Published date: Nov 01 2018

Journal Title: KnE Life Sciences

Issue title: The Fifth International Luria Memorial Congress «Lurian Approach in International Psychological Science»

Pages: 313–320

DOI: 10.18502/kls.v4i8.3289

I Golovanovair.golovanova@gmail.com

M Petrov

K Bakuleva

N Andriyanova

This article is devoted to the analysis of cognitive indicators of conformal behavior. It presents the results of the study of EEG-correlates of conformity. The hypothesis of the study is that people who tend to the conformal behavior have a similar way of response on the errors and disagreement with the majority opinion. The
experiment involved 20 participants: 11 – nonconformists, 9 – conformists according to tests (‘Interpersonal Behavior Circle’ by T. Leary and ‘Portrait Values Questionnaire’ by S. Schwartz). Participants took part in two types of tasks: arithmetic tasks and attractiveness evaluation. After solving the tasks, participants were given feedback about right/wrong decisions in arithmetic tasks, and agreement/disagreement with the majority opinion in the evaluation of people’s attractiveness. This study analyzed event-related potentials (ERPs) in the case of error or disagreement with the majority opinion. The results of the study showed the differences in the indicators of bioelectric brain activity between conformal and nonconformal participants after the disagreement with the majority opinion. Conformal participants demonstrate higher amplitude of P300 wave upon presentation of the feedback of the disagreement with the majority opinion. Thus, the conformal behavior in a situation of disagreement with others’ opinion accompanied by specific ERP patterns of the brain associated with the correction of behavior.

Keywords: conformity, error processing, event-related potentials, P300, error-related negativity

[1] Abrams, D., Whetherell, M., Cochrane, S., et al. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 29, pp. 97–119.


[2] Arndt, J., Schimel, J., Greenberg, J., et al. (2002). The intrinsic self and defensiveness: Evidence that activating the intrinsic self reduces self-handicapping and conformity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 28, pp. 671–683.


[3] Bond, R. and Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 119, pp. 111– 137.


[4] Chen, J., Wu, Y., Tong, G. Y., et al. (2012). ERP correlates of social conformity in a line judgment task. BMC Neuroscience, vol. 13, pp. 13–43. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2202-13-43


[5] Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D. W., et al. (1999). Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/ consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 25, pp. 1242–1253.


[6] Danielmeier, C. and Ullsperger, M. (2011). Post-error adjustments. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 2, p. 233.


[7] Dutilh, G., van Ravenzwaaij, D., Nieuwenhuis, S., et al. (2012). How to measure post-error slowing: A confound and a simple solution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 56, pp. 208–216.


[8] Izuma, K. (2013). The neural basis of social influence and attitude change [Electronic edition]. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, vol. 23. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.conb.2013.03.009


[9] Jentzsch, I. and Dudschig, C. (2009). Why do we slow down after an error? Mechanisms underlying the effects of posterror slowing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Colchester), vol. 62, pp. 209–218.


[10] Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). Locus of Control: Current Theory and Research (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


[11] Lefcourt, H. M. (ed.) (1984). Research with the Locus of Control Construct: Extensions and Limitations, vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.


[12] Maier, M. E., Yeung, N., and Steinhauser, M. (2011). Error-related brain activity and adjustments of selective attention following errors. Neuroimage, vol. 56, pp. 2339– 2347.


[13] Neumann, R. and Strack, F. (2000). ”Mood contagion”: The automatic transfer of mood between persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 211–223.


[14] Notebaert, W., Houtman, F., Opstal, F. V., et al. (2009). Post-error slowing: An orienting account. Cognition, vol. 111, pp. 275–279.


[15] Nunez Castellar, E., Kuhn, S., Fias, W., et al. (2010). Outcome expectancy and not accuracy determines posterror slowing: ERP support. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, vol. 10, pp. 270–278.


[16] Phares, E. J. (1965). Internal-external control as a determinant of amount of social influence exerted. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 642–647.


[17] Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: Activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research, vol. 66, pp. 312–323.


[18] Saunders, B. and Jentzsch, I. (2012). False external feedback modulates posterror slowing and the f-P300: Implications for theories of posterror adjustment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1210–1216.


[19] Shestakova, A., Rieskamp, J., Tugin, S., et al. (2013). Electrophysiological precursors of social conformity. Journal of Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 756–763.


[20] Totterdell, P., Kellett, S., Teuchmann, K., et al. (1998). Evidence of mood linkage in work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 74, pp. 1504–1515.


[21] Klyucharev, V. A., Zubarev, I. P., Shestakova, A. N. (2014). Nejrobiologicheskie mexanizmy‘ social‘nogo vliyaniya. E‘ksperimental‘naya psixologiya, T. 7, no. 4, pp. 20–36.


[22] Moroshkina, N. V., Ivanchej, I. I., Karpov, A. D., et al. (2016) Rol‘ kriticheskoj ustanovki v usvoenii neyavny‘x kovariacij pri formirovanii pervogo vpechatleniya. Anan‘evskie chteniya 2016, tezisy‘ dokladov.