental-rotation task, found that when participants conformed to a wrong group judgment the changes were associated with activity in perceptual and spatial-processing regions rather than in areas of conscious decision-making, suggesting that social pressure can reach deep enough to alter perception itself rather than merely the reported answer; independent choices that broke with the group, meanwhile, engaged the amygdala, consistent with the emotional cost of standing alone (Berns et al., 2005). Daniel Campbell-Meiklejohn and colleagues showed the reward side of the same coin: learning that others share one's valuation of an object increased activity in the ventral striatum and medial prefrontal cortex, regions that encode subjective value, indicating that social agreement is processed as intrinsically rewarding (Campbell-Meiklejohn et al., 2010). Together these studies ground the normative and informational motives in the brain's valuation and learning systems: agreement is rewarding, disagreement is error-like, and conformity is the behavior that follows.

The ConformityErrorSignal demonstration below makes the reinforcement-learning account interactive: setting how far a person's initial judgment falls from the group's and the learning rate shows the resulting prediction-error signal and the updated judgment that the model predicts on the next encounter.

Social Impact and the Role of Norms

Asch showed that group size matters but saturates; Bibb Latané turned that observation into a general law. His social impact theory holds that the total social force on a person is a multiplicative function of three properties of the influencing source: its strength (how important or credible the source is), its immediacy (how close in space and time), and the number of sources. Critically, impact grows with number as a power function with an exponent below one, so each additional person adds less than the one before — which is exactly why Asch's conformity curve flattened after three or four confederates (Latané, 1981). The theory unified a scattered literature by predicting, from the same formula, the diminishing marginal effect of group size, the way pressure divides when responsibility is shared among targets, and the role of proximity in influence.

Social impact describes the force of a group; social-norm theory describes what that force transmits. Robert Cialdini, Raymond Reno, and Carl Kallgren drew a distinction that had been persistently conflated: a descriptive norm is what people actually do, while an injunctive norm is what people approve of doing, and the two can point in opposite directions. Their focus theory of normative conduct added that a norm steers behavior only when it is in focal attention — made salient in the moment — so that the same person litters or refrains depending on which norm the situation brings to mind (Cialdini et al., 1990). In their field experiments, a fully littered environment could actually reduce a person's own littering when it made the anti-littering injunctive norm salient, whereas a single piece of litter in an otherwise clean setting — highlighting that almost no one litters here — suppressed it most of all. The lesson is that conformity to norms is not automatic; it depends on which norm is cognitively in focus, a point of considerable practical importance for behavior-change campaigns.

The NormFocusDemo below makes focus theory interactive: setting the descriptive norm (how many others perform a behavior) and the injunctive norm (how strongly it is approved), and choosing which norm is currently salient, shows how the predicted behavior follows the norm in focus rather than a simple average of the two.

Worked Example: The Diminishing Force of a Growing Majority

Figure 1

Latané's theory can be made precise with a little arithmetic that ties the saturation Asch observed to a single formula. Social impact is the product of the source's strength s, its immediacy i, and the number of sources N raised to an exponent t that is less than one:

I = s · i · N^t

Take a case in which the sources are equal in strength and proximity, so that s = 1 and i = 1, and use the illustrative exponent t = 0.5, which makes impact the square root of the number of sources. Then the impact of a unanimous majority of size N is simply √N. For majorities of one through six, this gives:

I(1) = √1 = 1.00, I(2) = √2 ≈ 1.41, I(3) = √3 ≈ 1.73, I(4) = √4 = 2.00, I(5) = √5 ≈ 2.24, I(6) = √6 ≈ 2.45

The quantity that matters for conformity is the marginal impact — how much pressure each additional person adds — which is the difference between successive values. The second confederate adds 1.41 − 1.00 = 0.41; the third adds 1.73 − 1.41 = 0.32; the fourth adds 2.00 − 1.73 = 0.27; the fifth adds 0.24; the sixth adds 0.21. Each new member contributes less than the one before, and the increments are shrinking toward zero. This is the formal content of Asch's finding that conformity rose from one to three confederates and then barely moved: the theory does not merely restate the observation but derives it, predicting that the curve must flatten because the exponent is below one.

Two features of the result deserve emphasis. First, the saturation is a property of the number term alone; raising a source's strength or immediacy shifts the whole curve up but does not change its diminishing shape, which is why a few highly credible or very close sources can outweigh a large but remote crowd. Second, the same exponent-below-one mathematics explains the mirror-image phenomenon of diffusion: when impact is divided among many targets rather than summed across many sources, responsibility per person falls off in the same sublinear way — the quantitative root of the bystander effect and of the shared-responsibility findings taken up in the next section. One formula, read in two directions, captures both why a growing majority yields diminishing pressure and why a growing crowd of targets dilutes it.

Discussion

The cognitive psychology of social conformity has converged, from several starting points, on a coherent account. At its center is a behavior — adjusting one's judgment to a group's — that Asch showed to be surprisingly strong even against plain perceptual evidence, and whose two critical moderators, unanimity and group size, were established in his own variations and confirmed meta-analytically across cultures and eras (Asch, 1956; Asch, 1955; Crutchfield, 1955; Bond & Smith, 1996). The behavior is driven by two separable motives — the normative wish to be accepted and the informational use of others as evidence — a distinction that explains why anonymity, task difficulty, and a lone dissenter each move conformity in the direction the framework predicts (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004).

Influence is not the sole property of majorities. A consistent minority can convert a majority through a slower, latent process that changes private judgment rather than merely extracting public compliance, and that stimulates the divergent thinking a group needs to decide well (Moscovici et al., 1969; Nemeth, 1986). Beneath both majority and minority influence lies a common mechanism: the brain treats social agreement as rewarding and social deviation as an error to be corrected, grounding conformity in the same reinforcement-learning and valuation circuitry that governs non-social learning (Klucharev et al., 2009; Berns et al., 2005; Campbell-Meiklejohn et al., 2010). And the force a group exerts scales lawfully — multiplicatively in strength, immediacy, and a sublinear function of number — while the content that force carries is a social norm that steers behavior only when it is in focal attention and only once the descriptive and injunctive senses are kept apart (Latané, 1981; Cialdini et al., 1990).

The practical upshot is that conformity is neither a weakness to be deplored nor a constant to be assumed. It is a tunable product of how many others hold a view, how unanimous and how close they are, whether the individual's concern is accuracy or acceptance, and which norm the situation makes salient. That analysis identifies the levers that increase independent judgment — anonymity, a visible ally, a consistent dissenting voice — and the levers that harness conformity for collective benefit, which the contemporary norm-based literature has begun to pull in earnest.

Current Directions

The most active contemporary line treats social norms as instruments of large-scale behavior change. Sophie Legros and Beniamino Cislaghi mapped the sprawling, cross-disciplinary literature on norms, reconciling the differing ways psychology, economics, and public health define descriptive and injunctive norms and clarifying the conditions under which norm-based interventions actually shift behavior rather than backfire (Legros & Cislaghi, 2020). Building directly on focus theory, Robert Cialdini and Ryan Jacobson reviewed how descriptive and injunctive norms can be deployed to encourage climate-friendly behavior, and warned of the characteristic failure mode in which publicizing an undesirable descriptive norm — telling people how many others waste energy — inadvertently licenses the very behavior a campaign hopes to curb (Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021). A large interdisciplinary synthesis extended this to climate action generally, setting out when social norms can be harnessed to accelerate collective change and the conditions required for a new norm to tip and spread through a population (Constantino et al., 2022).

A second direction revisits the motives behind conformity with new methods. Marwa El Zein, Bahador Bahrami, and Ralph Hertwig showed that people prefer to make decisions as part of a group rather than alone, and that this preference is strongest when outcomes may be negative, because joining others spreads responsibility for a bad result — a motivational route into conformity distinct from both accuracy-seeking and the wish to be liked (El Zein et al., 2019). A third line probes the limits of norm-following: Christopher Pryor, Andrew Perfors, and Piers Howe found that people will conform to the descriptive norms even of groups whose political or social values they oppose, indicating that the pull of what others do is partly independent of whether one identifies with them (Pryor et al., 2019). Across these efforts the trajectory is away from treating conformity as a laboratory curiosity and toward specifying the cognitive and social levers — responsibility, salience, identity, and the tipping dynamics of norms — that determine when groups change individuals and when individuals change groups.

Common Misconceptions

Conforming means a person has genuinely changed their mind.

Not necessarily. Conformity can be mere compliance — public agreement that masks an unchanged private view, which evaporates once the group is gone — or genuine private acceptance. The two look identical in a single observation, and much of the research exists precisely to tell them apart (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).

Bigger majorities always produce more conformity.

Conformity pressure saturates. Asch found it rose as a majority grew to about three and then changed little, and Latané's social impact theory explains why: impact grows as a power function of number with an exponent below one, so each added person adds less than the last (Asch, 1956; Latané, 1981).

Only majorities influence; a lone voice is powerless.

A consistent minority can convert a majority, often changing private judgment where a majority wins only surface compliance, and minority dissent improves group decisions by provoking broader thinking. A single dissenting ally also dramatically reduces conformity to a majority (Moscovici et al., 1969; Nemeth, 1986).

Telling people how common a bad behavior is will discourage it.

Often the opposite. Publicizing an undesirable descriptive norm — how many people litter, waste energy, or cheat — can normalize it and increase the behavior. Focus theory shows that behavior follows whichever norm is in focal attention, so the injunctive norm (disapproval) must be made salient instead (Cialdini et al., 1990; Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021).

Glossary

Compliance.

A change in public behavior to match a group or a request while private belief is unchanged; the surface form of conformity, which fades when the group is absent.

Confederate.

An actor who secretly works for the experimenter while posing as a genuine participant; in Asch's paradigm a group of confederates gave unanimous wrong answers to create the social pressure under study.

Convergent thinking.

A narrowing of attention toward a single accepted answer; majority pressure induces it, prompting a person to look for ways to agree rather than to explore alternatives.

Descriptive norm.

A perception of what most people actually do in a situation; it motivates behavior by indicating what is likely effective or normal, independently of whether the behavior is approved.

Divergent thinking.

A broadening of attention across multiple possibilities and perspectives; exposure to a consistent minority stimulates it, improving the quality of a group's decisions even when the minority is wrong.

Informational influence.

Conformity arising from treating others' judgments as evidence about an uncertain reality; it tends to produce genuine private acceptance and grows as a task becomes more ambiguous.

Injunctive norm.

A perception of what most people approve or disapprove of; it motivates behavior through the promise of social reward or sanction, and can point opposite to the descriptive norm.

Minority influence.

The process by which a consistent minority shifts the majority's views, typically slowly and through genuine conversion rather than compliance; it stimulates divergent thinking.

Normative influence.

Conformity arising from the desire to be accepted and to avoid disapproval; it tends to produce compliance that depends on the group's presence rather than private change.

Private acceptance.

Conformity in which a person genuinely revises their own belief to match the group's, not merely their public response; it persists in the group's absence. Also called conversion.

Reward-prediction error.

The mismatch between an expected and an obtained reward computed by reinforcement-learning circuitry; disagreement with a group produces a similar error-like signal that predicts subsequent conformity.

Social conformity.

The adjustment of a person's attitudes, beliefs, or behavior to match those of a group; classified by MeSH under social behavior and achievable as compliance or private acceptance.

Social impact theory.

Latané's account in which social force is the product of a source's strength, immediacy, and number, with number entering as a power function whose exponent below one yields diminishing returns.

Unanimity.

The condition in which every member of a majority gives the same response; its disruption by even a single dissenting ally sharply reduces conformity, out of proportion to the one vote involved.

Key Researchers

Solomon E. Asch

(Swarthmore College and University of Pennsylvania, 1907–1996). Ran the line-judgment experiments that defined the empirical study of conformity, showing that a unanimous majority leads a sizable fraction of people to endorse a plainly wrong perceptual answer while an independent minority of one resists. Wikipedia

Robert B. Cialdini

(Arizona State University). Developed the focus theory of normative conduct, separating descriptive norms (what others do) from injunctive norms (what others approve of) and showing that only the norm in focal attention steers behavior. Wikipedia

Morton Deutsch

(Columbia University, 1920–2017). With Harold Gerard, drew the foundational distinction between informational influence, conforming because others are a source of evidence about reality, and normative influence, conforming to meet others' positive expectations. Wikipedia

Vasily Klucharev

(HSE University, Moscow). Showed that deviating from a group opinion produces a neural prediction-error signal in reinforcement-learning circuitry, giving conformity a mechanistic account in which social disagreement is processed like a reward-prediction error. ORCID

Bibb Latané

(Center for Human Science). Formulated social impact theory, which quantifies conformity pressure as a multiplicative function of the strength, immediacy, and number of the influencing source, predicting diminishing returns as a majority grows. Wikipedia

Serge Moscovici

(École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1925–2014). Established the study of minority influence, showing that a consistent minority can convert a majority over time through a process distinct from the compliance a majority extracts. Wikipedia

Charlan J. Nemeth

(University of California, Berkeley). Showed that majority and minority influence differ in kind: majorities induce narrow convergent thinking and public compliance, whereas exposure to a persistent minority stimulates divergent thinking and better decisions. Faculty page

Marwa El Zein

(University College London). Studies the cognitive and neural basis of collective decision-making, showing that joining others in a decision spreads responsibility and shifts how outcomes are evaluated, a motivational route into conformity distinct from accuracy-seeking. ORCID

Frequently Asked Questions

What is social conformity?

Social conformity is the adjustment of a person's attitudes, beliefs, or behavior to match those of a group. It can be a shallow change in public behavior (compliance) or a genuine revision of private belief (private acceptance). MeSH defines it as a person's behavior that conforms to the behavioral patterns of the group and classifies it as a form of social behavior.

What did the Asch experiments show?

Solomon Asch had people judge which of three lines matched a standard, an easy task on which they almost never erred alone. When a group of confederates gave a unanimous wrong answer first, about a third of responses conformed to it, and roughly three-quarters of participants conformed at least once, which demonstrates that people will side with a group against the plain evidence of their senses.

Why do people conform?

Deutsch and Gerard identified two motives. Normative influence is the desire to be accepted and to avoid disapproval, which produces public compliance. Informational influence is the use of others' judgments as evidence about an uncertain reality, which can produce genuine private acceptance. Most real episodes of conformity mix the two in proportions that depend on the situation.

What reduces conformity?

The strongest factor is a break in unanimity: a single ally who gives a different answer sharply reduces conformity to a majority, even if that ally is also wrong. Responding anonymously rather than aloud reduces it by removing normative pressure, and conformity is lower when a person feels competent or highly certain about the judgment.

Can a minority influence a majority?

Yes. Moscovici showed that a minority holding its position consistently can shift a majority, and often changes private judgment rather than winning mere surface agreement. Nemeth added that minority dissent stimulates broader, more divergent thinking and improves the quality of a group's decisions, even when the minority's own position is incorrect.

Does conformity show up in the brain?

Klucharev and colleagues found that disagreeing with a group produces a signal in reinforcement-learning circuitry resembling a reward-prediction error, and the size of that signal predicts how much a person later conforms. Related work shows that social agreement activates the brain's valuation regions, so agreement is processed as rewarding and deviation as an error to correct.

What is the difference between a descriptive and an injunctive norm?

A descriptive norm is what people actually do; an injunctive norm is what people approve or disapprove of. The two can conflict, and Cialdini's focus theory shows that behavior follows whichever norm is in focal attention at the moment, which is why campaigns that publicize how common an undesirable behavior is can accidentally encourage it.

Is conformity the same across cultures?

No. A meta-analysis by Bond and Smith found that conformity on the Asch task was higher in collectivist cultures, which place greater value on group harmony, than in individualist ones, and that conformity in the United States had declined since the 1950s. Conformity is a quantity tuned by culture and era rather than a fixed human constant.

References

Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

Berns, G. S., Chappelow, J., Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Martin-Skurski, M. E., & Richards, J. (2005). Neurobiological correlates of social conformity and independence during mental rotation. Biological Psychiatry, 58(3), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012

Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111

Campbell-Meiklejohn, D. K., Bach, D. R., Roepstorff, A., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2010). How the opinion of others affects our valuation of objects. Current Biology, 20(13), 1165–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.04.055

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015

Cialdini, R. B., & Jacobson, R. P. (2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.01.005

Constantino, S. M., Sparkman, G., Kraft-Todd, G. T., Bicchieri, C., Centola, D., Shell-Duncan, B., Vogt, S., & Weber, E. U. (2022). Scaling up change: A critical review and practical guide to harnessing social norms for climate action. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 23(2), 50–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006221105279

Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10(5), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040237

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408

El Zein, M., Bahrami, B., & Hertwig, R. (2019). Shared responsibility in collective decisions. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(6), 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0596-4

Klucharev, V., Hytönen, K., Rijpkema, M., Smidts, A., & Fernández, G. (2009). Reinforcement learning signal predicts social conformity. Neuron, 61(1), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.11.027

Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.343

Legros, S., & Cislaghi, B. (2020). Mapping the social-norms literature: An overview of reviews. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619866455

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(4), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786541

Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23

Pryor, C., Perfors, A., & Howe, P. D. L. (2019). Conformity to the descriptive norms of people with opposing political or social beliefs. PLOS ONE, 14(7), e0219464. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219464