Moral Conformity under Different Forms of Virtual Pressure



The article presents the results of a study aimed at investigating the influence of two forms of virtual group pressure (depersonalized and personalized) on the manifestation of moral conformity. The experimental material consisted of two types of moral scenarios, where participants were asked to assess the acceptability of certain behaviors. Depersonalized pressure was implemented by informing participants, filling out an online form, about the percentage of people responding in a certain way to the presented moral scenarios. As for the personalized form of pressure, a situation simulating interactions among individuals in instant messaging systems (messengers) was utilized. The study involved 112 participants, with 20 of them forming the pilot study sample and 92 — the main experimental sample. The results indicate that social pressure in the virtual environment leads to the emergence of a conforming response, with personalized pressure in real-time having a stronger influence than passive exposure to depersonalized data. The obtained results are explained within the framework of the biological theory of social pressure, which views conforming behavior as a strategy to optimize metabolic costs. The manifestation of a conforming response for both types of moral scenarios and the absence of gender differences in its expression suggest the potential universality of this strategy.

General Information

Keywords: moral conformity, virtual group pressure, depersonalized pressure, personalized pressure, social influence, virtual environment

Journal rubric: Psychology of Digital Reality

Article type: scientific article


Funding. The reported study was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, project № 23-28-00771,

Received: 28.07.2023


For citation: Fedorov A.A., Rakhmanov A.S. Moral Conformity under Different Forms of Virtual Pressure. Eksperimental'naâ psihologiâ = Experimental Psychology (Russia), 2024. Vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 118–130. DOI: 10.17759/exppsy.2024170108. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  1. Bourdieu P. Obshchestvennoe mnenie ne sushchestvuet [Public opinio does not exist]. In Shmatko N.A. (ed.) Sotsiologiya politiki [Sociology of politics]. Moscow: Socio-Logos, 1993. Pp. 159—177. (In Russ.).
  2. Levedev A.N. Gruppovaya polyarizaciya mnenij v usloviyah neopredelennosti moral'nogo vybora [Group Opinion Polarization in Conditions of Moral Choice Uncertainty]. Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya = Experimental Psychology (Russia), 2022. Vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 159—171. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2022150212 (In Russ.).
  3. Axelrod R. The Dissemination of Culture: A Model with Local Convergence and Global Polarization. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1997. Vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 203—226.
  4. Ayache J., Roos C.A., Koudenburg N., & Binder J. Editorial for the special issue: Social Influence in Computer-mediated Communication. Acta Psychologica, 2023. Vol. 235, 103872. DOI:10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103872
  5. Bleize D.N.M., Anschütz D.J., Tanis M., Buijzen M. The effects of group centrality and accountability on conformity to cyber aggressive norms: Two messaging app experiments. Computers in Human Behavior, 2021. Vol. 120, 106754. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106754
  6. Bostyn D.H., Roets A. An Asymmetric Moral Conformity Effect: Subjects Conform to Deontological But Not Consequentialist Majorities. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2017. Vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 323—330. DOI:10.1177/1948550616671999
  7. Bujang M.A., Omar E.D., Baharum N.A. A Review on Sample Size Determination for Cronbach’s Alpha Test: A Simple Guide for Researchers. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences: MJMS, 2018. Vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 85—99. DOI:10.21315/mjms2018.25.6.9
  8. Ferrara E., Yang Z. Measuring Emotional Contagion in Social Media. PLOS ONE, 2015. Vol. 10, no. 11, p. e0142390. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0142390
  9. Gavish B., Gerdes J.H. Anonymous mechanisms in group decision support systems communication. Decision Support Systems, 1998. Vol. 23, 4, pp. 297—328. DOI:10.1016/S0167-9236(98)00057-8
  10. Glass D.J. A Critique of the Hypothesis, and a Defense of the Question, as a Framework for Experimentation. Clinical Chemistry, 2010. Vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 1080—1085. DOI:10.1373/clinchem.2010.144477
  11. Haidt J., Graham J. When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize. Social Justice Research, 2007. Vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 98—116. DOI:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
  12. Huang G., Li K. The effect of anonymity on conformity to group norms in online contexts: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Communication, 2016. Vol. 10, pp. 398—415.
  13. Kelly M., Ngo L., Chituc V., Huettel S., Sinnott-Armstrong W. Moral conformity in online interactions: Rational justifications increase influence of peer opinions on moral judgments. Social Influence, 2017. Vol. 12, no. 2—3, pp. 57—68. DOI:10.1080/15534510.2017.1323007
  14. Keshmirian A., Deroy O., Bahrami B. Many heads are more utilitarian than one. Cognition, 2022. Vol. 220, p. 104965. DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104965
  15. Kim K.K., Lee A.R., Lee U.-K. Impact of anonymity on roles of personal and group identities in online communities. Information & Management, 2019. Vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 109—121. DOI:10.1016/
  16. Lea M., Spears R., de Groot D. Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social Identity Processes within Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2001. Vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 526—537. DOI:10.1177/0146167201275002
  17. Marton-Alper I.Z., Sobeh A., Shamay-Tsoory S.G. The effects of individual moral inclinations on group moral conformity. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 2022. Vol. 3, p. 100078. DOI:10.1016/j.crbeha.2022.100078
  18. Mook D.G. In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 1983. Vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 379—387. DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379
  19. Paruzel-Czachura M., Wojciechowska D., Bostyn D. Online Moral Conformity: How powerful is a Group of Strangers when influencing an Individual’s Moral Judgments during a video meeting? Current Psychology, 2023. DOI:10.1007/s12144-023-04765-0
  20. Shamay-Tsoory S.G., Saporta N., Marton-Alper I.Z., Gvirts H.Z. Herding Brains: A Core Neural Mechanism for Social Alignment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2019. Vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 174—186. DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2019.01.002
  21. Spears R., Postmes T., Lea M., Wolbert A. When are net effects gross products? The power of influence and the influence of power in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Social Issues, 2002. Vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 91—107. DOI:10.1111/1540-4560.00250
  22. Theriault J.E., Young L., Barrett L.F. The sense of should: A biologically-based framework for modeling social pressure. Physics of Life Reviews, 2021. Vol. 36, pp. 100—136. DOI:10.1016/j.plrev.2020.01.004
  23. Tsikerdekis M. The effects of perceived anonymity and anonymity states on conformity and groupthink in online communities: A Wikipedia study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013. Vol.64, no. 5, pp. 1001—1015. DOI:10.1002/asi.22795
  24. Wilcox R.R. Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing (5th edition). Academic Press, 2021.

Information About the Authors

Alexandr A. Fedorov, PhD in Psychology, associate professor, Head of the Section of Clinical Psychology, Leading Researcher of the Laboratory of Moral Behavior, Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:

Abdulaziz S. Rakhmanov, Bachelor of Psychology, Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:



Total: 70
Previous month: 14
Current month: 56


Total: 26
Previous month: 5
Current month: 21