The Unintentional Nonconformist: Habits Promote Resistance to Social influence
Abstract
This research tests a novel source of resistance to social influence—the automatic repetition of habit. In three experiments,
participants with strong habits failed to align their behavior with others. Specifically, participants with strong habits to drink
water in a dining hall or snack while working did not mimic others’ drinking or eating, whereas those with weak habits
conformed. Similarly, participants with strong habits did not shift expectations that they would act in line with descriptive
norms, whereas those with weak habits reported more normative behavioral expectations. This habit resistance was not
due to a failure to perceive influence: Both strong and weak habit participants’ recalled others’ behavior accurately, and it
was readily accessible. Furthermore, strong habit participants shifted their normative beliefs but not behavior in line with
descriptive norms. Thus, habits create behavioral resistance despite people’s recognition and acceptance of social influence.
The Power of Listening in Helping People Change
Guy Itzchakov, Avraham N. (Avi) Kluger
Listening
Giving performance feedback is one of the most common ways managers help their subordinates learn and improve. Yet, research revealed that feedback could actually hurt performance: More than 20 years ago, one of us (Kluger) analyzed 607 experiments on feedback effectiveness and found that feedback caused performance to decline in 38% of cases. This happened with both positive and negative feedback, mostly when the feedback threatened how people saw themselves.
Keep reading
Avoiding harm, benefits of interpersonal listening, and social equilibrium adjustment: An applied psychology approach to side effects of organizational interventions
Guy Itzchakov, Justin B. Keeler, Walter J. Sowden, Walter Slipetz, and Kent S. Faught
Listening
Creating positive change in the direction intended is the goal of organizational interventions.
Watts et al. (2021) raise this issue of “side effects,” which include changes that are unintended and often in the opposite direction of the organizational intervention. With our expertise in applied psychology, military psychiatry/neuroscience, organizational behavior, and corporate safety, we argue for three additional factors for consideration: avoiding harm, the benefits of high-quality interpersonal listening, and a discussion of side effects as a natural part of the change process. We offer these as a means of extending the conversation begun by Watts et al.
Keep reading