The Difference in Conformity in Virtual Versus In-Person Environments
Sanika Raja, Tamanna Rajesh, Sanskriti Singh, and Naisha Mehta.

Abstract
This study compares the extent of social conformity in virtual versus in-person environments in high
school students. In order to test this, 36 high school students were randomly assigned to virtual, in-person,
and control groups. While all initially agreed to participate, only 16 ultimately did (n=16). Participants
were presented with two SAT questions and completed a pre-survey before their discussion and a
post-survey after the discussion. During group discussions, confederates intentionally provided incorrect
answers to the second question, answers that were clearly wrong. The study analyzed whether participants'
answers changed after the discussion to assess the impact of social conformity. Each experimental trial had 6
participants and 9 confederates. This study accurately aligns with Asch’s findings (Asch, 1952) on the
influence of eye contact as well as the claim researchers make suggesting Zoom “should be considered as
a complement to face-to-face interaction, not as a substitute” (Washington Post, 2023). Results show that
participants of the virtual group were more likely to conform than those of the in-person group. Data from
the in person group revealed that the majority (54%) of participants resisted conforming to the incorrect
answers that were suggested by the confederates. The study provides sufficient evidence for researchers to
understand the influence of peer discussions in virtual versus in-person environments and its influence on
the engagement of young minds.

Introduction
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting quarantine, students were forced to transition to
virtual environments. Students have experienced firsthand that these environments have hampered
learning experiences and group interactions (Montclarion, 2020). Lacking face to face interactions and
allowing the “camera off” and “mic off” features, Zoom environments have become detrimental to group
collaboration (Stanford Business, 2024). Mirroring the Solomon Asch experiment, in which he found that
people often conform to group opinions even when they are clearly wrong. (Asch, 1952), this study
explores how conformity differs between in-person and virtual environments. Our hypothesis is that those
in virtual environments will be more susceptible to conformity than those in in-person environments.

Participants
All participants in this experiment were randomly selected from the 11th grade class at West Windsor
Plainsboro High School North. WWP High School North is composed of 72.9% Asian students, 15.1%
White students, 5.2% Black students, and 5.2% Hispanic Students (West Windsor, 2023). 36 participants
were randomly selected using a random number generator. 24 individuals were randomly assigned to be
in the experimental group while 12 were in the control. 24 participants agreed to be a part of the
experiment; however, only 22 participants attended the in-person session. Similarly, of the 12 participants
that were selected and agreed to be a part of the virtual group, only 6 participants attended the Zoom
meeting.

In the in-person group, there were 2 separate trial groups as well as a control group consisting of 10
people. In the virtual group, there were 2 separate trial groups, as well, but no control group. Additionally,
these groups had confederates that were privately asked to join and were not part of the original 28
participants. The confederates were participants that were aware of the experiment and deceived the
regular participants within the group.

In the pre-survey, participants were asked if they had any prior knowledge on the SAT on a scale of 1-10,
considering the literature passage was an old SAT passage. Students were also asked if they had seen any
of the questions before, to which all said no.

Ethics
Participation in this study was entirely voluntary, with all participants providing their informed consent
along with parental consent.

Procedure and Design
Participants attended one session during a single lunch period. They were told that they would be
provided lunch and dessert after the experiment. Participants were then split into their in-person and
control groups in which they were asked to form a circle inside a classroom, and two other circles in the
hallway. All groups were closely monitored by at least one person running the experiment. Participants of
the virtual group were informed that they would participate in a zoom meeting in the evening and if any
came, they were dismissed to lunch.

The other participants attended the second session, at 6:30 PM. They joined a zoom link and then, after
some configuration, were promptly divided into two separate break rooms, each with an experimental
group. All groups were closely monitored by at least one person running the experiment.
During the experiment, participants were shown two SAT questions through a Google form that they were
asked to answer in the two minutes that they were given. Afterward, participants got five minutes to
discuss their answer to the first question, with the goal, told by the monitor, being to come to a consensus.
For the first question, confederates were asked to support the correct answer. Participants were to contend
their own answer choice if there were any dissenters. After the initial five minute discussion, the monitor
asked if the group came to a consensus and, if so, what the consensus was. Participants were then asked to
engage in another five minute discussion, this time to consider the second given SAT question. For the
second question, confederates were asked to support an incorrect answer and attempt to persuade the
participants to support this incorrect answer. Participants were to continue to argue for their own answer
choice and aim to gain support for it. At the end of the five minutes, the monitor asked if the group came
to a consensus for the answer to the second SAT question, and, if so, what it was. Similarly, the control
group was monitored by a single person. They were also shown the same 2 SAT passages in which they
were told to discuss their answers and come to a group consensus. However, there were no confederates
involved in the control group influencing the participants. Afterward, the participants were put into the
same room and debriefed together. In the case of the first session, this debrief happened while they were
getting lunch and dessert.

Results
In-person group:

Results and Discussion
This paper explored the change in the level of conformity in different settings. While conformity with
intentioned confederates influencing the answers of participants has been studied before in different
papers, they have not explicitly confronted the difference in conformity levels in in-person and virtual
environments. It was found that in-person settings correlate with lower levels of conformity, while virtual
settings correlate with higher levels of conformity. Conformity was measured by observing the number of
people that changed their answer post-discussion to match with the answer that was suggested by the
confederates.

Our study suggests that participating in a group while in a less stimulating environment, such as the
virtual group, results in more conformity than participating in a group while in a more stimulating
environment, such as the in-person group. In-person data suggests that the majority (54%) of participants
did not conform to the pressure of choosing the incorrect option ensued by the confederates during the
discussion. The in-person group is the group that is more stimulating and therefore less susceptible to
conformity, as supported by one of the many experiments conducted by Solomon Asch, specifically one
in which he differentiated between conformity with and without eye contact (Asch, 1951). The results
associate heavily with the concept of groupthink, as well, or conformity to a group’s values and ethics, as
reviewed in the paper “Twenty-Five Years of Groupthink Theory and Research: Lessons from the
Evaluation of a Theory” (Turner and Pratkanis,1998). Irving L. Janis described groupthink as a “way to
refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a
cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action” (Janis, 1982,
p. 84). This correlates with the results of this study—although previously, the majority of the participants
had chosen the correct answer to the second given SAT question, B, groupthink occurring during the
discussion influenced their decision when they were revisiting the question, in turn resulting in the
participants choosing the incorrect answer in order to conform.

Limitations
There were several limitations to this study. One includes the number of participants in each experimental
group. Despite all 24 participants in the experimental groups who agreed to participate in the experiment,
only 11 participants were in the in-person trials and only 5 participants were in virtual trials. In addition,
this study only includes the demographic of 11th grade students, which is not a full representation of the
broader population. Some randomly selected individuals refused to do the experiment, limiting the
representation of the broader population as well. Moreover, the virtual environment was not a controlled
one, as participants joined from their homes and researchers were not able to monitor all of their actions.
Lastly, it is possible that some participants did not fully read the literary passages, thereby hindering their
responses as well as the flow of the discussion.

Conclusion
Our study addresses the difference in conformity in in-person and virtual environments. Future studies
may observe differences in conformity levels in different settings. In the wake of COVID-19 and
subsequent global quarantine, it is important to acknowledge the difference in conformity in different
conditions, as the virtual setting that was previously commonly applicable results in different interaction
between students.