Social Cognition: Part 2

To most people, being part of a large group grants a sense of autonomy, relatedness, and power. When we are tied to something greater than our individual selves – be it a social cause, ideology, or cultural attribute – it can help shape our identity.

But being a member of a large group significantly changes the way we behave. We may gain some identity through shared group attributes, but those attributes make us feel less responsible for individual actions.

What follows, is a strengthening of collective thinking and behaviour at the cost of individual thought.

This is the theory that birthed groupthink; a surrendering of our individual selves to the identity of the group. Groups large enough to foster anonymity often exacerbate the effect, which is why collective group behaviour is most prevalent on digital forums.

In large groups, a perceived gap between expectations of behaviour and our own achievements can fuel collective action. Relative deprivation, as it’s known, is a feeling of entitlement that comes from wanting something that others take for granted or have in abundance. 

Conceptualised by sociologist Robert Merton, it explains the hostility that can occur between groups with differing values.

Relative deprivation is often born out of frustration of the status quo and causes us behave in ways that are socially deviant. This is where the trope of minority communities rioting “for no reason” stems from.

The reason this effect is so important is because it revolves around social norms. Those who are disadvantaged – socioeconomically or otherwise – experience relative deprivation the most, while those who benefit from existing structures lack objective deprivation.

In other words: people at the top lack a perspective of disadvantage that is necessary to see things from the point-of-view of the disadvantaged.

This is why it’s often the wealthiest and most advantaged of politicians who sincerely believe things like this:

Our position in the social order influences the way we think about normative behaviour. As a general rule, deviant behaviour becomes less normalised the higher up the ladder you climb.

This isn’t to say that disadvantaged groups condone deviant behaviours, but that they have far less options than those at the top. Their ideas of what is considered ‘deviant’ are not necessarily wrong, only different from existing norms.

It becomes a cyclical pattern. Social norms disadvantage certain groups, which causes them to act in ways classed as 'deviant' according to social norms, reinforcing their status as 'social outcasts'. 

Consumption is one such behaviour that is influenced tremendously by relative deprivation. Commodities taken for granted by those in higher socioeconomic classes are coveted by lower classes, which determines how we buy and respond to advertising.

Unsurprisingly, research has shown that those on lower incomes respond more to value positioning, whereas those on higher incomes respond more to status positioning, a form of conspicuous consumption.

And contrary to popular belief, being poor is actually very expensive.

Differences in how we perceive our status relative to others are a big component of Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory. Conspicuous consumption is one way that we choose to broadcast our economic security and ego to the world.

This also fits with Tafjel and Turner’s positive distinctiveness model, in which the main goal of identifying with groups (and broadcasting that we do so) is building a positive self-concept. One such consequence of identifying with groups is that any outgroups may be perceived as lesser.

Studies have consistently supported the theory that we underestimate intra-group differences (conflicts between members), and exaggerate intergroup differences (conflicts with other groups).

The accentuation effect explains some of this theory. When we place someone into a category, we tend to ignore behaviours that don’t fit the category in favour of behaviours that do. Often, this leads to over-simplified judgments.

Really, this is just a variation of confirmation bias. We seek out information that confirms our assumptions about a person, while ignoring information that refutes our assumptions.

Humans are naturally lazy thinkers. We’re unlikely to divert from our initial conceptions if we’ve spent a long time thinking about them.

The evidence is in sociological research: When we are non-committed to an opinion, it is malleable and can be influenced. However, the more strongly we feel about something, the more resistant we become to opposing views, no matter how objectively truthful they may be.

When it comes to social cognition, we are all influenced by our own socialisation. Even when evaluating the opinions of others, we cannot be objective. Instead we judge how acceptable or unacceptable their opinions are relative to our own worldview.

Next time: Persuasion and deception.

a.ce