Going along means getting along—and that's not always good, study finds

Feb 07, 2013
Credit: iStockphoto

(Phys.org)—Caving in to social pressure—such as saying that you love a movie because friends do—makes for good vibes about being part of a group and can produce more of the same conduct, according to a Baylor University sociological study. The finding has implications for people ranging from philanthropists to gangs, researchers said.

"The punch line is very simple: Conformity leads to positive feelings, attachments, solidarity—and these are what motivate people to continue their behavior," said Kyle Irwin, Ph.D., an assistant professor of sociology at Baylor and lead author. The research, funded by the National Science Foundation, explores conformity and contributions for the "greater good." It is published in the sociology journal Social Forces.

The researchers' experiments showed similar results in groups in which it was the norm to make sacrifices for others, as well as in groups where the norm was "to slack off," Irwin said. "In both cases, participants reported nearly identical levels of attachment to the group, and then continued to follow the norm in subsequent interactions."

Irwin and co-author Brent Simpson, Ph.D., a sociology professor at the University of South Carolina, say the results may be significant for positive collective efforts, such as building public parks, funding public television and radio, or voting.

But the same process holds for as well. In those instances where group norms prescribe acting selfishly, positive sentiments promote continuing these unwanted actions, Irwin said.

"Examples of this might include or other where it may be normative to achieve very little according to society's standards, and to continue to do so because there is positive regard among . In other words, they may be happy in their mutual non-cooperativeness," he said.

The researchers conducted two "public good" experiments in which participants chose how many of their own resources to give to the group and how much to keep for themselves. Contributed points were doubled and divided equally among everyone, regardless of how much people donated. This means that individuals could "free-ride" and still cash in on others' generosity. In both studies, participants were informed that contribution decisions would be made one at a time, and that they would fill the last position in the sequence.

The researchers used this design to manipulate norms and the average contribution of other group members (who were, in reality, simulated and whose behavior was pre-programmed). In one case, the contributions of the "others" was very consistent; in another, very inconsistent. Group members in one instance averaged donations of about 65 percent of their resources; in the other, they were relatively stingy, averaging about 25 percent of their resources. Groups in which people contributed generously represented "high-achieving" groups, while those whose members donated very little were akin to "slacker" groups.

After participants decided how much to contribute, they were asked a series of questions about the group, enabling the researchers to measure feelings of attachment among members. Finally, participants made a second decision about how much to give to the group, but this time they were told that no one would see their contribution decision; it was anonymous. Irwin and Simpson used this decision to determine how individuals would behave as a result of their feelings about the group and its members. Findings suggested that people continued to conform to norms even when their decisions were anonymous. Their behavior did not change.

The studies were designed so that individuals believed they were interacting with total strangers. This leads Irwin to believe that "it's a pretty powerful process. They don't know each other, but to norms still generates about the group. If we're getting these results in this artificial context, think how much stronger it might be with people who know each other and have some sort of interaction history."

Explore further: Understanding the economics of human trafficking

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Study finds conformity does not equal cooperation

Aug 01, 2011

If you follow the pack are you more likely to co-operate with others in it? Not necessarily according to research into social behaviour by academics at the University of East Anglia.

The threat of gossip can rein in selfishness

Jul 12, 2011

Gossip can be hurtful, unproductive, and mean. It can also be an important part of making sure that people will share and cooperate, according to a study in the current Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Recommended for you

Local education politics 'far from dead'

18 minutes ago

Teach for America, known for recruiting teachers, is also setting its sights on capturing school board seats across the nation. Surprisingly, however, political candidates from the program aren't just pushing ...

First grade reading suffers in segregated schools

28 minutes ago

A groundbreaking study from the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute (FPG) has found that African-American students in first grade experience smaller gains in reading when they attend segregated schools—but the ...

Why aren't consumers buying remanufactured products?

2 hours ago

Firms looking to increase market share of remanufactured consumer products will have to overcome a big barrier to do so, according to a recent study from the Penn State Smeal College of Business. Findings from faculty members ...

Expecting to teach enhances learning, recall

2 hours ago

People learn better and recall more when given the impression that they will soon have to teach newly acquired material to someone else, suggests new research from Washington University in St. Louis.

Understanding the economics of human trafficking

Jul 28, 2014

Although Europe is one of the strictest regions in the world when it comes to guaranteeing the respect of human rights, the number of people trafficked to or within the EU still amounts to several hundred ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

frajo
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2013
Something along these lines I've read 40 to 50 years ago and I felt enlightened because I suddenly understood the reasons for the stupidities some people around me continued to do, say, and believe and the reason why there was no clique for me.
The field was called group dynamics.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2013
In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
barakn
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2013
Good and evil are in the eye of the beholder.