Although people often disapprove of conformity, they also dislike when others deviate from group norms. What explains this ambivalence? We hypothesized that judgments of conformity would be affected by whether people view it as motivated by self-interested or benevolent motives. Four studies (N = 808), using both hypothetical and real-life instances of conformity, support this prediction. We find that people judge those who conform to gain social approval (self-interested conformity) as weak-willed, but those who conform out of concern for their group (benevolent conformity) as competent and possessing strong character. In addition, we predict and find that people view self-interested conformity as “fake” but benevolent conformity as revealing one’s true self. Finally, we show that differences in perceived intentions explain how people sustain positive self-regard while succumbing to group pressures and why people judge their own conformity more favorably than others’ conformity. We discuss implications for encouraging and discouraging conformity.
AndersonN. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 272–279.
2.
AschS. E. (1948). The doctrine of suggestion, prestige and imitation in social psychology. Psychological Review, 55(5), 250–276.
3.
AschS. E. (1952). Group forces in the modification and distortion of judgments. In AschS. E. (Ed.), Social psychology (pp. 450–501). Prentice Hall.
4.
AxelrodR.HamiltonW. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396.
5.
BellezzaS.GinoF.KeinanA. (2014). The red sneakers effect: Inferring status and competence from signals of nonconformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 35–54.
6.
BuehlerR.GriffinD.RossM. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381.
7.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.
8.
CialdiniR. B.BraverS. L.LewisS. K. (1974). Attributional bias and the easily persuaded other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 631–637.
9.
CottrellC. A.NeubergS. L.LiN. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208–231.
10.
CritcherC. R.DunningD. (2011). No good deed goes unquestioned: Cynical reconstruals maintain belief in the power of self-interest. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1207–1213.
11.
DavidaiS.GilovichT.RossL. D. (2012). The meaning of default options for potential organ donors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(38), 15201–15205.
12.
De FreitasJ.CikaraM.GrossmannI.SchlegelR. (2018). Moral goodness is the essence of personal identity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(9), 739–740.
13.
DunningD.HeathC.SulsJ. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69–106.
14.
EratS.GneezyU. (2012). White lies. Management Science, 58(4), 723–733.
15.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
16.
GinoF. (2018). Rebel talent: Why it pays to break the rules at work and in life. Dey Street Books.
17.
GouldnerA. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.
18.
GreenbergJ.PyszczynskiT.SolomonS.RosenblattA.VeederM.KirklandS.LyonD. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 308–318.
19.
GriffinD. W.RossL. (1991). Subjective construal, social inference, and human misunderstanding. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 319–356.
20.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
21.
HelzerE. G.DunningD. (2012). Why and when peer prediction is superior to self-prediction: The weight given to future aspiration versus past achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 38–53.
22.
HornseyM. J.JettenJ. (2011). Impostors within groups: The psychology of claiming to be something you are not. In JettenJ.HornseyM. J. (Eds.), Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference and defiance (pp. 158–178). Blackwell.
23.
KernisM. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1–26.
24.
KimH.MarkusH. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785–800.
25.
KrugerJ.GilovichT. (2004). Actions, intentions, and self-assessment: The road to self-enhancement is paved with good intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 328–339.
26.
KrugerJ.GordonC. L.KubanJ. (2006). Intentions in teasing: When “just kidding” just isn’t good enough. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 412–425.
27.
LeighA.MelwaniS. (2019). #BlackEmployeesMatter: Mega-threats, identity fusion, and enacting positive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 564–591.
28.
LevineE. E.SchweitzerM. E. (2014). Are liars ethical? On the tension between benevolence and honesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 107–117.
29.
LevineE. E.SchweitzerM. E. (2015). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 88–106.
30.
MalleB. F.KnobeJ. (1997). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(2), 101–121.
31.
MannettiL.LevineJ. M.PierroA.KruglanskiA. W. (2010). Group reaction to defection: The impact of shared reality. Social Cognition, 28(3), 447–464.
32.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (2003). Culture, self, and the reality of the social. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3–4), 277–283.
33.
MarquesJ. M.PaezD. (1994). The “Black Sheep Effect”: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 37–68.
34.
MarquesJ. M.YzerbytV. Y.LeyensJ.-P. (1988). The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(1), 1–16.
35.
MeadN. L.BaumeisterR. F.StillmanT. F.RawnC. D.VohsK. D. (2010). Social exclusion causes people to spend and consume strategically in the service of affiliation. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 902–919.
36.
MillerC. E.AndersonP. D. (1979). Group decision rules and the rejection of deviates. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42(4), 354–363.
37.
MillerD. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053–1060.
38.
MontoyaA. K.HayesA. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 6–27.
39.
NewmanG. E.BloomP.KnobeJ. (2014). Value judgments and the true self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 203–216.
40.
PackerD. J. (2008). On being both with us and against us: A Normative Conflict Model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 50–72.
41.
PackerD. J.ChasteenA. L. (2010). Loyal deviance: Testing the Normative Conflict Model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 5–18.
42.
PackerD. J.FujitaK.HermanS. (2013). Rebels with a cause: A goal conflict approach to understanding when conscientious people dissent. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 927–932.
43.
PackerD. J.MinersC. T. (2014). Tough love: The Normative Conflict Model and a goal system approach to dissent decisions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7), 354–373.
44.
PapyrinaV. (2012). If I want you to like me, should I be like you or unlike you? The effect of prior positive interaction with the group on conformity and distinctiveness in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 11(6), 467–476.
45.
ProninE. (2008). How we see ourselves and how we see others. Science, 320, 1177–1180.
46.
ProninE.BergerJ.MoloukiS. (2007). Alone in a crowd of sheep: Asymmetric perceptions of conformity and their roots in an introspection illusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 585–595.
47.
ProninE.GilovichT.RossL. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review, 111(3), 781–799.
48.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
49.
SampsonE. E.BrandonA. C. (1964). The effects of role and opinion deviation on small group behavior. Sociometry, 27(3), 261–281.
50.
SchachterS. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(2), 190–207.
51.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
52.
SedikidesC.GreggA. P. (2008). Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 3(2), 102–116.
53.
SezerO.ZhangT.GinoF.BazermanM. H. (2016). Overcoming the outcome bias: Making intentions matter. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 13–26.
54.
SherifM. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper.
55.
SpreitzerG. M.SonensheinS. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 828–847.
56.
StamkouE.van KleefG. A.HomanA. C. (2018). The art of influence: When and why deviant artists gain impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(2), 276–303.
57.
TomaselloM.VaishA. (2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 231–255.
58.
TriandisH. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907–924.
59.
Van BavelJ. J.BaickerK.BoggioP. S.CapraroV.CichockaA.CikaraM.… WillerR. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 460–471.
60.
van KleefG. A.HomanA. C.FinkenauerC.BlakerN. M.HeerdinkM. W. (2012). Prosocial norm violations fuel power affordance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 937–942.
61.
van KleefG. A.HomanA. C.FinkenauerC.GündemirS.StamkouE. (2011). Breaking the rules to rise to power: How norm violators gain power in the eyes of others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 500–507.
62.
WangJ.ZhuR. J.ShivB. (2012). The lonely consumer: Loner or conformer?Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 1116–1128.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
