Norms and Conformity IV

Neuroscience suggests human beings have the tendency to spontaneously and unconsciously mirror the behaviors of others when they interact with one another. This phenomenon is the so-called chameleon effect” (Hatfield et al., 1993; Chartrand et al., 1999).  Listening to language, for example, is accompanied by an increase in fMRI activity in the primary motor areas for speech production (Wilson et al., 2004) and in the tongue (Iacoboni, 2007). These findings can be extended to other behaviors that are a part of social exchanges.  It can be conjectured that mimicry is important for social relations and the formation of social norms because people who are more helpful and generous toward others are those who are mimicked in experimental situations (Decety, 2007).

Why do people exhibit this tendency to mimic others? Why do people conform? Most economists consider conforming to normative social influence is irrational. Simon (1990) points out that it is adaptive for individuals to learn social norms from others in a society.  As the best learners of the norms have a survival advantage, people are genetically programmed to learn and conform to social norms (Hoffman 1981; Kameda et al. 2003).

Social psychologists have shown that conforming behavior is not at all irrational. Schachter (1951) conducted an experiment which showed that in a group, people tended to like conformists better than nonconformists. In his experiment, there were three confederates taking one of three roles in a discussion: the modal person took a position that conformed to the average position, the deviate took a position diametrically opposed to the general orientation, and the slider initially took a position that was similar to the deviate’s but gradually slid into a modal conforming position.

The results showed that the person who was liked most was the modal person who conformed to the group norm; the deviate was liked least.  When people make decisions, they always think about the social pressure from others, which provide information to the group members as to how well their actions conform to the established norms. Back in the time of hunter-gatherer society when individual human being was almost helpless when faced with severe natural environment and the attack from other tribes, group membership increased an individual’s chance to survive. Hence evolution bequeaths us as a species the desire to form groups. If group membership increases the likelihood of an individual’s survival, favorable standing in a group gained by conformity to the existing norms is desirable. Therefore, we may have been wired genetically to mimic the behavior of members to keep a good standing in a group. On the other hand, the impetus to avoid social rejections by group members due to nonconformity may also be rooted physiologically in the human species.

Why are we risk averse and risk loving at the same time?

Admit it: we are risk averse. This is evolutionarily advantageous: danger was everywhere back in the jungle, and you'd better choose to play safe to survive.

But interestingly, most people like to gamble. Where there is a small possibility that we get really rich, we are willing to take risk for it. If we think about it, all the entrepreneurs are risk loving -- they are willing to take risk to receive profit. Men are more risk loving than women, which make sense from an evolutionary point of view. It also explains why most entrepreneurs are male. Well, incidentally, the reason why most experts in the world are male is because men are wired in such a way that they can focus on polishing a skill, which is different than they way females are created.

One way to explain this is suing probability weighting -- it has been observed that people tend to over-weigh small chance event: we try very hard, more than necessary, to avoid danger that is extremely unlikely to happen; we also expect extremely unlikely gains to happen more often that they should.

But why? Maybe evolutionary theory is the way to go...