Conformity

Sheeple. I think we are probably all guilty of conformity sometimes. I'm pretty nonconformist for lots of reasons and it's always interesting to me when I see folks around me falling into line over stuff, even if they disagree with the ideas being presented! I have always encouraged my family members to speak out or act, or at least question things. there really is nothing more damaging than everyone going with the flow, or just doing it and not making waves. People really repeat mistakes. This was a good book to understand conformity. It should be required reading.

Cass Sunstein is many things. He is a lawyer, a Harvard professor, formerly the Administer of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President Obama, and he is a bestselling author (The World According to Star Wars). How I first was introduced to Cass Sunstein, however, was in his collaboration with Nobel-Prize-winner Richard Thaler in their brilliant 2008 book, Nudge. That book contains a tremendous amount of research in the field of behavioral economics, a favorite of mine because it is a hybrid of the most interesting (to me) aspects of psychology and economics.

Given that, my response was two-fold when I saw that Sunstein was writing about conformity. I was, of course, overwhelmingly excited because Sunstein is a brilliant mind and conformity is another of my favorite topics in psychology. However, I was also wondering how Sunstein could say anything more than many others have (most notably Stanley Milgram, a titan in the field and author of Obedience to Authority).

My worries were misplaced. Sunstein has written something that, despite its relatively-diminutive size, only he could have written. Only someone with as diverse a background as Sunstein could have taken the topic of conformity and applied it to governmental policy, constitutional law, social media, and the benefits of democracy over authoritarianism.
Sunstein, in keeping with the principles of Nudge, believes that laws can actually use psychological phenomena to society’s advantage. Laws may not even have to be enforced because of how conformity works. This is explained in depth in the book, but the takeaway is this (per Sunstein):
Law may be most effective when it goes beyond existing social values but remains close enough that it can claim to draw on them … A key point here is that the law was ahead, but not too far ahead, of the public at large. If the law were not ahead of the public, it would add nothing and in that sense have no effect at all. But if the law moved too far ahead of the public, it could not be effective without aggressive enforcement activity. And a law that is too far ahead of the public is unlikely, for that very reason, to be aggressively enforced(.)

This is just a taste of the myriad applications Sunstein makes with the principle of conformity. He argues for diversity of viewpoints (not necessarily race) in judicial appointments and college acceptance. He makes a short but compelling case for why the Allies won World War II. He defends the American constitution exquisitely, arguing that the thing that the Founders were most afraid of was conformity.

Especially striking was something that I was not surprised by but had never heard explained before: the idea that groups conform, but always in a specific direction. They always become more extreme. They never move towards the middle. Sunstein addresses the phenomenon by describing relevant research. He writes:
The effect of group deliberation was to shift individual opinions toward extremism. Group “verdicts” on climate change, affirmative action, and same-sex unions were more extreme than the predeliberation average of group members. In addition, the anonymous views of individual members became more extreme, after deliberation, than were their anonymous views before they started to talk.

We see this phenomenon everywhere, especially social media, but the simple principle of conformity by itself doesn’t explain it. If a group conforms over time, shouldn’t their new views converge on the original group mean? Wouldn’t people’s views be just as likely to become more moderate than more extreme? The answer, of course, is no. Why? Because someone with more extreme views is usually more outspoken or passionate about those views, and that looks to most people like confidence. And we tend to conform to the views of those who seem more confident. Maybe Facebook isn’t the best place to form our political opinions.

Sunstein’s thoughts on social media particularly stuck with me even though it was not a major theme (maybe because I have been either reading or teaching Tony Reinke’s wonderful 12 Ways Your Phone Is Changing You for much of the year). Sunstein comes back to social media and its effects many times over the course of the book, but he keeps it in perspective. Conformity is not a new thing. Its effects have simply multiplied. Sunstein says it better:
The subject of conformity is not limited to any particular time and place, and I hope that the same is true of the discussion of that subject here. But it is worth nothing that modern technologies — and above all the internet — cast long-standing phenomena in a new light. Suppose that you live in a small, remote village, with a high degree of homogeneity. What you know will be mostly limited to what is known in that village. Your beliefs might well mirror those of your neighbors. You might be entirely rational, but what you believe might not be rational at all. As Justice Louis Brandeis noted, “Men feared witches and burnt women.”

Our “village” is bigger than ever. And its teachings can’t easily be undone. We need to understand the mistakes being made (and why they are being made) so that we can fix them. Cass Sunstein’s Conformity (May 28th, NYU Press) helps with that, and for that reason it’s a must-read.

I received this book as an eARC courtesy of NYU Press and NetGalley, but my opinions are my own.

In 1972, the social psychologist Irving L. Janis coined the term “Groupthink.” This term was employed to define a psychological phenomenon under which people endeavor to strike a consensus within a group. In most instances, people even set aside their own personal beliefs and philosophies before adopting the consensus of the rest of the group. People going against the overriding ‘group tide’ tend to maintain a veneer of stoic silence and quietude, often preferring not to rock the boat and let the harmonization of the crowd prevail.

But the pioneering example of the groupthink phenomena – without using the exact word – was bestowed to the world by George Orwell, courtesy his immortal epic, “1984”. Groupthink is but an analogy for and of its predecessor, “doublethink.” Doublethink as per Orwell in his dystopian work refers to the deed of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Whether one desires to christen the phenomena Groupthink, or prefers the word doublethink or prosaically restricts oneself to calling it, conformity, the bottom line is that such acts produce outcomes that are not just undesirable or prejudicial but downright dangerous.

In his new and concise book, “Conformity: The Power of Social Influences”, acclaimed author Cass Sunstein dwells on the nature of conformity, its perils and possible measures to mitigate the ill effects of conformity. Conformity as Mr. Sunstein explains can be found in almost every sphere of our life. “Wherever we live – a small village or New York, Copenhagen, Jerusalem, Paris, Rome, Beijing or Moscow – we develop allegiances. Once we do that we follow informational signals from some people rather than others. We want the approval of those we admire, like and trust.” Mr. Sunstein brings to the attention of his readers the Power of Social Influences in bringing to bear upon people the attribute of conformity. In a social experiment conducted a few years earlier that involved assembling a number of citizens from two different cities to deliberate on three topic issues of our time: climate change, affirmative action and same-sex unions, the results revealed a startling trend. Individual opinions denoted a marked shift towards extremism and “Group Verdicts.” Citizens of the more conservative state veered towards extreme conservatism even if their individual opinion was to be liberal and vice-versa.

As Mr. Sunstein proceeds to illustrate this grain of conformity does not spare the judicial system either. “When sitting with Republican appointees, Democratic appointees often vote like Republican appointees, and sitting with Democratic appointees, Republican appointed judges often vote like Democratic appointees.” So what exactly influences individual beliefs and behaviours making them subservient to majority opinions even if such opinions might not be the most rational or logical alternatives? Mr. Sunstein focuses on two important factors: Informational influences and a pervasive human desire to have and to retain the good opinion of others.

Informational influences dictate that “if a number of people seem to believe that some proposition is true, there is reason to believe that that proposition is in fact true.” The second influence postulates that “if a number of people seem to believe something, there is reason not to disagree with them, at least not in public. The desire to maintain the good opinion of others breeds conformity and squelches dissent, especially but not only in groups that are connected by bonds of loyalty and affection…”

Throughout the course of his work, Mr. Sunstein lays emphasis on three points:

Confident and firm people will exert particular influence over otherwise identical groups, thereby leading them in dramatically different directions;
People are extremely vulnerable to the unanimous views of others and thereby a single dissenter is likely to have a huge impact; and
Bonds of affection, loyalty and belongingness within a group is far more likely to influence decisions on both easy and hard questions.
Mr. Sunstein corroborates his assertions by taking recourse to the experiments made by the Turkish-American social psychologist Muzafer Sherif, the Polish-American gestalt psychologist Solomon Asch and the American Social psychologist, Stanley Milgram.

Conformity is also an outcome of ‘peer pressure’ as has been dramatically illustrated by the Milgram experiments. People tend to take a deferential view towards the opinion of qualified personnel and experts. This deference exhibited by Milgram’s subjects towards the ‘expert’ in the experiment let the psychologist to an opinion that such obedience to authority was in a way reminiscent of the behavior of many Germans under the Nazi rule, However, Mr. Sunstein deigns to differ when he postulates that Miligram was not right in arriving at the German analogy. Milgram’s subjects were not simply obeying a leader but responding to someone whose credentials and good faith they thought they could trust.

Conformity is also the result of what Mr. Sunstein terms are “cascades.” In an informational cascade, people cease relying at a certain point, on their private information or opinions. They decide instead on the basis of the signals conveyed by others.”

Conformity will also depict a dramatic decline when people perceive themselves to be different from the perspective of ideologies, preferences, and allegiances from opinions expressed by ‘others’. Mr. Sustein calls this behavior “reactive devaluation”, to signify the tendency whereby people devalue arguments and positions simply because of their source. Conformity also takes a back seat when financial rewards are offered for making the right decisions or for providing the correct answers. People would be less inclined to follow group members when they stand to profit from a correct answer. Conformity also finds refuge in the phenomenon of Group Polarization. “Members of a deliberating group typically end up in a more extreme position in line with their tendencies before deliberations began. This is the phenomenon known as Group Polarization.”

Mr. Sustein argues for what he calls a “Voice of Sanity” to disrupt and derail the forces of conformity. Such a Voice of Sanity might even be a sole dissenter, a dissenter who typifies John Stuart Mill’s prototype “working against the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling.” As Mr. Sunstein claims, “if a group is embarking on an unfortunate course of action, a single dissenter might be able to turn it around by energizing ambivalent group members who would otherwise follow the crowd.” A classic case in point for the value of dissent being the marvelous study by Brooke Harrington of the performance of investment clubs. Dissent also finds enshrinement in the American Constitution, “which attempts to create a deliberative democracy, that is a system that combines accountability to the people with a measure of reflection and reason-giving.”

The most controversial ‘remedy’ to shun conformity is however reserved by Mr.Sunstein for the Courts. Arguing for what he terms ‘reasonable diversity’, Mr. Sunstein makes a clarion call for a requirement of bipartisan membership that operates as a check against judgments veering towards the extreme. Having a reasonable diversity, in the words of Mr. Sunstein would “ensure that judges, no less than anyone else, are exposed to such diversity, and not merely through the arguments of advocates.”

The facet of reasonable diversity might also be introduced in the realms of higher education according to Mr. Sunstein. “The idea is that education is likely to be better if a school has people with different views, perspectives, and experiences.” Justice Lewis Powell in the landmark decision involving the Bakke case, argued that a diverse student body is a constitutionally acceptable goal for higher education. The central reason is that universities should be allowed to ensure a “robust exchange of ideas” an interest connected with the first amendment itself.

“Conformity” in size is an extremely small and concise book. But the arguments packed within are more an eye opener leading to a path of potential progress than a manifesto that has been part of innumerable previous deliberations.

This is a quick read that gives a decent albeit short overview of the power of conformity and how it manifests itself in society. It grew out of a speech Sunstein delivered at Harvard Law School that was actually already adapted into a book (Why Societies Need Dissent) later that year. Sunstein, who co-wrote Nudge with Richard Thaler and is currently a professor at Harvard Law School, asserts that Conformity is less incendiary and self-righteous than the earlier version and while I haven’t read that text Conformity did seem to treat its subjects even-handed throughout. Unfortunately much of the changes seem to center around tone rather than topics, so if you’re looking for a deep understanding of the increasing polarization and tribalization in contemporary politics you may find yourself unsatisfied (though thankfully books such as Amy Chua’s Political Tribes that accomplish that) but if you want a short primer on how conformity develops in societies this is a fine option.

Conformity is split into four sections and begins with a review of the major studies in the space including Solomon Asch’s line study and Sherif’s light movement study that will likely be familiar to anyone who took an introductory psychology course. The chapter hammers home that people who convey confidence are particularly influential, people are very reluctant to challenge unanimity, and individuals within the same “in group” are particularly vulnerable to groupthink and conformity. Sunstein draws upon this research to demonstrate the potentially deleterious effects of people hiding their true feelings due to group pressures. The following portion concerns social cascades, which Sunstein defines as a practice that spreads quickly through a population that can lead to dramatic changes and the third chapter is about how individual beliefs can become extreme in group settings through polarization effects. Sunstein concludes by applying the principles of conformity to the judicial and educational space by arguing for the benefits of ideological diversity on the federal bench and at colleges. The major message here is that it is vitally important to develop institutions that encourage individuals to share their true private beliefs and are open to dissent, which seems quite sensible though not exactly earth-shattering. Overall, Conformity is a readable account of the social forces at play when individuals follow the crowd but it likely won’t offer any new revelations to those somewhat familiar with the subject. I feel like Sunstein missed an opportunity to really differentiate his book by fleshing out the applications of conformity to more than just diversity in schools and courts and to share more of the recent research in the social sciences on the subject. Still, it’s a fine and quick summary of the subject.

6/10

A very timely book! In an era where tribalism is becoming more and more pronounced it's interesting to learn why groups of people cannot agree on the fact that a table is a table. The operative word here is "group." As individuals or in private, identifying a table as a table doesn't seem to be an issue, but making such a pronouncement in a group is another matter. If the leader or a small confident contingent with the larger group declares the table is in fact a chair, the majority of the rest of the group will not contradict the false declaration. Sunstein lays out the science behind this startling paradox.

Thank you Net galley. An interesting book on social opinion and influence. Well written and definitely worth a read.

The 21st century is, in many ways, the era of social influence. Social media has transformed the way both factual information and propaganda are delivered, business and political agendas are furthered and social norms are formed. Social influence is quite powerful. Compliance, obedience and conformity are all manifested via it. This book is extremely a propos and very thought provoking. Author Cass R. Sunstein examines the ‘hows’, the ‘whys’ and the effects of conformity and dissent in a logical, thoughtful and engaging manner. It is well worth the read.