When people publicly conceal, disguise, or misrepresent their private feelings or beliefs, they are censoring themselves.
Self-censorship involves the suppression of words or actions, but in this case, the agent of suppression is the actor him- or herself.
Self-censorship is inherently neither good nor bad. Certainly some acts of it reflect a failure of will , but others reflect the presence of will power and bespeak courage.
It tis the subjective emanating people attach to their circumstances, much more than the objective features of those circumstances, that guides people’s actions. People’s interpretations or ways of construing situations are powerful determinants of their behavior.
Individuals may censor themselves to preserve their group and their standing in it.
Vegetarians eating meat Students in vegetarian houses reported strong sales norms, but the majority reported eating meat at times and also concealing their meat eating from their housemates.
Individuals may censor themselves to enhance their attractiveness to others.
Women’s response to conservative and liberal men Women expecting to meet an attractive conservative male presented themselves as more traditionally feminine and solved fewer and anagram problems than those expecting to meet an attractive liberal male.
Individuals may censor themselves to enhance their attractiveness to others.
Men’s responses to conservative and liberal women Replicating Zanna & Pack, males misrepresented the conservatveism of their sex role attitudes to look appealing to an attractive woman
Individuals may censor themselves to avoid others disapproval.
Picking movies and gender Men chose to sit next to an attractive woman more when different movies played on the two monitors and when the same movie was playing on both monitors.
Individuals may sensor themselves to remain true to their self images
A coin flip and an undesirable task In choosing between two tasks (one more desirable than the other), participants typically gave their partner the less desirable task. When the experimenter suggested flipping a coin to randomly assign the tasks, they tended to flip the coin, although they still generally gave themselves the desirable task. Only wile looking in a mirror did they act fairly, following the actual results of the random coin toss.
Experiments found that seating people in front of a mirror induces a sate of self-reflection and inward focus in people.
Although people often realize that they are self-censoring themselves, it is not always the case. i.e. People will sometimes censor their expressions of their experiences to be in sync with other people while being unaware of doing so.
Self censorship may occur without awareness.
Presenting positive and negative college experiences Participants described their college experiences to another person. If the other person presented a negative description, the participants presented a more negative description that if the other person had presented a positive description. Participants reported being unaware that they had altered their presentations.
Some of the most significant effects of self-censorship are the reactions people have to the experience of self-censorship itself. Having censored themselves, people may find themselves a wide range of emotions that are largely independent of the material of their actions.
Seeing others express their private thought and feelings when you censor yours will com punt whatever good or bad feelings your actions aroused in you.
It is misleading to think of the self playing both the roles of the censor and the censored. More appropriate is to think of individuals having multiple selves.
The self that is doing the censoring in the cases featured by by this book is the social self– the self that strives to be accepted by and to coexist with others.
This book does not show people being inauthentic, then; it shows them being social.
We avoid challenging other’ situational definitions.
Subway seats Asked to give up their subway seats, the majority did. Only when the seat request was clearly illegitimate did they not generally comply.
Rules of etiquette constitute the grammar or traffic rules of interaction. One dictate of social etiquette is that we not challenge the claims people make about the situations they inhabit.
This work provides the conceptual foundation for the idea that challenging others’ situational definitions is social impolite.
Respecting other’s situational definitions Individuals want to respect or at least not challenge another’s definition of a situation.
The frequency with which people comply with even unreasonable requests is astonishing.
We readily (if not happily) obey countless orders from ushers, policemen, and flight attendants that would provoke shock and consternation if they came from civilians.
Individuals comply more often with requests from this in perceived roles of authority.
Give him a nickel! Individuals were more apt to give a stranger a nickel when asked by a women dressed in a uniform than a woman dressed as a panhandler or as a business executive.
People often challenge the situational definitions of others and assert their own, but they do so with considerable reluctance.
Salespersons regularly exploit the fact that people are reluctant to challenge another’s definition of situations by using tag questions. A tag question is an assertion that ends with a request for confirmation from the listener.
Individuals are loath to challenge others’ situational definitions of their situations.
Throwing Frisbees in Grand Central Two individuals throwing a Frisbee brought in a third person who either did not respond, joined in enthusiastically, or angrily threw down the Frisbee. When the confederate wither did not respond or was enthusiastic, others joined in. If the confederate responded angrily, others did not join in and often moved away to avoid being thrown the Frisbee.
People find it hard to discredit others’ definition of the situation, even when failing to do so may endanger them.
Used water bottle Individuals who had drunk an unpleasant liquid were offered another’s used water bottle to drink from. They drank more when the offer implied that they might be worried about sharing the bottle.
The normative proscription against knowingly presenting an unreasonable definition of the situation explains why people don’t routinely exploit others by asking for subway seats or anything else they want— most people find it difficult to intentionally make illegitimate requests.
Normative pressure prevents people from taking advantage of this fact, it is often more difficult to make a norm-violating request than to refuse one.
The likelihood of having a request complied with will be roughly proportional to the difficulty of making it.
Individuals obey an authority figure even when the requests is an outrageous one that few predict they would obey.
Obedience to authority Most people obeyed an experimenter’s request to give electrical who to another person even when the other person was clearly suffering.
Much of the obedience shown by the participants in the above study was rooted in the face to face nature of the social occasion. Participants in the experiment most frequently experience their objections as embarrassing.
Individuals may act against their true prejudiced feeling rather than act in a way that violates etiquette.
Prejudice yields to etiquette Individuals reported that they would discriminate against Chines individuals in their establishments, but when confronted with a Chinese couple requesting accommodation, only one actually discriminated.
The Chinese couple exuded an air of self confidence.Their projected self-image and the normative obligation it incurred proved much more powerful that the desk clerks’ attitudes.
Individuals may conceal their discomfort about others’ prejudice rather than violate social etiquette.
Etiquette yields to prejudice Women confronted with a man’s sexist comments typically failed to confront him. Afterward, while watching a videotape of the interaction, they noted that they often thought about confronting him. Observers’ rating of how impolite various responses would be predicted the likelihood that women would use them.
Women’s likelihood of choosing a particular response was predicted by their perceived politeness of the response: If the women saw the response as impolite, they were less likely to choose it.
Because people evaluate response options in social situations in terms of politeness, they are extremely reluctant to engage in an impolite action, no matter how justified they think that action may be.
Because speaking one’s mind can be perilous when one’s beliefs clash with those of others, people often censor deviant beliefs, either by holding their tongues or by misrepresenting their true beliefs.
There are frequently two stages in the majority’s response to those who express deviant positions.
- First, majority members attempt to persuade deviants to change their ways or beliefs.
- If this attempt fails, the majority then excludes or punishes the deviant.
Individuals with deviant opinions are rejected both in terms of behaviors and ratings.
Johnny rocco case In a group discussion, those with deviant opinions were rejected by others.Other people stopped talking to them when it was clear that they would not change their opinion; group members also rated them as the least-liked discussion members.
Individuals are punished of their deviant opinions.
Picking who gets shocks Group members selected conforming group members to be in studies with the potential to win money and deviation group members to be in studies with the potential to receiver electric shocks.
Dissenters are bullied into changing their opinions.
Juan corona jury case In a real-life jury trial, the lone dissenting voter finally changed her vote because of the extreme pressure she felt.
Even judges may conform to other judges’ behaviors.
Federal judges’ votes Real-life data on three judge panels reveal the the political orientation of the other two judges was a strong predictor of the third judge’s vote.
Dissenters are punished for their deviant opinions and may alter their opinions to be more conforming.
Johnson administration cabinet room In an analysis of President Johnson’s cabinet during the Vietnam War, senior officials who questioned the administration’s policy were giving disparaging labels. In response, they often softened their criticism.
Names categorize and exclude those to whom they are applied and so are powerful deterrents to norm-violating behavior.
Individuals who act in deviant ways are given disparaging labels to discourage their deviant behavior.
Law students and “lesbian baiting” Female law students who spoke up in class were labeled “man-hating lesbians.” In response, female students stopped speaking up in class.
Deviant behavior is discouraged through rejection and punishment.
Rate busters In a manufacturing plant, this who worked too slowly or too quickly were pressured to fall in line through silent treatment or being called names such as “rate busters.”
Individuals are pressured to act in ways that support the prevailing hierarchy, even on dimensions that do not define the hierarchy.
Street corner society’s bowling hierarchy Youth gang members are expected to bowl at their level in their hierarchy. Low-ranking members who bowled very well ere harassed until they scored at their appropriate low level.
Another way deviants can be punished is by being isolated and excluded from the group and its resource. Social acceptance is a cherished resources, and its withholding can be a cruelly effective means of keeping people in line.
Peer approval and fear of rejection is often the primary motivator behind the decision of youths to initiate cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption.
Group members are affected by group norms. Those group members most in line with group norms are the most popular.
Bennington college study Conservative women became more liberal when they attended Bennington. The most liberal women were the ones considered most popular; the women who remained conservative were socially isolated.
Group members who follow the group norms are considered most popular.
Sororities and binging. Sorority women friendships were related to the women’s levels of bing eating. Those friendship groups that binged at that right level were the most popular ones.
Sometimes conformity occurs without any explicit pressure. People conform in the face of a more implicit pressure: that which arises simply from their desire to be accepted by their peers.
Individuals change their behavior to match other’ behavior even without their explicit pressure. They censor their true options because it is uncomfortable to be different.
Judging lengths of lines In a group of six people, individuals were asked to select which of a group of lines matched another. When the other five reported the wrong answer to this unambiguous task, most participants went along with the others at least some of the time.
Groups influence individuals not only by exerting pressure but by providing information about “reality”.
People sometimes conform to a more general ideal or standard.
Individuals conform to cultural norms to appear attractive to other people.
Eat lightly norm Hungry female participants ate fewer crackers when with a desirable male than with an undesirable male. They altered their behavior to fit with the feminine norm of eating lightly.
Individuals conform to ideals of how on should act.
Anti littering norms When individuals saw others either picking up litter or tossing litter into a clean space, they tended to litter less, presumably because the actions reminded them of the anti littering ideal norm.
Conformity to norms may happen automatically without one’s awareness.
Quiet in the library. Individuals who saw a picture of library and expected to visit a library talked more quietly in an allegedly separate study than those who saw a picture of an empty platform at a railways station or those who saw the library but did not expect to visit it.
Being reminded of situational norms can induce us to censor our behavior, but only if we expect to soon be in those situations.
The likelihood that bystanders will intervene in an emergency situation decreases as the number of potential helpers increases.
Diffusion of responsibility suggests that as the number of bystanders increases, the responsibility any one of the feels to act decreases.
When with others, individuals are concerned about the impact that taking action will have on the impression that others form of them.
But diffusion of responsibility doesn’t explain the smoke-filled room experiment:
Pluralistic ignorance may inhibit bystanders from responding when there are other bystanders present.
Smoke-filled room Bystanders were more likely to intervene in an emergency situation when they were alone than when other bystanders were present.
Pluralistic ignorance is the dynamic wherein people act similarly to one another but conclude that they feel or think differently.
Pluralistic ignorance involves three steps:
- People censor their true feelings or thoughts for fear of embarrassing themselves or being socially rejected by others.
- People falsely conclude that others are expressing their true feelings and thoughts, even through they too are self-censoring.
- People conclude that their own feelings and thoughts are not shared by others.
By mistaking on another’s failure to express concerns as evidence that they have no such concerns, group members come to question the validity of their own, convincing themselves that their opinions are unfounded— or at least not shared by others.
Why do people assume that the behavior of others is more genuine than their own?
- The first is that people fail to recognize how convincing their facades are, mistakenly thinking that their inner alarm must be registering at least somewhat in their public appearance.
- People mistakenly assume that they are more concerned with appearing foolish or naive than are others.
People’s belief that they have communicated their true feelings more clearly than they have has been termed the illusion of transparency.
Illusion of transparency happens for two reasons:
- People think that their true feel ins leak out in their public behavior more than is actually the case.
- People have an inflated view of their skill at communicating their private thoughts: They think that their subtle attempts to communicate their true feelings are more successful than they are.
Individuals believe that their true feelings are transparent even when they are concealing them; they display an illusion of transparency.
Transparency of concern Individuals reported being more concerned about another person’s actions than they thought that others were concerned about the actions. They also felt that they looked more concerned than others did.
One consequence of pluralistic ignorance is the perpetuation of group practices that few if any members of the group support.
Pluralistic ignorance exists around college alcohol consumption.
Misperceiving drinking norms Students reported that their own attitudes about drinking were less permissive than they perceived other students’ attitudes to be.
This shows how potent norms can be even when they are illusory. People will conform to what they perceive to be the group consensus even then pluralistic ignorance has rendered their perception wrong.
Individuals believe that their true feelings about comfort with alcohol are transparent even when they are concealing them.
Drinking norms and the illusion of transparency Individuals reported that others were more comfortable with alcohol than they we’re. They also reported that others could see that they were less comfortable, although others actually did not see their discomfort.
Group members see out group members as more extreme and homogenous that they are. Additionally, group members see their own group members as more extreme than they are.
Pro-life and pro-choice groups Although pro-life and pro-choice individuals do differ in their opinions, a study showed that the differences were not as extreme me as the other group or their own group members perceived them to be.
By underestimating their common ground, groups will miss many opportunities for cooperation and compromise.
People who once held one belief but now hold another will be especially hesitant to speak their mind— either because they worry that their change of heart is not justified, or because they worry that it makes them seem gullible or unstable.
Thus a common consequence of pluralistic ignorance is that norm change often lags behind attitude change.
The persistence of norms may result from widespread misperception about support for the norms.
Insulting southerners and northerners Southern males believed that their not retaliating against an insult would be perceived as less masculine (although they did not see it as unmanly); northern males did not share this perception.
Individuals misperceive others’ support for group norms.
Support for the culture of honor Both southern an northern males reported a low probability that they would punch someone in a bar, but southern males assumed that other males at their university would punch the person.
Providing information about actual group norms and the principles of pluralistic ignorance may dispel pluralistic ignorance.
Dispelling pluralistic ignorance Students exposed to actual norms on students’ comfort with drinking and information about pluralistic ignorance reported drinking less months after the intervention than those who had been exposed to inform at ion about making responsible decisions about drinking.
By concealing or censoring their true feelings for fear of isolation, people create conditions favorable to the emergence of pluralistic ignorance, which in turn can lead to conditions that few people (if any) would want.
An important implication of this analysis is that efforts to change attitudes, even if successful, may not suffice to change behavior unless the targets of persuasion also recognize that their peers’ attitudes have changed as well.
It is not simply individuals’ attitudes that determine their behavior, but also their perceptions of the attitudes of others.
The key to behavioral change lies in dispelling pluralistic ignorance, not simply in changing attitudes.
Pluralistic ignorance can yield serious consequences of the individuals who succumb to it.
When self-censorship gives rise to pluralistic ignorance, people will misperceive where they stand on various attitude, behavioral, and personality dimensions. This misperception can lead people to make inappropriately negative judgments about themselves.
Pluralistic ignorance leaves students feeling inferior.
Classroom pluralistic ignorance Students read an incomprehensible article but did not ask questions because they did not want to embarrass themselves; they assumed that others did not ask questions because they knew the information. Students not only did not learn the information in the article, but also felt inferior to their peers.
Self-censorship and the resulting pluralistic ignorance can leave people doubting more than just their intelligence— it can leave them doubting their competence more generally.
Censoring negative feelings may leave on feeling unique and incompetent.
Health care burnout Health care professionals concealed their feelings of anxiety, thus leading them to the erroneous conclusion that they were alone in feeling anxious. As a result, they felt less competent.
People will often censor impulses to express negative feelings for fear that they will be diminished in the eyes of others. Too often the consequence of this self-censorship is that people end up diminished in their own eyes.
Pluralistic ignorance may leave one assuming that one’s own motives are different from , and less noble than, the motivations of others.
Water shortage and not showering Students reported responding to a water shortage by showering less, but they assumed that they were motivated less by community solidarity than other students were.
Pluralistic ignorance sometimes arises around transitions in life and development, such as retirement and new mother hood. People can feel distressed because they feel less happy than cultural scripts and their (mistaken) sense of others suggest that they should feel. Distress can also derive from what they feel to be deviant feelings of happiness.
The empty new phenomenon provides an example:
Cultural scripts lead people to expect that they will feel empty, sad, and restless when their children leave home. Many parents feel just the opposite, however, though they may publicly conceal these feelings so as not to appear to be unloving parents. Privately, they may worry what their true feelings suggest about the kind of parent and person they really are.
Pluralistic ignorance can also leave people with unwarranted feelings of alienation.
The perception that they are out of step with their piers can leave people feeling less close to their peers as well as less committed to the identity they share.
Pluralistic ignorance is characterized both by the mistaken perception that you differ from the average other, and by the mistaken perception that your peers are more similar to one another than they are. This latter phenomenon is known as the illusion of universality.
Feeling out of step with other group members leaves one feeling deviant from, and unconnected to, the group.
Keg bans Students who believed they were deviants in supporting a campus keg ban reported that the were less likely to take action on the keg ban, less likely to attend college reunions, and less likely to donate money to the college.
It some cases people can feel alienated from their peers and superior to them at the same time.
Even when people do not feel uncomfortable with the manner in which they differ from their peers, they may feel uncomfortable about the fact that they differ. Specifically, they will feel less close to their peers as well as less connected to the group identity they share.
Feelings of deviance result both from:
- People’s perceptions of difference between themselves and others
- People’s evaluations of their reactions to they difference
The consequences of pluralistic ignorance for individuals go beyond their feelings bout themselves and their relation to their group. Pluralistic ignorance also affects people’s actions and, as a consequence, their life circumstances.
Pluralistic ignorance about others’ romantic feelings leads individuals not to initiate relationships.
Fear of romantic rejection Individuals assumed that their own aloof behavior reflected fear of being romantically rejected whereas others’ aloof behavior reflected lack of interest. As a result, they do not initiate relationships.
There are two ways to combat pluralistic ignorance and the ills it produces:
- Getting people to overcome their urge to censor themselves.
- Dispelling it— informing people that others feel the same way as they do.
**Some individuals do not have stereotypes automatically activated but are instead able to control them pre consciously. **
Egalitarians’ control of stereotypes Non egalitarians shown black faces were quicker to pronounce stereotype-relevant than irrelevant words. Egalitarians in the same condition did not pronounce these words quicker.
Desire to counteract the idea that one is racist may prevent the stereotype activation.
Counteracting the label ”racist” Individuals who received feedback that they were racist later showed less stereotype activation than those who did not receive feedback.
Individuals justify discriminatory behavior by using the stereotyped member’s questionable behavior
Game of scrabble and race. White participants helped black and white Scrabble players equally when the game was difficult through no fault of the player. However, they were less helpful to black than white players if the players’ struggles were caused by perceived laziness.
Individuals justify discriminatory behavior by using the ambiguity of the situation.
Bystander effect and reach White participants helped backslash slightly more than whites when they believed that they we’re the only one witnessing the emergency. However, they helped blacks much less than whites when they believed others also witnessed the emergency.
Individuals discriminated more when it is clear that their behavior could be caused by a non-discriminatory motive.
Picking movies and race White participants chose to sit next to the black person more when the same movies were playing on two monitors than when different movies were playing on both monitors.
Individuals who are not told that they are not racists (and therefore have gained “moral credentials”) are freer to act in ways that could be seen as prejudiced.
Being called “not racist” as moral credentials Individuals who received feedback that they were not racist were later less likely to pick a weak black candidate over a stronger white candidate.
Individuals who through their previous behavior demonstrated low prejudice are freer to act in ways that could be seen as prejudiced. This seems to result from actual concern with being prejudiced, not from appearing unprejudiced.
Non prejudiced tack record as moral credentials Individuals who were in a condition in which they initially selected a black applicant were ore likely in a second task not to recommend a black for a job in a hostile work environment than those who were in a condition in which they initially selected a white applicant. This effect occurred regardless of whether the audience for the second decision knew about the initial selection.
Individuals may show preferential treatment to blacks in order not to appear prejudiced.
Restaurant dress codes an race In restaurants requiring a tie, black couples were twice as likely as white couples to be seated when the man did not have a tie.
Individuals make choices in which they censor themselves in order to appear rational.
Chocolate cockroaches College students chose a more expensive chocolate cockroach over a less expensive chocolate heart.
People are disposed to censor their private imposes and feelings when they feel that acting upon them would be irrational.
Individuals censor their feelings of unfairness in order to make a selection in which they receive the most money.
Psychological study payment When unaware of the other option, individuals chose a lower-paying experiment in which everyone was paid the same amount over a higher paying experiment in which others were being paid more. When choosing between the two options, individuals chose the nighter-paying experiment even though they would likely resent the unfair play.
Individuals make selections in order to appear rational although they may know that the decision will result in lower psychological well-being
Job offers and office size Individuals were confronted with two jobs, one involving a small office for them (which was similar to an equally qualified person’s office), the other involving a medium office for them (which was smaller than that of an equally qualified other person). Individuals reported that they would choose the job with the larger office although they would be happier with the fairer allocation.
Individuals censor feelings of procedural justice in order to give the appearance of maximizing salary consideration.
MBA job offers and salaries When the jobs were presented one at a time, individuals were more likely to select the job in which they were treated with more respect than the job with less respect and more money. Asked to choose between the two jobs, they selected money over respect.
Individuals will make a decision that will bring them less satisfaction because it is the rational choice
Fairness & litigation Individual’s likelihood to sue over lost work depended on how much money they expected to make. Their satisfaction after the case was more highly predicted by how fairly they perceived they were treated than how much money they made.
In the above study, we see people making decisions that minimize rather than maximize their satisfaction. People may know how important relational considerations (e.g. fair treatment) are in determining how satisfied they will be with their decisions, but they are uncomfortable letting that knowledge inform their decisions.
Individuals censor their feelings of embarrassment in order to appear rational.
Baby pacifier study Individuals would receive more money for giving a live presentation about a baby pacifier than a written one. When their audience did not know of the payment schedule, participants chose the written description. But when that audience knew participants chose the embarrassing live presentation for which they received more money.
Thinking about the reasons for their behavior may shift people toward more “rational” and less satisfying choices.
Choosing college courses Individuals asked to select the college courses based their decision in large part on other student’s evaluations. However, when asked to think about an rate each of the possible reasons for selecting a course, participants used more legitimate reasons, such as course format or content.
It appears that reflection upon the reasons for their decision leads people to focus primarily on those attributes that seem plausible and legitimate reasons for liking the object of concern rather than on those **attributes that actually influence liking for it.
Individuals emphasize self-interest when explaining their behavior even though tother less seemingly rational reasons may account for it.
National election study Individuals’ voting behavior was generally found to be largely unrelated to how much better of worse off they reported being compared to four years before. But when they are asked this question in exit polls, there is a strong correlation, suggesting that people do not want to appear to be acting against their economic self-interest.
People’s attitudes often are based much more on principle, and less on economic calculus or “hard” facts, than their accounts suggest to be the case.
People may conceal their compassion under the guise of self-interest.
Americans are helpful Although many Americans engage in various acts of compassion and kindness, they emphasize that the behaviors are motivated by more practical or instrumental reasons.
People may use self-interest to justify morally questionable behavior
Lying about a boring task Individuals paid $20 to lie to someone else did not believe their lie, but those paid only $1 changed their opinion to be more in line with the lie they told. Presumably receiving $20 justified lying.
Individuals are freer to act on their true (albeit less rational) choices if the reason for their choice is ambiguous.
Proofreading text When it was clear that reading boring furniture ads would yield higher pay than reading more interesting personal ads, participants read more furniture ads. When it was not entirely clear, although probable, that reading furniture ads would be more profitable, participants chose to read more personal ads.
Incentives may serve to provide a justification for helping rather than actually motivate helping.
Exchange fiction Individuals faced with a high-need situation gave more when offered an inceptive in exchange for helping rather than when offered no incentive. Those faced with a low-need situation were unaffected by the incentive.
The role of incentives as justifications rather than motivators come into play when pole already are motivated to help but are inhibited from doing so, as was the case for the individuals in the high-need condition.
Those who have had an economics course act more in line with their self interest.
Learning economic theory Students taking economic courses (particularly those taught by experts in theories of self-interest) came to believe that acting in a self-interested way was the rational and appropriate way to act.