Cited by 282Psychology of Social InfluenceSocial and Intergroup PsychologyOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence

Group size and conformity

Open access
Bond, Rod·2005·Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Abstract

This paper reviews theory and research on the relationship between group size and conformity and presents a meta-analysis of 125 Asch-type conformity studies. It questions the assumption of a single function made in formal models of social influence and proposes instead that the function will vary depending on which social influence process predominates. It is argued that normative influence is likely to be stronger when participants make public responses and are face-to-face with the majority, whereas informational influence is likely to be stronger when participants make private responses and communicate with the majority indirectly. The meta-analysis finds that the relationship differs according to whether public or private responses are obtained and whether an Asch or Crutchfield paradigm is employed. Future research needs to identify how the relationship varies depending on different social influence processes elicited by features of the task and setting.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1368430205056464

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The asymptotic relation between group size and social contagion can be explained by dynamic regulation of the response threshold.

    “While this has typically been explained in terms of social cognitive processes (Bond, 2005;Latane, 1981;MacCoun, 2012), it can also be explained by dynamic regulation of the response threshold (Cracco & Brass, 2018d).”

    From Automatic imitation of multiple agents: A computational model (2019) · cites this paper as Bond, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 113 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bond, R.
Affiliations
University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
Bond, Rod
Venue
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
Published
2005-10
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
331-354
ISSN
  • 1368-4302 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7188
OpenAlex
W2129624422
Cited by
280
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 12
FWCI
13.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion)
  • Trinity's Access to Research Output (TARA) (Trinity College Dublin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Keywords
group size, conformity, social influence, normative influence, informational influence, majority influence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review