Experimental Economics

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 793–814 | Cite as

Liking what others “Like”: using Facebook to identify determinants of conformity

  • Johan Egebark
  • Mathias EkströmEmail author
Original Paper


In this paper we explore the micro-level determinants of conformity. Members of the social networking service Facebook express positive support to content on the website by clicking a Like button. We set up a natural field experiment to test whether users are more prone to support content if someone else has done so before. To find out to what extent conformity depends on group size and social ties we use three different treatment conditions: (1) one stranger has Liked the content, (2) three strangers have Liked the content, and (3) a friend has Liked the content. The results show that one Like from a single stranger had no impact. However, increasing the size of the influencing group doubled the probability that subjects expressed positive support. Friendship ties were also decisive. People were, on average, four times more likely to press the Like button if a friend, rather than a stranger, had done so before them. The existence of threshold effects in our experiment clearly shows that both group size and social proximity matters when opinions are shaped.


Conformity Peer effects Field experiment Social media Facebook 

JEL Classification

A14 C93 D03 D83 



First we want to thank all the Facebook users who made this experiment possible. We also want to express our gratitude to the editor, David Cooper, and two anonymous reviewers whose feedback greatly improved the paper. Alexander W. Cappelen, Stefano DellaVigna, Peter Fredriksson, Patricia Funk, Magnus Johannesson, Niklas Kaunitz, Erik Lindqvist, Martin Olsson, Bertil Tungodden and Robert Östling, as well as numerous conference and seminar participants, provided valuable comments on earlier drafts. Finally, we want to thank Anne Liv Scrase for excellent proofreading. All remaining errors are our own.

Supplementary material

10683_2017_9552_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (39 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 40 kb)


  1. Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (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, 29(2), 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G. A. (1980). A theory of social custom, of which unemployment may be one consequence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 94(4), 749–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Ubaydli, O., & List, J. A. (2015). On the generalizability of experimental results in economics. In G. R. Fréchette & A. Schotter (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economic methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, J. P., Porter, M. R., & McFarland, F. C. (2006). Leaders and followers in adolescent close friendships: Susceptibility to peer influence as a predictor of risky behavior, friendship instability, and depression. Development and Psychopathology, 18(01), 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asch, S. (1952). Social psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asch, S. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayres, I., Raseman, S., & Shih, A. (2013). Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29(5), 992–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bandiera, O., Barankay, I., & Rasul, I. (2010). Social incentives in the workplace. Review of Economic Studies, 77(2), 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Banerjee, A. V. (1992). A simple model of herd behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3), 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1063–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernheim, B. D. (1994). A theory of conformity. Journal of Political Economy, 102(5), 841–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1998). Learning from the behavior of others: Conformity, fads, and informational cascades. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(3), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bond, R. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8(4), 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., et al. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489, 295–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cai, H., Chen, Y., & Fang, H. (2009). Observational learning: Evidence from a randomized natural field experiment. American Economic Review, 99(3), 864–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen, Y., Harper, F. M., Konstan, J., & Li, S. X. (2010). Social comparisons and contributions to online communities: A field experiment on MovieLens. American Economic Review, 100, 1358–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Costanzo, P. R., & Shaw, M. E. (1966). Conformity as a function of age level. Child Development, 37(4), 967–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cowgill, B., Wolfers, J., & Zitzewitz, E. (2009). Using prediction markets to track information flows: Evidence from Google. In S. Das, M. Ostrovsky, D. Pennock, & B. Szymanksi (Eds.), Auctions, market mechanisms and their applications. Lecture notes of the institute for computer sciences, social informatics and telecommunications engineering (Vol. 14, pp. 3–3). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davidsson, P., & Findahl, O. (2015). Svenskarna och internet. Technical report, Internetstiftelsen i Sverige.Google Scholar
  21. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duflo, E., & Saez, E. (2003). The role of information and social interactions in retirement plan decisions: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 815–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Falk, A., & Ichino, A. (2006). Clean evidence on peer effects. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goeree, J. K., & Yariv, L. (2015). Conformity in the lab. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin Company.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, S. R. (1984). The economics of conformism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Kincaid, J. (2010). EdgeRank: The secret sauce that makes Facebook’s news feed tick. Technical report, TechChrunch.Google Scholar
  32. Kramarz, F., & Thesmar, D. (2013). Social networks in the boardroom. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(4), 780–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krasnova, H., Wenninger, H., Widjaja, T., & Buxmann, P. (2013). Envy on Facebook: A hidden threat to users’ life satisfaction? In 11th international conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI), Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
  34. Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., et al. (2013). Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e69841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manski, C. F. (2000). Economic analysis of social interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sagioglou, C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2014). Facebook’s emotional consequences: Why Facebook causes a decrease in mood and why people still use it. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 359–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311, 854–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  40. Sussin, J., & Thompson, E. (2012). The consequences of fake fans, ’likes’ and reviews on social networks. Technical report, Gartner, Inc. Accessed 2 Nov 2017.
  41. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 95(2), 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN)StockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsNHH Norwegian School of EconomicsBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations