By Reading This Journal, You've Shown You Care about Peer Pressure

Important things to talk about continue to spring from a surprising source.

I've been thinking about social conditioning and personal responsibility, and so I've decided to reread Brainwashing by Kathleen Taylor. Beyond the book-selling name, it's a fascinating overview of how the mind works, how it's influenced, and how we control our own minds.

Picking it up again reminded me about commitment and consistency traps, which Robert Cialdini discusses in his book Influence. Essentially, by first committing to a small thing, we will later be influenced to commit to something much larger, if we feel that it is related to our earlier commitment. To do otherwise is to be inconsistent: "The person whose beliefs, words, and deeds don't match may be seen as indecisive, confused, two-faced, or even mentally ill. On the other side, a high degree of consistency is normally associated with personal and intellectual strength" (Cialdini quoted). Some evidence of this process—empirical and anecdotal, but strikingly similar.

Empirical:

Central to self-perception theory is the idea that individuals perceive themselves via their behaviors. In other words, in order to learn about our internal states (i.e., attitudes, beliefs, emotions, etc.) we observe our own behaviors. In the case of Freedman and Fraser's (1966) original research on the [foot-in-the-door] technique, California homeowners were asked to display a small, three-inch sign reading "be a safe driver." Next, they were asked to allow a very large public-service billboard to be installed on their front lawn that read "drive carefully." Although the billboard was unattractive and homeowners were aware that it would undoubtedly obscure a portion of their homes, 76% of those who agreed to the initial request consented. The reason most often cited for such startling compliance is the idea that the original request (displaying the 3 inch sign) conveyed information to the participants about the sort of people they were. . . . Freedman and Fraser explain that an individual, ". . . may become, in his own eyes, the kind of person who does this sort of thing, who agrees to requests made by strangers, who takes action on things he believes in, who cooperates in good causes," thus leading a person to consent to requests as extreme as having a billboard placed on his or her front lawn.

—John Z. Arlsdale, Trends in Social Psychology (2003).

Anecdotal:

At a private room party at this year's PenguiCon, I overheard someone talking in very general terms about the Open Source Boob Project, and I exclaimed that I would totally do something like that. The woman who had been talking brought out the "YES, you may" pin and the "I participated, for Science" ribbon, which pleased me because I'd only garnered three ribbons by then. Before she turned back to her group of folks, she asked if she could touch my breasts, and considering that I'd just said I would and had donned the pin, I said yes. She did, complimented me, and that was that.

. . . .

I can say that even I felt a bit of peer pressure to do it once I had "opted in" (in theferrett's terminology)--no one explained to me that I had the option to turn away those who'd requested. Besides, how would it look if I let one person do it and then, when their friends asked, to climb up on my high horse and reject them?

—novapsyche, My brief thoughts on the Open Source Boob Project.

I'm also reminded of ozarque's investigation into language as coercion, asking, in a way, what responsibilities we have about influencing others when influencing others is so easy and so much an inherent part of communication. Regardless of the answer, the first step is always seeing/hearing and thinking.

(And do I feel compelled to continue writing about this stuff because of my commitment to comments earlier in the week? Kinda, a little.)