Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40324900›Full record

ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2025

A cross-cultural EEG study of how obedience and conformity influence reconciliation intentions.

Guillaume P Pech, Emilie A Caspar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Guillaume P PechCenter for Research in Cognition and Neuroscience, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, 1050 Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8843-6604
Emilie A CasparMoral & Social Brain Lab, Department of Experimental Psychology, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Ghent University, Ghent, 9000 Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1415-2032

Funding

BOF Starting GrantFond d'Encouragement à la Recherche
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study investigated the influence of conformity and obedience on intentions to help a child whose relative had caused harm to the participant's family during historical events of violence. Participants from Belgium, Cambodia, and Rwanda faced different social scenarios with two types of social influence and had to choose whether to respond helpfully. A multi-method and cross-cultural approach combining self-reports, behaviours, decision times (DTs), and electroencephalography (EEG) data was used. Participants explicitly reported being more influenced by authority (obedience) than by a group (conformity), a finding supported by faster DTs when following authority recommendations compared to either a group or an individual alone (compliance). However, behavioural and neural data showed no distinction between obedience and conformity. Behaviourally, authority and group influences exceeded individual influence but did not differ significantly. EEG results revealed higher mid-frontal theta (FMθ) activity for both the authority and the group indicating stronger inhibition of alternative choices compared to individual compliance. These results suggest that the type of measurement impacts the observed influence of authority and conformity, thus posing interesting questions regarding what may influence real behaviours. Variations were observed between countries, highlighting the importance of accounting for cross-cultural differences and avoiding generalization from a single population sample.

Indexed as

BrainCross-Cultural ComparisonIntentionSocial ConformityAdolescentAdultDecision MakingElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adultconformismcross-culturalobedienceprosocial intentionsreconciliationsocial influence

Identifiers

PMID40324900
PMCPMC12101351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.