Conformity in Online Communication

Abstract 

Groupthink is a way to create group consensus so a group of people can collaborate quickly and efficiently. While it is true that groupthink has some advantages in human decision-making, there is concern that groupthink could lead to groups making bad decisions. My model analyzes conformity in online communication, and mainly focuses on four categories: technology, economics, cognitive science, and culture. It will help my audiences understand three reasons why conformity may increase or decrease in online communication: 1) the cognitive science perspective of group conformity; 2) external factors that may influence group conformity, and 3) group norm formation. In addition, I used an illustration design of increasing and decreasing balance in the model to visually show that there is an increasing trend of online conformity, and one can balance it to reduce conformity by identifying and understanding the variables on the increasing side.

Introduction

People generally have some conformity tendency responses in online communication. For example, You can see people commenting in a similar fashion, and they seem to stay in line quickly. The question is whether they actually agree and why the controversy or alternative voices are gone. What they agree on based on. How that kind of group norm is formed. These are the aspects my model (see. Figure 1) tries to help us understand better.

Model Visualization Structure Description

On top of my model, I used a balanced visual structure with the word "decrease" on the left and the word "increase" on the right. These ideas come from Infotopia by Cass Sunstein (2006), who contributed a series of arguments on group decision-making. and which made me realize that while we are concerned about the dangers of groupthink, it does play some role in helping humans collaborate, for example, collective intelligence makes decisions, unified beliefs, and understandings work better when they collaborate, etc.

We can see that one side of the balance is down, emphasizing that the current situation disrupts the delicate balance of conformity in online communication.

In the middle of my model, I put Irving Janis' theory of groupthink (1982), which describes the 8 symptoms of groupthink: invulnerability, rationality, morality, stereotype, stress, self-censorship, consensus, and mind-guarding.

Each side has four categories that I think are closely related and influence consistency in online communication: they are technology, economics, cognitive science, and culture. The specific variables and explanations I have identified may reflect or justify specific or several symptoms of groupthink.

The Cognitive Science Perspective of Group Conformity

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon among a group of people in which individuals in a group consciously or unconsciously make compromises in order to conform to the group. There are two main reasons for this trend, people tend to avoid direct conflict with group decisions, and they fear being outcasts who don't conform to group norms. Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann developed a theory called the spiral of silence theory, which suggests that individuals tend to be reluctant to share their thoughts and remain silent if they realize their views are not popular with the group. It is more important for an individual not to isolate himself than for his own judgment (Noelle-Neumann, 1984). It is related to the sixth symptom of groupthink, self-censorship, victims of groupthink avoid deviating from group consensus, they remain silent about doubts, and minimize the importance of their doubts and misgivings.

For the mechanism of group decision-making, I identified three variables of group decision-making, information, and decision-making through the perspective of cognitive science. Through the lines with arrows, I visualize the relationship between the three, that is, information is the input, the decision-making is the output, and the combination of the two in a group of people is group decision-making. Then, the reason that conformity increases in online communication are that where the information comes from is manipulated or based on a one-dimensional pattern.

External Factors that may Influence Group Conformity

Information is a variable worth noting, first and foremost, it is an input to group decision-making. Second, I point to the information with two other lines with arrows, indicating that the information may come from two ways, which may be responsible for the increase in group conformity in online communication: algorithm and one-dimensional pattern.

First, since technology involves and plays a role in online communication, from an economic point of view, algorithms are designed to cater to public preferences and serve two main functions, online censorship, and personalization. Online censorship is the control of what information can be put on the internet or not, what can be accessed, or what views on the internet are enacted by regulators. algorithms censorship allows an unprecedented degree of control over both public and private communications, and it will exclude ideas.

The second is personalization. As Ronald Deibert (2019) put it, social media is built around personal data surveillance, and they are increasingly personalized to recommend or showcase what an individual prefers, wants to see or even show others who hold similar views. A hidden side effect of a recommender system is that it amplifies or reinforces existing ideas.

In short, online censorship and the personalization capabilities of algorithms create an echo chamber where beliefs are amplified or reinforced and isolated from dissent through communication and repetition within closed systems. This phenomenon is related to the seventh and eighth symptom of groupthink, unanimity, and mind guards, where victims of groupthink believe that everyone unanimously shares opinions and agree with what the group expresses. and victims of groupthink appoint themselves as keeper or maintainers of group norms and make sure everyone in the people is in line.

At the same time, one-dimensional patterns of thought and behavior will also narrow the sources of information, thereby affecting group decision-making and increasing the conformity of online communication.

Group Norm Formation

People have compromised with online behavior to avoid direct conflict with group norms, and to align with others, and they fear being classified as outcasts who do not conform to group norms. So, the question is what are group norms? How group norms are formed, and how these spoken or unspoken group norms become a consensus among group members.

One of my categories is culture, and I think culture plays an important role in how group norms are formed. Based on Jan Assmann's book Cultural memory and early civilization (2011), and the reading Collective Memory and Cultural Identity (1995). I identified the variable continuity to represent the continuity in terms of oral continuity, ritual continuity, and textual continuity. And I connect variable continuity to variable cultural memory to represent the relationship that oral, ritual, or textual continuity through repetition becomes the cultural memory of a group. The cultural memory of a group enables a group of people to identify themselves as a group. When they identify as a group, group norms develop through their traditions, cultural memories, and critical events in the group's history.

Another important variable we need to consider is that group norm is not permanent, it may change or modify over time. Norms can change based on the environment, situation, and culture in which they live, and people’s behavior can change with it. This is also mentioned in Clark and Chalmers' Extended Theory of Mind, that the mind can extend into the physical world, and certain objects in the environment can also become part of cognitive processes and affect them. In the case of Otto's notebook, Otto uses its own notebook as an external memory source and extends the memory capabilities to external objects. And in our case, humans now extend their communication functions and information processing to online communication, and the Internet becomes a source of memory, information, and communication. This is why the conformity of online communication has increased, the source of information.

Possible Solutions to Reduce Group Conformity

While we are concerned about the dangers of conformity, we still need to remember that conformity is a neutral position, like the scale illustration I chose to use on top of the model. Group conformity promotes social cohesion, making groups more stable and effective in general, and allowing group members to work together to achieve common goals. So, based on the variables I identified on the right increasing conformity side of the model, I would like to make some recommendations to reduce group conformity in online communication and protect us from the negative effects of groupthink.

When we see some ongoing online communication, we should develop metacognitive skills to reflect the source of the information. The practice of critical thinking and reflection can start with three questions: where did the information come from, how much do I know about it, and how did I make this decision? At the same time, you can also try stakeholder analysis to explore who will benefit the most from group decisions, or examine whether social media posts are customized to different stakeholder groups. On the technology side, I suggest using algorithms to show things people don't like to see, so they're more likely to jump out of the echo chamber and take in information or opinions from people with different viewpoints. We already know how group norms are formed, so I suggest that people look at cross-cultural studies to compare how group norms or responses differ between groups, expand our knowledge beyond a particular culture or social context, and escape the pattern of one-dimensional thought and behavior.

Future Direction

My model focuses on four categories: technology, economics, cognitive science, and culture, but conformity in online communication is also prevalent in other domains, such as politics. At the same time, I've only mentioned some misuses of group consensus, but group conformity can be abused by someone, against the best interests of the group, or as malicious comments that create public opinion and lead in the wrong direction.

Reference

Assmann, Jan; Czaplicka, John. Collective Memory and Cultural Identity. New German Critique,

 No. 65, Cultural History/Cultural Studies (Spring - Summer, 1995), pp. 125-133. 

Assmann, J. (2011). Cultural memory and early civilization: Writing, remembrance, and political

 imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, Andy & Chalmers, David J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis 58 (1):7-19.

Cass Sunstein. 2006. Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge, Ch.1-3.

Deibert, Ronald J. "The Road to Digital Unfreedom: Three Painful Truths About Social Media." 

 Download "The Road to Digital Unfreedom: Three Painful Truths About Social Media."

 Journal of Democracy, vol. 30 no. 1, 2019, p. 25-39. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/jod.2019.0002

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston:

 Houghton Mifflin.

Marcuse, Herbert, 1898-1979. One Dimensional Man; Studies in the Ideology of Advanced 

Industrial Society. Boston :Beacon Press, 1964.

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). The spiral of silence: Public opinion, our social skin. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press.