Skip to main content

Verified by Psychology Today

Conformity

Nonconformity Has Counter-Intuitive Benefits, Study Finds

Standing up for what you believe in—even when it's unpopular—is good for you.

Source: turgaygundogdu/SHutterstock

Are you someone who tends to speak your mind, or are you more inclined to keep your opinions to yourself and go along with the crowd? Even though being a nonconformist can be psychologically daunting—a new study reports that the experience of standing your ground (against the unanimous peer pressure of a group) triggers an invigorating and healthy physiological response.

I tend to be outspoken, even when I know it’s unpopular. Of course, this can be nerve wracking. That said, I’ve learned from life experience that it feels good on a visceral level to express my vantage point wholeheartedly—while backing up my opinions with empirical evidence. I believe the pros of having the courage to be an iconoclast far outweigh the cons of being a lemming, who always follows the crowd.

Standing Your Ground Against a Group Is Physiologically Invigorating

Throughout my life, I’ve discovered that it feels rewarding and life-affirming to take the road less traveled and to be a trailblazer, even when it's psychologically terrifying. Because I tend to identify with people who are marginalized or treated like second-class citizens, I will always stick my neck out to speak up for the underdog.

Feeling like a black sheep is something I'm used to. It may sound strange, but I find being an outsider empowering. I've never wanted to be a part of the establishment or someone who strives to maintain the status quo. Along these lines, I've considered myself a political activist since the late 1980s, when I joined ACT UP, whose motto is "Silence=Death."

Based on these anecdotal experiences, I was excited to read a new study from the University at Buffalo (UB) which provides empirical evidence that sticking up for your beliefs is more beneficial—on a physiological level—than going with the flow in an attempt to avoid ruffling others' feathers.

The August 2016 study, “Alone Against the Group: A Unanimously Disagreeing Group Leads to Conformity, but Cardiovascular Threat Depends on One's Goals,” was published in the journal Psychophysiology.

Although previous studies have examined the psychological consequences of an individual standing his or her ground, these studies focused on self-reported attitudes. The presumption of earlier research was that, because it feels uncomfortable to be the lone dissenter, people are generally motivated to conform in an attempt to relieve potential discomfort.

However, the researchers at UB had a different hypothesis. They wanted to test the physiological response that an individual has while refusing to cave in to a group’s consensus. For this study, the researchers used the perspective of the biopsychosocial model to measure if expressing one's political opinions to a disagreeing group actually led to a cardiovascular “threat response" marked by high total peripheral resistance and low cardiac output.

In a statement, lead author, Mark Seery, an associate professor in UB's Department of Psychology, said, "People can show conformity, but going along with the group doesn't mean they're going along happily. The external behavior isn't necessarily a good indication of their internal experience."

By measuring cardiovascular responses, Seery and colleagues were able to gauge how people’s bodies responded while in the act of conforming or being a nonconformist. This study provides new insights by investigating the experience of standing alone against a group in real-time as it was happening.

For this study the researchers assigned participants into one of four experimental conditions—each with a goal to either fit in with a group's political opinion or assert their individuality towards a group that either agreed or disagreed with participants' opinion on a particular issue.

According to the researchers, low resources and high demands lead to less confidence and feelings of threat, which often produce anxiety. Conversely, while trying to reach a goal by sticking up for yourself, the combination of high resources and low demands leads to a more positive, invigorating experience. This is described as "challenge," which corresponds with feeling more confident. In a statement, Seery said,

"When participants' goal was to fit in with a group of people who disagreed with them, their cardiovascular responses were consistent with a psychological threat state. In contrast, when the goal was to be an individual among a group of people who disagreed with them, their cardiovascular responses were consistent with challenge.

You may have to work to reach a goal, but when you experience challenge, it is more like feeling invigorated than overwhelmed. It is consistent with seeing something to gain rather than focusing on what can be lost."

Conclusion: The Rewards of Nonconformity Beat Succumbing to a Herd Mentality

The researchers believe these findings have particular relevance in a Presidential election year. As Seery concludes, "It could easily be overwhelming to face a group on the other side of an issue or candidate, but this study suggests that reminding yourself of wanting to be an individual can make it a better experience, challenging instead of threatening, invigorating instead of overwhelming."

To read more on this topic, check out my Psychology Today blog posts,

© 2016 Christopher Bergland. All rights reserved.

Follow me on Twitter @ckbergland for updates on The Athlete’s Way blog posts.

The Athlete's Way ® is a registered trademark of Christopher Bergland.

advertisement
More from Christopher Bergland
More from Psychology Today