“It is the year of the presidential election in Jennie’s country. The situation isn’t very hype for Jennie though, as the people around her are avid followers of the other candidate. They keep on saying bad things about Jennie’s preferred candidate, saying that they can’t fathom making friends with those who follow and choose the other candidate. Therefore, in order not to invite ire from the people around her, Jennie keeps her political choice to herself and pretends to support the popular candidate in order to blend in.”
Well, in Jennie’s case, she is afraid of being shunned because she holds a different opinion and viewpoint to those around her. What is happening to Jennie are commonly referred as social conformity where people’s behaviour are influenced by the social fabric around them and how they tend to conform to the majority (Prayitno, 2009)1Prayitno. 2009. Dasar Teori dan Praksis Pendidikan. Jakarta: Grasindo.. This phenomenon was explored by Badan Otonom Economica in the 7th ESPRESSO public discussion. The 7th ESPRESSO had lined up as its panelists: Dr. Joevarian Hudiyana (Mas Joe)—a lecturer in social psychology at the University of Indonesia—Dr. Fristian Hadinata, S.Hum., M.Hum (Bung Fristian)—a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Indonesia—Dr. Agnes Nauli Shirley W. Sianipar, S.Psi, M.Sc. Ph.D. (Mbak Agnes)—a lecturer in social psychology at the University of Indonesia—and Ricky Pratomo (Mas Ricky)—a social media influencer and observer of many cases of conformity in our online society.
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) narrated how conformity occurs as a product of our desire to change our behavior so as to be seen as “right” or “correct” (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). Conformity occurs when this desire comes up in a situation where someone is not sure about what’s right and feels as if other people are more informed; that other people understand the situation better2Deutsch, 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. So, to avoid punishment (e.g: social rejection, disapproving expressions, mockeries, etc), and get rewarded instead, people conform (Eisenberger NI et al., 2005)3Eisenberger NI, Lieberman MD. Why it hurts to be left out: The neurocognitive overlap between physical and social pain. In The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. Williams KD, Forgas JP, von Hippel W, Eds. New York: Psychology Press, 2005..
In line with the research above, Bung Fristian conveyed how fear, information (or the asymmetry thereof), privacy, and culture are the “promoter” or “catalyst” of conformity. Fear of being isolated and or separated from the group, as well as feeling that other people have more information—thus increasing their value for the group and enabling them to make better decisions—are said to affect the degree of conformity. Conformity, to Bung Fristian, is our method of survival. Mbak Agnes, responding to this statement, also said how social rejection hurts—physically, as in biologically as seen from the chemicals in our brain—the way physical pain may hurt. So, to avoid this pain, humans somehow subconsciously would choose to conform so as to not face rejection and experience social pain.
Conformity: The Double-edged Sword
Just like a coin, conformity has two different sides, as this phenomenon is not always detrimental or beneficial. Conformity can provide order for our society, as well as progress of society. According to Mas Joe, conformity plays a role in creating order that serves to maintain the system of cooperation in society, and helps us to overcome uncertain situations. This order creates conditions of minimum conflict, and in retrospect developments can proceed without significant threat.
“Conformity is closely related to social cooperation and obedience. People who work together are more successful. Conformity means progress and cooperation.”– Dr. Fristian Hadinata
The other side of conformity is its antithesis: non-conformity. Those practicing this; refusing to conform—the rebels, the outcasts—are widely known as the non-conformists. According to Mas Ricky as a social media observer, usually non-conformists feel that not everything can be regulated by law, but can be done through personal choices. For example Gyaru was one of the movements that broke the homogeneity in Japan.
Furthermore, non-conformists are more likely to be present in countries with individualistic cultures. For example, people living in individual countries like the United States tend to maintain more personal space between themselves and others (Sorokowska, A. et al., 2017)4Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Hilpert, P., Cantarero, K., Frackowiak, T., Ahmadi, K., Alghraibeh, A. M., Aryeetey, R., Bertoni, A., Bettache, K., Blumen, S., Błażejewska, M., Bortolini, T., Butovskaya, M., Castro, F. N., Cetinkaya, H., Cunha, D., David, D., David, O. A., … Pierce, J. D. (2017). Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A Global Comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(4), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117698039. Individualism is a value in which people prefer to act as individuals. In other words, the choice as an individual takes precedence, with group choices having smaller or less significant impact compared to the individual choices. Non-conformists will certainly prefer the freedom to express their actions and opinions based on their own value instead of the group’s value. However, there is always a trade off. Non-conformists are at a risk of experiencing social pain and experiencing rejection from society.
Conformity in The Social Contract
Initially, humans lived in conditions of chaos and fear. To get out of this disarray, we make contracts that function as a guarantee of rights for every being and ensure social harmonization. Thomas Hobbes called this contract as a social contract (Laskar, 2013)5Laskar, Manzoor. (2013). Summary of Social Contract Theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.2410525.. Social contracts are binding agreements of principles that humans made to prevent undesirable behavior, and therefore create social order. Then, how does conformity relate to social contract?
Conformity can be dangerous and lead to unfavorable situations if the community conforms to a contract that has a negative impact. The legality of slavery in the United States, for example, is a dark historical record of human civiliation. The social contract made people justify and normalize the act of slavery, to the point that we passed the Fugitive Slave Act in order to created the “ideal slave”. This is because when talking about social contract, everyone under the contract should execute the contract as feedback for the “protection” and welfare received from the contract.
Based on Stampp (1989) there are several way that United States society did to create “ideal slave” (Stampp, 1989)6Stampp, K. M. (1989). The peculiar institution. Vintage Books.. First, they made strict discipline and unequivocal submission. Second, they created the sense of personal inferiority, fear, forcing slaves to be interested in their master’s business. Lastly, they closed the access to education and recreation. This is of course to avoid the rise of educated people who can fight them. They ensured that contracts in which some are inferior to others are executed.
Furthermore, slaves were often subjected to violence for no reason (David, 2005)7David McBride, “Slavery As It Is:” Medicine and Slaves of the Plantation South, OAH Magazine of History, Volume 19, Issue 5, September 2005, Pages 36–40, https://doi.org/10.1093/maghis/19.5.36. Things, where someone is considered inferior to others, were not something that should be normal, but that was what happened in the United States. Therefore, non-conformists are needed to break these norms and we can’t always conform to social contract, as said by Mas Joe. However, both conformists and nonconformists are needed for the development of society.
Mas Joe also highlighted another interesting point: that our current society is too focused on how individuals can maximize themselves, but at the price of social welfare. “Social contracts do not always guarantee individual welfare and order to occur,” he said. “In fact, many social contracts filled with conformists are actually not good for those under the contract.”
Identity and Social Conformity
“In social situations, there is no individual nor identity. People identify themselves with certain groups.” – Dr. Fristian Hadinata
Talking about conformity in the context of identity formation might just make for an interesting topic. From womb to tomb, we are always a part of society—part of groups. Our parents teach, raise, and shape us on how to be a part of our society; how to socialize. We might also see our parents conforming to the society to ease our acceptance by the society. To some extent, in the early stage of our lives, our identity was formed by our society; in the image of what our society deems to be “good” and “acceptable”.
The question that remains is: does this continue—the shaping of identity by society? Is our current identity our true identity? Can we exist outside of the image created by our society?
Bung Fristian referred to it as the “social identity theory”. This theory states that individuals will refer to a group that has the same social category and defining attributes that differentiate them from other groups (Hogg, 2021, 263–316)8Hogg, M. A. (2021). Self-uncertainty and group identification: Consequences for social identity, group behavior, intergroup relations, and society. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 263–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/BS.AESP.2021.04.004. Therefore, quite literally, there is no individual identity. This situation also occurs on a national scale and abstract form, such as religion, nationalism, and individual belief. This situation is normal and acceptable. According to Bung Fristian, conformity will differ when it becomes polarized. Bi-polarization tends to oversimplify someone’s identity; if you are not A then you are B. Bipolarization is dangerous because it may fuel intolerance and even violence against minority groups(Welsh, 2020)9Welsh, B. (2020) Political Polarization in South and Southeast Asia: Old Divisions, New Dangers, Political Polarization in South and Southeast Asia: Old Divisions, New Dangers.. Bung Fristian gave the example of General Soedirman, Tan Malaka, and Sutan Sjahrir who took different paths in fighting for independence. In short, conformity makes our identity become the same as a society and it’s normal. But it will be dangerous if it becomes bipolarized.
On the other hand, there is a connection between the body and the formation of identity. As explained before, conformity is related to social pain. According to Giorgia Silani and colleagues (2014)10Giovanni Novembre, Marco Zanon, Giorgia Silani, Empathy for social exclusion involves the sensory-discriminative component of pain: a within-subject fMRI study, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Volume 10, Issue 2, February 2015, Pages 153–164, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu038, social pain occurs in the posterior insular cortex which is also the part of the brain that processes physical pain sensors. This study also concludes that this part is also related to empathy that explains involvement in other people’s emotions by the fact that our representation is based on the representation of our own emotional experience in similar conditions. In another study said our identity is entwined with people we empathize with (Beckels et al., 2012)11Beckes L, Coan JA, Hasselmo K. Familiarity promotes the blurring of self and other in the neural representation of threat. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2013 Aug;8(6):670-7. doi: 10.1093/scan/nss046. Epub 2012 May 3. PMID: 22563005; PMCID: PMC3739912.. When we feel social pain, we will try to conform with certain groups and empathize to the point that our identity becomes the same as theirs, to avoid such pain.
“In adolescents, information from the posterior insular is much more quickly sent to the mentalizing area so they are more focused on other people than what they want. Adolescents who become healthy individuals will decrease the amount of information from the posterior insular to the medial prefrontal cortex, so they can think rationally.” – Dr. Agnes Nauli Shirley W. Sianipar, S.Psi, M.Sc. Ph.D
The Unspoken Power Dynamics Behind Influencers
“One can only understand the power of the fear of being different, the fear of being only a few steps away from the herd if one understands the depths of the need not to be separated.” (Fromm, 1956) –Erich Fromm
This fear of being different, of being out of the group, manifests itself in today’s world of social media. Through the creation of our online presence, or digital self, social media gives us a new opportunity to shape how we appear to others in the social sphere. One’s image is projected onto this digital body, which lives today and possibly forever on the ever-present screen, and is then shaped by the crowd’s massive and constant social pressures. We shape our digital selves in response to the crowd-cloud that hovers above our digital bodies’ online feedback loop. According to a study “Like What You Like or What Others Like: Conformity and Peer Effects on Facebook,” (Egebark & Ekström, 2011)12Egebark, J., & Ekström, M. (2012). Like What You Like or Like What Others Like? Conformity and Peer Effects on Facebook. SSRN Electronic Journal, 886. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1948802. Users were significantly more likely to “like” someone’s post if several other strangers had already liked it. No one wanted to be seen as the only person who liked something, or as if their tastes were out of step with the rest of the group.
Shaming punishments have a collective action and intention effect, which is amplified by the indefinite number of onlookers. According to Bung Fristian, conformity could plant and grow the seeds of either violence or obedience. Conformity could make a person lose their personal values as they change their values in order to be accepted in their society. Individuals will pursue what society considers as “perfect”. This could cause great dependency that decreases a human’s ability to think independently.As study supported this by showing how social conformity can make a person change their opinion(Mallinson & Hatemi, 2018)13Mallinson, Daniel & Hatemi, Peter. (2018). The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change. PLOS ONE. 13. e0196600. 10.1371/journal.pone.0196600.. Furthermore, if the individual opinions always change because of conformity, this will lead to a hive-mind; a group thinking. If this happens—when this happens—the decision making or an opinion will not have critical evaluation, and development might not happen in its optimum state.
While only a small number of people may be directly carrying out a public shaming sanction on Twitter. For example, the attack’s power comes from the fact that it is carried out in front of many people online. These people, most of whom hide behind the anonymity of the virtual world, eagerly watch or feel coerced into participating or agreeing with the sanction out of fear. Few dare to speak up for the condemned or criticize the mob’s actions for fear of being attacked by the mob, so most will at least go along with it or praise the crowd’s righteousness to appear morally upright. Offenders of public opinion are thrusted into the most public stage possible, a pillory in the heart of the global village, raised high above the entire world in a digital cage, with online public shaming. The Google search, the Twitter trend, has become a virtual scaffold where the offender’s digital body, including pictures of one’s face, is immobilized and pinned in front of the crowd, just as the physical body was in the stocks or pillory in medieval and colonial times.
Deindividuation and the perceptions of responsibility associated with crowd membership are among the most long-standing areas of interest in social psychology. Indeed, many studies in social psychology focused on how people, once immersed in a crowd, act less in accordance with their personal or individual selves and more in accordance with the collective self (Reicher et al., 1995)14Reicher S. D., Spears R., & Postmes T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European review of social psychology,6(1), 161–198.. Although deindividuation typically refers to the phenomenon in which group membership reduces individuals’ sense of individuality, personal responsibility, and self-awareness(Wetherell et al., 1987)15Turner J. C., Hogg M. A., Oakes P. J., Reicher S. D., & Wetherell M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisation theory. Basil Blackwell., it may also result in increased levels of coherence, affiliation, and prosociality for fellow group members as a result of interpersonal coordination. Moving in synchrony has been shown to cause individuals to think of themselves as part of a collective rather than as separate individuals(Good et al., 2017)16Good A., Choma B., & Russo F. A. (2017). Movement Synchrony Influences Intergroup Relations in a Minimal Groups Paradigm. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 231–238., which is consistent with this. Conformity is not always about pressure, but rather the intense cohesiveness that makes the personality the same. This high cohesiveness is undesirable because it has the potential to mislead both individuals and groups.
Influencers’ actions may elicit outrage in today’s society because they wield power over people’s opinions. The erroneous power dynamics that emerge from the influencer-fan relationship are uncharted territory. Because the majority of the content created by influencers is created by them, their fans feel more connected to them. Influencers can be extremely toxic when people don’t feel they have boundaries. Because of their power over opinion and conformity, today’s influencers have the power to be “correct.” When their opinions are criticized, they have a tendency to react negatively, especially given their position as an influencer. With this phenomenon, it is very easy to create a “Us vs. Them” dichotomy.
People recognize the innate advantage of distinguishing between species at the most fundamental level of biology. But, even within species, is there something in our neural circuits that makes us feel at ease with those who are similar to us and uneasy with those who are different?
Human brains, like all other animals, balance two primordial systems. One is a brain region known as the amygdala, which can cause fear and distrust of things that pose a threat, such as predators or being lost somewhere unknown. The other, a network of interconnected structures known as the mesolimbic system (Berridge & Kringelbach, 2015)17Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2015). Pleasure Systems in the Brain. Neuron, 86(3), 646–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.02.018, can produce pleasure and feelings of reward in response to things that increase our chances of flourishing and survival—think not only food, but also social pleasure, such as trust. But how do these systems interact to influence how we form our concepts of community?
Harvard psychiatrist Oliver Freudenreich’s Guide to Psychotic Disorders states that, “while most people would not jeopardize their careers or lives for an overvalued idea, some will (and are secretly regarded as heroes by those less inclined to fight for an idea) (Freudenreich, 2007)18Freudenreich, O. (2007). Psychotic Disorders: A Practical Guide. Psychotic Disorders..” It is possible that conforming to extreme beliefs occurs through time and group effects. Milgram’s experiment may explain why terrorists frequently watch videos of charismatic figures online and then engage in violent behavior in the service of extreme overvalued beliefs (Bandura, 1990)19Bandura, A. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in terrorism. In Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, States of Mind; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990; pp. 161–19. Extremism has also been linked strongly to social media. There will be a loss of significance when a person’s life is unhappy, empty, and far from ideal. Finally, the pursuit of recompense leads to acts of extremism. Violent extremism is frequently based on the belief that one party is capable of annihilating himself or his group. When we are too attached to a particular view or identity in a group or society, then the opposite action will be seen as deviant and conformity becomes very interpretive.
Not only does social media may promote extremism, but it also has the potential to erase boundaries, as humans judge themselves by comparing themselves to others on social media. “To be human is to have inferiority feelings,” Alfred Adler said (Ansbacher and Ansbacher, 1964)20Adler, A., Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (1964). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler (Vol. 1154). New York: Harper & Row., and in the age of social media, this is potentially heightened and amplified. In the real world, social comparison usually involves the self and a few others, whereas the digital universe of social media offers nearly limitless opportunities for people to compare themselves to others.
Social Media’s Greatest Weapon: Endless Comparison of Ourselves to Others
With the public, however, there is no distinction that can be made between individuals based on a comparison of who is more aptly advancing that passionately devoted mutual cause without that third that strongly unites individuals in community.
“The public’s only comparison is with itself, each one within the public,” Perkins wrote.
People then keep a wary and envious eye on one another rather than truly connecting with one another. One’s sense of worth is reduced to a comparison based on external trivialities such as who is more approved by popular opinion and empty status symbols such as money and, increasingly today, digital tokens of social media ratings. What else is there to compare one another to when there is no greater passionate cause binding the relationship together? Popularity, fame, likes, hearts, shares, followers, and so on become the end goal toward which the public orients itself. Tuttle claims that instead of finding identity in passionately following one’s given cause and feeling validated by the extent to which one knows one is fulfilling one’s given potential, “individuals assign their identity to numbers and find an inner support for their existence in a numerical status,” and thus “the crowd is born” for Kierkegaard (Tuttle, 2005)21Tuttle, H. N. (2005). The crowd is untruth : the existential critique of mass society in the thought of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Ortega y Gasset. Lang..
Regarding digitization, the phenomenon of adjustment is increasingly visible. People gain reassurance by comparing themselves with others. Upward comparison, which is related to economic ability and so on into consideration for self-statement. From this, there will be a tendency for people to want to be in that position even though they don’t always know the impact. The gap between the actual self and the ideal self causes unhappiness which consequently interferes with mental health. The same opinion is also a consideration in conformity. Social media makes it more extreme, more obvious.
The internet is a kind of new human creation that can be analogized as humans just discovering fire. There needs to be the ability to master fire, as well as the internet and social media. The internet and social media have a positive impact, obviously. A public who has no “nothing” status can become something in the internet era. However, there are consequences for the internet and social media.
According to Mas Joe, social media such as Instagram and Tiktok, the hedon narrative has become a massive subset of content type created by influencers.
“Hey yo, rich boy check,” a male voice says.
As a well-dressed, well-coiffed teenager flashes images from his lavish lifestyle: crystal chandeliers, Lamborghinis, indoor pools, a violin plays the first few notes of Luigi Boccherini’s Minuetto.
Welcome to the #richboycheck hashtag on TikTok, a popular teen social media platform where the apparently wealthy “flex”—slang for flaunting your wealth—while others mercilessly mock them. Wads of cash, Rolexes, and closets stuffed with designer sneakers are on display. Trendy brands are saturating popular social media influencers. Hedonism is not the only thing in life that determines someone’s life value. Achieving happiness should be emphasized more than the hedonism itself.
Non-Conformist: Stepping Out from the Line
According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, social media may actually increase self-censorship both online and offline because the broad awareness social media users have of their networks may make them more hesitant to speak up because they are especially tuned into the opinions of those around them. This ambient awareness may trigger a spiral of silence in which popular views become increasingly popular and other views become increasingly silent in fear of rejection for an unpopular view (Hampton et al., 2014)22Hampton, K. N., Rainie, H., Lu, W., Dwyer, M., Shin, I., & Purcell, K. (2014). Social media and the spiral of silence’. PewResearchCenter.. With all of its potential for free expression, the internet and social media are increasingly becoming a tool for self-censorship. Self-censorship on Facebook was found to be “common practice” by one group of researchers who focused specifically on this issue.
Individuals are unwillingly thrust in front of a large audience, with the only way to avoid this exposure being to self-censor or change their behavior to conform to prevailing norms that avoid detection by the public. In an interview with social media surveillance researcher Daniel Trottier, for example, an undergraduate explained: “For me to be caught on camera doing something stupid, I had to be doing something stupid in the first place. And if I can avoid that…. Well, it’s a non-issue. They are not allowed to post photos of me that did not occur.” (Trottier, 2012)23Trottier, D. (2012). Interpersonal surveillance on social media. Canadian Journal of Communication, 37(2), 319.. However, what the public considers to be “stupid” is entirely at the discretion of the public. Some norms and customs may be justifiable, but others are not, and what constitutes “stupid” behavior is not well defined and subject to change at any time.
To summarize, self-censorship is a distinct social complement to conformity and obedience behaviors. These three behaviors are examples of withholding behavior: refraining from freely expressing one’s own opinions and ideas, accepting orders without evaluating them, and withholding information. They seriously jeopardize the free flow of information, critical thinking, and freedom of expression, all of which are required for democratic functioning. As a result, it is not surprising that these behaviors are always found in authoritative collectives, even when the authorities do not use formal means of imposing censorship. Self-censorship could hinder someone to point out their opinion just because their opinion is different. But in actuality, having different points of view is beneficial for everyone because in doing so people can see one’s flaws that they can’t see otherwise.
Nonconformism serves an important function in democracies by protecting the entire society from homogeneity or a suffocating adherence to rules solely for the sake of obedience to authority. Nonconformism empowers people to challenge authority, break the cycle of silence, and develop and express original ideas or dissent. Despite the fact that media coverage of nonconformism is limited and inconsistent, it nonetheless provides important public perspectives on nonconformism. First, it demonstrates the presence of nonconformists in society, providing a perspective on various ways of being. Second, it calls into question stereotypical views of socially acceptable ways of living and behaving. The presence of media reporting on non-conformity, whether positive or negative, generates public discourses about conformity and non-conformity. When such media reporting is negative, it may reinforce existing prejudices and stereotypes, but it may also prompt people to defend the nonconformist and/or question the report’s assumptions. Positive reporting of nonconformity, on the other hand, may cause audiences to question assumptions and prejudices, thereby contributing to the goal of social inclusion.
Conformity has always been around us since the beginning of human society. We as humans are subconsciously scared of being alone because we’re social beings. Alone is hurting physically and psychologically. As the time goes, people developed things that they all agree on and ended up in a social bubble. Because of the social bubble, people will try to fit in with the masses to the point that they lose their identity, not knowing what they really want, conforming themselves into society. Conformity shapes social norms that give rise to an unspoken rule, a rule that controls our life. But, that rule is not unshakeable or something that cannot be changed because on the other side, there are people who value their personal goals more than the said rule―nonconformist. They refuse to depend on society and try to reform the rules. These two parties have endless dialectic and shape society to this very day later.
|↵1||Prayitno. 2009. Dasar Teori dan Praksis Pendidikan. Jakarta: Grasindo.|
|↵2||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|
|↵3||Eisenberger NI, Lieberman MD. Why it hurts to be left out: The neurocognitive overlap between physical and social pain. In The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. Williams KD, Forgas JP, von Hippel W, Eds. New York: Psychology Press, 2005.|
|↵4||Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Hilpert, P., Cantarero, K., Frackowiak, T., Ahmadi, K., Alghraibeh, A. M., Aryeetey, R., Bertoni, A., Bettache, K., Blumen, S., Błażejewska, M., Bortolini, T., Butovskaya, M., Castro, F. N., Cetinkaya, H., Cunha, D., David, D., David, O. A., … Pierce, J. D. (2017). Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A Global Comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(4), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117698039|
|↵5||Laskar, Manzoor. (2013). Summary of Social Contract Theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.2410525.|
|↵6||Stampp, K. M. (1989). The peculiar institution. Vintage Books.|
|↵7||David McBride, “Slavery As It Is:” Medicine and Slaves of the Plantation South, OAH Magazine of History, Volume 19, Issue 5, September 2005, Pages 36–40, https://doi.org/10.1093/maghis/19.5.36|
|↵8||Hogg, M. A. (2021). Self-uncertainty and group identification: Consequences for social identity, group behavior, intergroup relations, and society. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 263–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/BS.AESP.2021.04.004|
|↵9||Welsh, B. (2020) Political Polarization in South and Southeast Asia: Old Divisions, New Dangers, Political Polarization in South and Southeast Asia: Old Divisions, New Dangers.|
|↵10||Giovanni Novembre, Marco Zanon, Giorgia Silani, Empathy for social exclusion involves the sensory-discriminative component of pain: a within-subject fMRI study, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Volume 10, Issue 2, February 2015, Pages 153–164, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu038|
|↵11||Beckes L, Coan JA, Hasselmo K. Familiarity promotes the blurring of self and other in the neural representation of threat. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2013 Aug;8(6):670-7. doi: 10.1093/scan/nss046. Epub 2012 May 3. PMID: 22563005; PMCID: PMC3739912.|
|↵12||Egebark, J., & Ekström, M. (2012). Like What You Like or Like What Others Like? Conformity and Peer Effects on Facebook. SSRN Electronic Journal, 886. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1948802|
|↵13||Mallinson, Daniel & Hatemi, Peter. (2018). The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change. PLOS ONE. 13. e0196600. 10.1371/journal.pone.0196600.|
|↵14||Reicher S. D., Spears R., & Postmes T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European review of social psychology,6(1), 161–198.|
|↵15||Turner J. C., Hogg M. A., Oakes P. J., Reicher S. D., & Wetherell M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisation theory. Basil Blackwell.|
|↵16||Good A., Choma B., & Russo F. A. (2017). Movement Synchrony Influences Intergroup Relations in a Minimal Groups Paradigm. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 231–238.|
|↵17||Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2015). Pleasure Systems in the Brain. Neuron, 86(3), 646–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.02.018|
|↵18||Freudenreich, O. (2007). Psychotic Disorders: A Practical Guide. Psychotic Disorders.|
|↵19||Bandura, A. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in terrorism. In Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, States of Mind; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990; pp. 161–19|
|↵20||Adler, A., Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (1964). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler (Vol. 1154). New York: Harper & Row.|
|↵21||Tuttle, H. N. (2005). The crowd is untruth : the existential critique of mass society in the thought of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Ortega y Gasset. Lang.|
|↵22||Hampton, K. N., Rainie, H., Lu, W., Dwyer, M., Shin, I., & Purcell, K. (2014). Social media and the spiral of silence’. PewResearchCenter.|
|↵23||Trottier, D. (2012). Interpersonal surveillance on social media. Canadian Journal of Communication, 37(2), 319.|