By Jen Cole Wright
To live together in social communities, people create and maintain expectations about what is normal and what is not. Sometimes things can fall outside the range of normal and people are OK with it. You might have a neighbor who likes to wear Revolutionary War-era costumes on their evening walks around the neighborhood. Their behavior seems weird to you, but you consider it an instance of everyone’s freedom to express themselves.
But other times something seems not only abnormal but also unacceptable. In this case, people take active steps to squelch what feels unfair, inappropriate, bad or deviant. Things that people think are morally abnormal – aberrant behavior, transgressions, violations of their most sacred values – are viewed as highly threatening and necessary to shut down, with force if necessary. Most people would find a neighbor who purposefully starves and tortures their dogs morally repugnant. That neighbor would need to be stopped and would deserve to be punished.
A decade of research in my psychology lab and others’ demonstrates that people struggle to express tolerance for different moral values – for instance, about sexual orientation, helping the poor, being a stay-at-home mother and so on.
In study after study, people are less willing to help, share with, date, be roommates with and even work for people who have different moral values. Even children and adolescents express more willingness to shun and punish moral transgressors than people who do something personally obnoxious or offensive but not immoral.
When asked to talk with a stranger who they know disagrees with them, people will turn their bodies away more and move farther away when the disagreement involves a moral rather than personal disagreement. And they are more willing to condone using violence against someone who doesn’t share their morals.
All this sounds like bad news for societies like ours filled with people who hold diverse moral values. But there is an important counterbalance to this blanket intolerance. When people sense disagreement within their community about moral issues – even those they personally feel strongly about – it pushes them to have tolerance for people with other views.
In other words, when it is clear that people you see as your peers – members of your community – disagree with each other, you recognize the need for continued respectful discussion. It automatically tones down the natural tendency toward intolerance for moral views that differ from your own.
Splintering off into polarized groups
While perceived disagreement within a community appears to function as a corrective to intolerance, the opposite is also true: Consensus is a powerful trigger of intolerance. When most of the community agrees that something is morally bad, then those who disagree are viewed as outliers and labeled as “deviant.” Intolerance becomes not only justified but is seen as necessary.
But how is consensus reached? In diverse, democratic societies like ours − where people are allowed to form their own opinions − there are two ways this might happen.
The democratic ideal is that over time, through shared discussion and reflection, people eventually come to an agreement or compromise. Once a sense of consensus – or close enough – has been reached, group members can be confident that those who continue to disagree can be safely ignored or no longer tolerated.
More often, though, consensus is achieved when the disagreement becomes strong enough to fracture communities into multiple, smaller “issue-position” groups. Here’s an example.
Olivier Le Moal/iStock via Getty Images Plus
Consider a controversial issue, such as abortion. Two people may agree that terminating a pregnancy is something that causes harm but also falls within women’s reproductive autonomy. Yet, at the same time, they may disagree – one prioritizes discouraging abortions whenever possible, while the other prioritizes the freedom to make that choice.
Over time, the two people encounter others whose views are more extreme. Because the two resonate more with different sides of the issue, they find themselves pulled in opposite directions, eventually becoming more at odds with each other.
At the community level, when more extreme views grow strong enough and gain enough traction with enough people, it activates new group identities. Where once there was a community of people who disagreed with one another about abortion, there are now two smaller, distinct and separate communities of pro-lifers and pro-choicers.
What is problematic is that issue-position groups, by definition, create consensus, signaling to their members that they, and not the other group, have got things right.
Civility toward the other side is no longer required: The other viewpoint, and anyone who holds it, is considered morally wrong. Intolerance, though, can become a moral mandate. Members of issue-position groups often find themselves on a moral crusade against the other side.
Extreme identities in opposition
Unfortunately, this type of group-driven consensus is increasingly common.
One prominent example in the United States is that people are more likely than they were in the past to experience politics as not just about disagreement on various political values and approaches to governance but as opposing groups. Being liberal or conservative is an identity that puts one group in opposition to the other. And only one side can be “right” and “moral.”
At least in these group-identity-fueled contexts, people can lose sight of the fact that they are all Americans, even going so far as to assert that their smaller group represents the only “true” or “real” Americans.
The proliferation of issue-position groups is made easier by the ability to quickly find and connect with people who share your views via the internet and social media. Many Americans don’t actively participate in civic life within the larger groups they’re a part of, such as their neighborhood or city, where they would naturally encounter a diversity of opinions. People have less practice sharing their views and making room for those who disagree.
Olga Pankova/Moment via Getty Images
In contrast, it’s easy, especially online, to find like-minded communities to join and feel validated. This is made even easier by the algorithms employed by search engines and social media apps that prioritize showing content that reflects and reinforces your beliefs, values, activities and practices and shields you from those who are different – unless presenting them as things to disparage and hate.
This process can accelerate movement toward extreme issue-position groups and identities. As online algorithms begin taking people down different paths, the likelihood that they will find themselves ultimately with more extreme attitudes becomes more probable and more rapidly accomplished.
Reengaging with your broader communities
How can people combat this dangerous trend?
For one, you can get off social media and back into your communities, welcoming opportunities to interact with the complex diversity they contain. And even when online, you can take intentional steps to “burst” the alogrithms, actively finding ways to connect with people who are not like you and ideas with which you may not agree.
Most importantly, you can always take a step back from the impulse toward intolerance and humbly remember our shared humanity. Even looking into another’s eyes without words can activate compassion and remind you that we are all ultimately members of the same global community.
Jen Cole Wright is Professor of Psychology at the College of Charleston.
Deborah Coffey says
“Love thy neighbor.” The hardest commandment to obey….
Sherry says
While I certainly appreciate the psychological point of view of this article. In my opinion, not acknowledging that such “Groupthink” to the extreme has resulted in the US having a “Convicted Felon” as President leaves the whole premise falling short.
Ray W, says
Hello Sherry.
Thank you.
On “groupthink”, I recall a novel by Barry Unsworth, The Songs of Kings, W. W. Norton & Company (2003) that dealt with the psychology of some of the Greeks prior to the invasion of Troy.
A priest of Zeus, Chasimenos, in concert with Odysseus, concocted an omen of two eagles killing a hare while the fleet of King Agamemnon awaited the abating of the winds holding the ships in port. Needing witnesses to present the omen to the king, Phylakos was ordered to prepare three guards who could tell Agamemnon of their spotting the omen while on dawn watch. One of the three blurted out that the two eagles had killed a pregnant hare and then eaten the unborn litter from the womb, implying that Troy and its people were the hare. This addition of the eaten litter dramatically changed the import of the omen, making the “groupthink” of the assembled host listening to the prepared testimony impossible to predict. The originally intended omen was no more, and Odysseus sought an explanation from Phylakos:
“‘What went wrong?’ Odysseus took care to keep his tone casual. The last thing he wanted to do was antagonize the man before him, who might then decide to change sides. Unlikely, he was too deeply implicated. But Phylakos was corrupt, and so more easily offended in his dignity than an honest person. ‘I mean to say, it was a simple enough matter, wasn’t it? All you had to do was coach the men in the story so they didn’t contradict each other.
“He had thought at one point that Calchas [a priest of Appollo] would take it into his head to interrogate the three separately, in which case discrepancies would certainly have been revealed. But he had seen almost at once that there was nothing to worry about. Behind his professional manner the priest was terrified of discrediting a symbol so potent; to do so would have been to cast doubt on the success of the expedition in the presence of the man who was leading it. A braver man than Calchas would quail at that. ‘Just a device, really, wasn’t it?’ he said. ‘The hare, I mean. A proof of our loyalty and devotion, strengthening belief in victory, holding things together through these difficult days. Agamemnon was ready to believe it, so was everyone else. Almost everyone.’ He thought of the priest again. Something would have to be done about Calchas. Too much play of mind. He glanced at the dogged face before him, weathered by a score of campaigns. Not much play of mind there. ‘How did this pregnancy business get into it?’
“Phylakos stared unwaveringly before him, habit of an old soldier who felt himself under reprimand. He had been summoned to Odysseus’ tent early for this private talk. Chasimenos, who had also been party to the story, was due later. ‘We couldn’t have known he would come out with that,’ he said. His voice was scraped, painful-sounding, as if always proceeding from a parched throat.
“‘But you must have known he was a hysteric. Those with him must have known.’
“‘Hysteric?’
“Odysseus sighed. ‘They must have known he had a screw loose. You only had to look at his face.’
“‘They said he screamed in his sleep sometimes, and sometimes laughed for no reason, but they were used to him. They thought nothing of it and neither did I. All the fool had to do was keep his mouth shut.’
“‘Well, he didn’t.’ Odysseus paused for a moment or two, then said in a tone of wonder rather than reproach, ‘And you backed him up.’
“There was no reply to this and Odysseus expected none. It had been a bad mistake, but he knew Phylakos had not been able to help himself; it had been in the nature of a reflex action. The backup, the closing of ranks, the solidarity to the group, this was the conditioning of military life. It counted for morality with many, even in support of a lie. Only very rare beings were free of such limiting factors, such blindness to their own interest: clear-sighted men, who saw things steadily and saw them whole. Men like himself. ‘Well,’ he said, ‘it’s too late to do anything about it now. I trust this blabbermouth will be rendered harmless, made incapable of further damage, what’s the word I’m looking for?’ He liked this fishing for words, casting, seeing the float bob, pulling up a plump one. But Phylakos, still staring doggedly before him, was not the right sort for it. This time he was obliged to answer his own question. ‘Neutralized,’ he said.
“‘Snuffed out, you mean? Already taken care of. That’s one motherfucker won’t talk out of turn again, I can promise that.’
“‘Your patriotism will be remembered and rewarded,’ Odysseus said. ‘Liberally rewarded. You know, when we get across the water.'”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
The members of the professional lying class at the top of one of our two political parties rely on this type of backup, of the closing of ranks, of the obedience without thought or question, heedless of the immorality of the gullible among us laundering their lies.
Sherry says
Greetings from gorgeous Jackson Hole, Wyoming. The snow covered Grand Tetons with their saw toothed peaks reflected beautifully in the still partially frozen grandeur of Jenny’s lake.
Thank you for your in depth, historic analysis of how the dangers of “Group Think” is certainly nothing new. I guess it’s flawed human nature that shows we too seldom learn for our mistakes.
Laurel says
Oh my goodness! Look up in the night sky in Jackson Hole, and you will see more stars than you have ever seen anywhere! As Carl Sagan would have said “billions, and billions of stars!” Enjoy.
I’m definitely not a group person. In a group, your group is only as strong as its weakest link. However, I do believe in diversity of thought, and action, as long as it does not harm children, animals and those who are marginalized. Keep it within consenting adults.
We have tried to talk to our maga friends, keeping it at a friendly level. It has little effect. We said, “Watch PBS for one night. Watch the PBS New Hour. Watch Nature. Watch Nova. Just one night.” I watched News Hour, and saw good reporting, not one sided comments. I watched Nature, and saw “Bugs that Rule the World.” Absolutely fascinating, and with great photography. I watched Nova’s “Ultimate Crash Test.” Really interesting!
What did our maga friend watch? None of that. He and his wife absolutely refused to watch one night of PBS’s line up of shows. They have no idea what they have missed. They do not want to know.
So, what do you do? Just don’t talk about it. The only way to retain the friendship. Superficial.
Sherry says
Dear Laurel,
Your story about your maga friends is so very telling and so very sad. Sorry!
I guess it depends on how you define friends as compared to acquaintances. For us, we treasure each and every moment as we rapidly move closer to the end of our much too short lives. We much prefer to spend those fleeting moments with those where there is loving mutual respect and trust. Yes, there are those we have left behind. We simply chose relaxed, comfortable, happy times with loving friends.
Laurel says
Sherry: I get what you are saying, but these friends are from childhood, and were always good friends. They just got caught up in the cult. Others are family, whose own siblings and kids do not agree with them and feel their family members were also caught up in the cult. These cult members falsely blame others for their own bad decisions. So, do you walk away? No, but the distancing is inevitable, and upsetting…and the relationships are reduced to superficial discussions. We still care, but there are topics that are taboo.