"Social desirability does not mean pro-social."
We had a pretty good time with that study about minority influence the other day so I'm eager to take on more social science for us to chew on. Unfortunately, the one that caught my eye this week isn't quite as straightforward as last week's.
Earlier this week I saw a link to this story on a blog with the teasing text, "Non-conformists are more inclined to work for the common good."
The actual study on which the story is based is a little more involved than that initial sentence I followed, but the themes it touches on are fun to think about and really relevant if you're frustrated with the recent successes of the anti-government movement so hopefully you'll agree this is worth sharing.
The idea is this (and please let me know if you understand it a different way): Some people psychologically crave social approval. Among the characteristics of these people who prioritize social desireablity is a tendency to describe themselves in a way that casts them in a positive light and they tend to conform to social norms. So this is how we arrive at talking about conformists.
The hypothesis going into the study was that people who conform to social norms would be more likely to act on behalf of the common good. If you identify with a group, you'd want to act in a way that benefits the group, right? Actually, not so much.
The nitty gritty, after the jump...
Initially the hypothesis looked good as the conformists responded positively to questions about how they felt about doing things for the common good. (In this part of the study, the common good in the question was represented by taxes. This is a UK study, and I wonder if American researchers would get away quite as easily with a common good/taxes equation without having to explain how government works to the study subjects. Or maybe the past two weeks have left me cynical...)
Anyway, the conformists in the study are cool with paying taxes and aren't even too bothered by the idea that some people get away with not paying their fair share of taxes.
Then the researchers took things a step further and set up a game to see if behavior would match the verbal responses. In the game, members of a group can pay into a pot. The pot earns interest, which everyone shares. Everyone shares in the pot's yield, even if they don't contribute. If everyone chips in, everyone wins bigger, but if you hold back from contributing, you keep your own money and then gain from the pot. So that's how the game pits self interest against common good.
Come to find out, the conformists who were expected to be more likely to contribute to the public good were ultimately less likely to do so.
The other factor at play in the experiment is approval (from the experimenter). Conformists and non-conformists were basically the same absent approval. Once approval kicked in, however, the non-conformists jumped right in while the conformists held back.
The wild card seems to be what the conformists are conforming to. Their answers about taxes weren't reflecting actual principles, but conformity with the cultural norm of paying taxes. Not contributing to the common good in the game may not have been selfishness but rather conforming with the group's growing pattern within the game.
Saying one thing and doing another, trying to find ways to get people to recognize and contribute to the common good, people falling in line with cultural norms and narratives without regard for the bigger picture, self interest versus common good... any of these things resonating with you in the wake of these past couple of weeks of political news?
It bears mentioning also that a large part of what these particular researchers have been working on is how to test for the concepts they're interested in. How do you create a sense of "common good" for a test subject and then how do you know if they're really contributing to it? What's the best way to set up a game or test to produce results that can be extrapolated to the real world?
Bonus read I found while looking for a free version of the study: Can Experimental Measures of Sensitivity to Social Pressure Predict Public Good Contribution? (Another Zizzo/Fleming joint.)
Leave a Comment:
Credible social science research is such a challenge. People (like me) read such studies with great interest and great skepticism. It's a very good idea to test the waters when considering research models - which is now possible through the "wonderful" internet and blogs. Of course, the "wonderful" internet also throws all kinds of garbage out there and many people take as truth that which they've read. A compendium of anecdotal information is not going to answer the question about conformity and the common good, but I suspect that multiple, disciplined research studies may bring some interesting information to light.
It seems to me that what we need to emphasize that it is in one's self-interest to contribute the common good. I don't mean just the old "rising tide floats all boats" type of thing. It is not in my self-interest to live in a community of uninteresting, under-educated people. So I put some pennies in the pot for a good school system with a good arts program and lots of public performances. It is not in my self-interest to live in drear, uninteresting and unsafe surroundings. I put some pennies in the pot for the public works department to water the flowers, mow the grass, and fix the sidewalk cracks. It think we need to really identify where our public contributions go. We still have sidewalks in town with brass WPA medallions on them. What if we put a sign on a well-designed and elegant looking public school saying "this school paid for by the contributions of the taxpayers of ______________— USA? Take it even a step further, why not put their names in the cornerstone, or in some way recognize their contributions.
Have you thought about running for public office? Seriously. I heard a report on NPR several years back about environmental groups changing tactics and giving awards to companies who cut back on their pollution even a little. Some of them were so thrilled to get the award that they continued cleaning up their environment.
I like the meaningful public approval thing; as well as the "shame 'em" thingy.
I guess I am an example that confirms this study. I am a non-conformist by nature but am a socialist politically. I actually like taxes and am grateful for the standard of living I enjoy as a direct result of them. Just because I choose to follow a path that is different from the norm doesn't mean I have any antipathy for the norm.
The way they explain the non-conformists in this study is that they're not caught up in what the others in the group are doing so they respond more readily to the encouragement/approval of the experimenter. Basically, because they're not distracted by conformity they're better able to focus on the game.
There's another famous study that is getting cited a lot these days, not about conformity, but about altruism, the profit motive, and the social side of the supposed "invisible hand" of capitalism. I forget the exact reference, so maybe some wonk here will recognize it and pull up the actual citation.
It goes a little something like this (as far as I vaguely remember the details):
A subject is given an amount of a currency, like a dollar, or five dollars, or 10 dollars. Maybe it was 10. The subject was told that he or she could keep all 10 dollars, or share it, to get another subject to complete a task, something like that. However much the person kept, he or she got to keep.
It was also organized like a game, but the goal wasn't presented like, get the most money or anything like that. It was a social game, how to pay people to get what you wanted.
That's all I can remember, except the finding, which was the startling part (I think I've even heard this story discussed on NPR). They hypothesis was that people would follow the behavioral expectations of capitalism, and attempt to pay or share with their cohort as little as possible. Instead, what they found was that the sharing/payment tilted more toward an idea of "fairness" or 50/50 sharing, communalism, rather than "get as much as I can for me."
That's all I can remember. Maybe that is enough detail for someone else who remembers more of the story.
Chris
i would think non-conformist don't even realize that there is a game to play.
I agree with the statement that nonconformists are more inclined to work for the common good,however,we never have seen nor will we ever see what they can contribute because nonconformists are generally shunned in our communities.With the exception of higher education facilities and maybe a few other locations.The greatest nonconformity to occur that will benefit our country at this time would be all parties,democrat,republican,tea party whatever working together for us not for their individual agendas
My guess is Vermont as the State with the lowest unemployment rate,runs a surplus & almost no State taxes.
I would absolutely love to read this book, but I'm afraid it would probably take me 2 months, or most likely, 2 years to absorb it, as the processing center of my brain is faulty. This isn't a cop-out, unfortunately it's the sad truth.
So........what I'm asking is do you know of a review of this book, online, that might give me some nuggets of info,without boggling my mind any more than it's already boggled? Any condensation of the contents would be appreciated.
joybar, does it help if someone explains things verbally? Like for instance a lecture on YouTube?
with certain things, yes. between hearing it, and seeing nuances - like certain animation - between hands and expressions - it helps.
the best teachers animate the teachings and not just say them.
D.C.Sessions and Carrie Anne - Thanks very much, yes verbal instruction can be helpful to me - altho my mind can wander away almost as much as when reading.
How I ever got through school with good grades is a miracle, really.
D.C., do you know of any lectures on UTube regarding the book Big Gerald recommended? BTW, while I was in the midst of replying to his posting - he was deleted. Can't imagine why.
Also, while I'm at it, I'm gonna take advantage and ask if you know how to reply to a comment that has no reply button??? For example, there was no reply thing to click on after your comment, D.C.
But there was after Carrie Anne's post. I'm very computer-challenged too, on top of all my other mental glitches. Thanks very much to both of you for taking the time to help me.
the reply button is only within the original commenter's box.
visually like this...
(comment)
unlike the format of some sites that allow more of an outline structure of comments.
the reply button is only at the end of the original comment's box.
The question raised is whether conformity with one's group or in-group will cause group members to further their common good. Experimental research on actual taxpayers in Minnesota (I led the research) and in Australia shows that if people think other taxpayers are being honest they too will be less likely to cheat. Conformity with what most people do (a descriptive social norm) is also why most people vote and don't commit crimes. In these cases conformity does increase the common good. This isn't quite the same as the in-group norm, which generally means people will support their group against others; it doesn't imply anything about a collective norm or purpose. The in-group norm more accurately describes politics in Congress lately. These norms are not necessarily related to each other. At times, however, people in a group can be encouraged to support a collective goal by making that a social norm in a specific situation. To combat overfishing, for example, the norm that no one breaks the rules can lead to a positive outcome for all if it is held strongly.
Why don't you dedicate a week or two of unemployed
Americans telling stories of their life and what they deal with from day to day
? Or have them tell stories as to the excuses they hear if they are lucky to
have an interview ? Or the excuses they get for being laid off? Hearing these
political leaders is the same song and dance. Show the whole world how we the
jobless feel.
I'm curious about the self-perceptions of the high social desirability (conforming) folks who did not contribute to the tax game. They were surveyed before the tax game; and they should have been surveyed post-facto. Maybe they saw themselves as contributing to the common good simply by conforming their behavior (even to the least common contributor). Perhaps they perceive that conforming their behavior is a higher value, or better indicator, of contributing to the common good than working together toward a common goal. Conformity of behavior is going to produce a more immediate effect than waiting for the tax to be collected, mature, and then be distributed. I don't think they were necessarily motivated by self-interest ... Maybe they were just short-sighted ...
I am not a scientist and I know that logic does not always apply which is the reason for doing these experiments. I would like to throw my sense of logic out although it may be way off. I don't know what goes on in the UK but here I would define conformists as people who try to look and act in the stereo type of what an American should be. Men have short hair, clean shaven, women wear dresses, or femine looking clothes, They would be against welfare or social programs because they would feel that good Americans work for a living and only the lazy bums would take money without working for it. Most would be conservatives. Non conformists would be basically everyone else and more than likely be liberals. They probably would not go to church, would support social programs. If these two groups conservative vs. liberal) were used in the experiment I would expect that the conformists would claim that they are for the good of all but then argue against it when faced with actually having to help anyone. Non conformists would also claim to be for helping others but not be so quick back away from it when faced with actually helping. So my interpretation of the experiment kind of boils down to a test between conservatives and liberals. The experiment should not have used taxes as the word to define the game. It should have been called voluntary dues that are used to make sure everyone gets a benefit of some kind from the pot that none could get without the pot. In other words the pot gives a benefit to everyone that none of the players can get from anywhere else. I think that would have given better results. But my theory before the game started is that non conformists would be the most likely to contribute regardless of what everyone else did. Just based on what I see in the everyday world of conservative verse liberal. But on the other hand if I had been there when the experiment was being devised and I understood exactly what it was that they were trying to prove then maybe I would have a different view.
Everyone acts in their own self interest when the chips are down. This is the fundamental problem we face as a country. I get so tired of everyone on the Right chanting USA USA USA. When they should be chanting ME ME ME, ME ME ME, ME ME ME.
"We the people, "unless you're poor", of the United States Of America, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain...."
That should be the constitutional amendment they should push.
Everyone does not act in their own self interest when the "chips are down", human beings actually risk their own lives and often times give their own lives to save others "when the chips are down", having an extra 44 years added to my life by such an act, I will never stop being grateful for the capacity of individual human beings to exceed their own expectations of themselves.
Tell that to James Murdoch when he darned near ran out the building when that pie thrower tried to assault his 80 year old father.
Don't confuse fight or flight with self interest. Sometimes you have no choice but to fight. Sometimes you have a choice of flight. Self interest comes when you weigh the previous two options. No one acts instinctively unless its a fight or flight situation. You claim we all will jump in and save the day. I argue most of us will prefer to live to fight another day.
Heck, people won't even give a homeless man a buck but you claim they would jump into a raging river to save that same homeless man's life. It doesn't make sense to me.
It may not make sense, but it happens. As The Trotsky related, some of us know this first hand.
Erich Fromm, in his book "Escape from Freedom" identifed conformity in an Democracy as the same as Obedience in a dictatorial state. He identifed people with the tendency to conform as the kind of people who would willingly follow a dictator. Might I suggest that the reason that the non-conformists contributed more than the conformists is that they were not aftaid of the consequences of contributing, while the conformists were and that all the conformists needed to contribute to the common good was a command to do so.
We should change our name to The United States of the Dollar. WHY? Because conservatives would rather save 2 cents by sending a job overseas than spend 1 cent to keep that same job in America. That's evident with the almost 3 trillion dollars in cash sitting on the sidelines.
Here is the bottom line with Conservatives. They have 0% loyalty to America. They have 100% loyalty to the dollar.
I remember a term I learned in a philosophy called summum bonum which means for the good of all. I cannot remember if it was Plato or Emmanel Kant but one of those guys. It was about using ones gifts, talents an resources to contribute to the good of all so that society can benefit.
I agree with the above poster who said that non-conformists are not afraid of the consequences of contributing and that conformists are usually insecure people who follow the rest of the herd. It takes guts to break away from the crowd.
The lack of ego distinction as a finite negative for both players didn't appear to help keep our building from having broken windows; I think we just started making the parking spaces thinner. All joking aside, the fear of being a lone figure after achieving so much clout as cause rather than a group of individuals could truly bring about a non-normative behavior from someone who personally holds completely opposing intentions in their consensus. It is rather odd to see the pony express boys rallying against the post office. Frustration for the sake of frustration on my own political bent here, appears to be nothing more than anarchy. The invisible hand needs an unblinking eye, I can't wait to see what kinds of studies are brought about when there is a nation-risk option between dictator and money burn. A new census question to tick off? Donate an extra 2 dollars to tax relief just-past-doomsday sub-prime national rating programs rather than a presidential candidate this year?
The study is not light reading and painfully reminded me of why I hated
statistical classes while getting my MBA. The authors themselves are unsure of
any conclusions and correctly suggest the need for more research. However, the
US might be a challenging choice for further study.
I agree with Will Femia that taxes would likely present problems for a US study. The other catch phrase throughout the British study, “common good” (CG) also might stir up some emotions that could impact an American version. CG, from my reading of blog posts, is becoming increasing synonymous with socialist implications and Government “safety net” programs, and as such is often at odds with the libertarian Natural Law belief that each individual needs to look to themselves and their economic prosperity as a primary motivator for all actions. CG is left to fend for itself and if everyone looked out for #1, then collectively that IS the CG. Furthermore, CG suffers from guilt by association as GOVERNMENT, funded by TAXES, has been the most visible provider to the CG. What’s “common” and what’s “good” are less clear in the current political environment.
Common good, taxes, government (the UK study even included healthcare as an assumed element of CG!!)…all stirring up some strong feelings before you even get to
question one. The UK study looks at how self image can impact contributing via
taxes to benefit an assumed and shared positive perception of the CG. Anyone
attempting to duplicate the UK study in the US could hit some early problems. Anti-tax, anti-government, and maybe anti-CG could make for some interesting responses.
Good points. We (US) even come across as difficult test subjects. =/
The following team exercise may be familiar, as it's been around for awhile.
The whole of a work unit was challenged to a test of “teamwork”. Divided into “Teams” and separated, both teams had a series of votes (each majority rule) on color schemes partly associated with the expectations of the other team's vote. Points were tallied based upon what both teams chose.
Objective: Maximum Points Possible Rules: Teams voted separately. Single delegates were allowed brief cross-discussions between voting sessions. ALL participants had to vote.
It went like you might expect, with some cooperative consideration for both team “wins”, some seeking to maximize their own points, retaliation votes, etc. It wasn’t until after the second vote that someone realized and pointed out there was only one win scenario, as ONE team.
Mediation was sought to reveal the ease of the one guaranteed win, but a restart was not taken seriously and voting played out as opposing teams. If someone had refused to vote within their group, the game would have stalled; perhaps for further consideration. But they conformed, and we lost.
The competitive nature, the camaraderie of a group reinforced by the stubborn desire to see an “enemy”, was greater than the desire to win.
But hey… it was just a game.
On the larger scale of politics and public manipulation; it may be naive to believe in collective change. But we can continue to back the truthseekers, rally behind good public figures, and demonstrate our thoughts on appropriate cooperation, and when to stand up for the common good against adversity.
Not surprising, that is what sheep do, say one thing and do another with virtually no principles of their own to stand for
Interesting study as it relates to the concept of risk. If I understand this correctly a "conformist" will perceive less risk as it relates to a larger sample size, but perceive greater risk and exhibit a higher degree of individuation in a smaller sample size. If 1,00,000 people do it, that's reassuring to a conformist. If 100 people do it (or however many participated in the study game), that's not so reassuring. And if one authority figure offers their approval, something must be terribly wrong; otherwise why need any reassurance? So a conformist trusts the law of large numbers and anonymity. Putting one's pot on the line for the greater good is only sufficient if there is some evidence that the good is a greater number than just a few. That seems in line with what a conformist is. And a non-conformist seeks a more personal form of validation, less concerned with the actions of an anonymous group, but highly interested in their own differentiation from the group; being singled out and rewarded and reassured by an authority figure validates their individuality. Entrepreneurs are non-conformists and take great risk without mass evidence. But they have a high need for individual reward too- a mentality that is reinforced into behavior patterns - the serial entrepreneur, the mogul who strikes it rich, but looks for every tax loophole known to man.
Wall Street operates similarly. Diversification. Mutual Funds. Buying the index. Getting large anonymous groups of money limits risk. Trusting your broker, doesn't.
So a conformist seeks safety in numbers. And a non-conformist is more likely to contribute to the greater good if they can identify the beneficiary group.
Belief works in the absence of evidence. But apparently contribution may not. I guess that's the difference between idealism and reality. (Hmm. I think I just heard a tree fall in the forest.) Interesting post!
Which I suppose further proves the point that non-conformists, are the risk taking entrepreneurs, amassers of wealth, who do not buy mutual funds like everyone else, choosing instead to invest in they're own vision, and who don't donate anonymously to worthy causes, but prefer to have their names on buildings as monuments to their egos. That sounds so awful. But then you walk past Carnegie Hall or you go to the Rose Space Museum and your spirit is venerated in a similar way as if you were sitting in a house of worship. Thus reminded of the Nelson Mandella quote - "no one does the world any good by striving to be small." I guess the ultimate objective is to have a society that allows everyone to feel safe enough to be an individual.
Headache!
Bloggers please don't recast the unit of analysis into awkward hypothetical analogies. Your biased perspective shines through before we even know what the hell we are discussing. If I understand the elements of the experiment then I think it has flaws. Why should the experimenter or individual whom arbitrarily approves of participants be considered a human or government in the first place? This approval designation cuts both ways right? Non-conformists could have the approval of the experimenter and act as rational(selfish) actors when the social desirability is both high and low? just as likely as conformists in the converse scenario could do so? I guess I'm not sure what the results of the experiment indicate. What is Socially Desirable? Its an Extremely Vague unit of measure! I think that is misleading, because its such a cop-out so to speak if we cast it in the biased light of tax revenue for the gov. What is the Greatest Good For the Greatest Number? Is it to drop bombs over Baghdad or ensure that everyone in your Commanche tribe has a belly full of bison rather than the best hunters? LoL Also as a little noted assumption before we see the pot or touch the pot we must pretend that everyone must play the game. Why must we consider the units of value as money? Obviously there are options to how each chooses to play the game. How do levels of action or choices during the game reflect the value (self-interest expressed as Investment returns) of something between low and high social desires? Why only allow for the two extremes? Once again what is socially desirable can never be agreed upon!
My head is swimming trying to follow all this, but I think most people would answer that they want to contribute to the so-called common good. You just couldn't get them to agree how to do that. If you're a Gordon Gekko type, you think it's good to do your own thing, because the cream will rise to the top and those with the most toys will win and that's the way things are supposed to be. Everybody gets a chance to be a rich bastard. I wouldn't see it that way, but then I've never been anywhere near the top. It's kind of like Repubs wanting to save Medicare by eliminating it. I guess some of them actually believe that, but it makes my head want to explode. Some people think they're "saving" women by making sure they don't become too much like men--you know, independent, able to think for themselves, control their own bodies, etc. That sort of thing.
The GOP has a stranglehold on the country and it's almost diabolical. They care nothing for the people or the condition of the country and yet most of the media are more concerned with the fact Obama caved rather than why. Other than the few journalists on MSNBC, the media don't confront the GOP, as they take off on an unearned vacation while running up the charge account that they are so concerned about when it comes to creating jobs. I am very angry and fear next election is too far away.
Ronald Regan came up with the idea of trickle down economy, which I think could be construed as contributing to the common good. Give the money breaks to the top of the population chain and they will use it to do things that will ripple down the chain. Only it didn't happen. GW said the same thing differently when he initiated the tax breaks for the wealthy. It also did not happen. Now another group of Republitards are trying to repackage it again. None of them cares bout the common good, after all that would be socialistic!