Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/Deference emotion system

Deference emotion system:
What is the deference emotion system, how does it work, and what are its implications?

Multimedia presentation (3 min)

Overview

Case study Jenna is 14 years old and is beginning at a new school in a different state. She doesn't know anyone on her first day but is keen to make new friends as quickly as possible to avoid being outcast. During their lunch break, Jenna approaches a group of kids from her class and asks if she can sit with them. The group agrees and they start talking and getting to know one another. Whilst the conversation is going well at first and everyone seems quite nice, Jenna notices the majority of the group start to pick on one their classmates sitting separately by themselves, calling them names and judging their appearance. Whilst this behaviour makes Jenna quite uncomfortable, she is not inclined to speak up, and instead remains quiet in silent agreement with the majority.

Figure 1. The deference emotion system represents our choice to fit it or not.

At some point in their lives, most people could likely identify a time or situation during which they acted purely out of the need to assimilate with the crowd they were in. This almost instinct behaviour derives itself from the societal need to feel liked, to feel accepted and even appreciated by those one is surrounded by. This need is not reserved for specific situations, but rather is something that will present itself to an individual whenever the need to be accepted arises. The case study above is a simplified example of a common type of situation that many people may find themselves in, where morality and conformity come head to head.

'We usually conform because we expect to be rewarded when we do and punished when we do not." .

Thomas J. Scheff was one of the first individuals to attempt to conceptualise the idea that, regardless of whether it goes against inherent morals and values or not, people will find themselves often faced with choices whereby they must choose to either obey or defy social norms. This choice and its implications culminates itself as the deference emotion system. This system aims to understand and explain what it is about social situations that cause people to assimilate themselves into the atmosphere around them and why this is something people do even when it goes against what they believe in (see Figure 1).

As a relatively new and under-researched topic, there is still much room for expansion. Whilst the basis of the system lies in extrinsic motivations to achieve social reward, there are avenues to be explored to better discover the extent that intrinsic motivations may play in the desire for reward and the fear of societal punishment.

Focus questions: What is it that motivates people to act "out of character" in order to fit in? What does the resistance to, and defiance of, deference say about one's own motivations and the stability of their character? How can we use the deference emotion system to explain our unconscious desires to fit in?

Deference emotion system

The deference emotion system was a concept brought about in an attempt to identify the feelings and emotions one has when they act in and out of society's norms. The system itself is based upon the inherent feelings of shame and reward one feels when they act out of line and in accordance to, respectively, society's expectations. When one acts outside of expectations, whether due to a defiant purpose or due to personal belief systems, they are often found to experience feelings of shame and feel to have been outcast. On the other hand, when one acts in accordance to society's expectations, these acts are often accompanied by feelings of accomplishment and acceptance by their peers and surroundings.

Theories of the self

Whilst the deference emotion system was created to encapsulate the feelings and outcomes that arise out of conformity and deviance to social norms and pressures, it does not specify the underlying reasons as to why one may choose to do this. Over recent decades, social psychologists and theorists have looked to discover what it is that motivates and influences people to act the way they do in social situations.

Social identity theory

Figure 2. There are many varying aspects that can contribute to one's own social identity.

Perhaps one of the more well known social psychological theories, the social identity theory aims to define the perception one has of themselves in terms of their group memberships. This perception consists of both personal and social identities, and both can be more or less salient at any point in time. One's personal identity is mostly defined by their inner aspects and attributions that make one 'unique'. For instance, one might think of themselves as brave or cowardly, independent or reliant, happy or sad, emotional or practical and so on. These thoughts of one's character are bound to change and evolve over time depending on a number of factors but are inherently how we view ourselves as an individual. In contrast, it is the social identity aspect that is more so based on the memberships and connections people form with other people and groups. These social identities can vary extensively, including aspects such as student, football player, family member etc (see Figure 2). These can be even further specified, for instance identifying as an architectural student, a football player for Real Madrid, or as a mother in a big family.

The theory mainly relies on the social aspect, hence its name, as this is what drives the perception of self based on others' opinions and valuations. The relevance here of this identity theory in terms of the deference emotion system comes from one of the main similarities between the two. This similarity is the way both theory and system rely on other peoples' viewings to determine action and perception. Social identity theory relies on how people view each other to inform self-perception, and the deference emotion system's basis is dictated by the fact that people act in specific ways because of the presence of others.

Thinking prompt Before reading on, perhaps take a minute or two to see if you can identify the main aspects of your personality. Think about the traits that make you unique, and then consider the groups you belong to. Do you identify with some stronger than others?

Self categorisation theory

Building upon the social identity theory, the self categorisation theory aims to narrow the focus on how individuals identify themselves and others based on what groups they belong to. This is often done through the recognition of similarities shared and the acknowledgment of differences. Some of the more obvious examples of how individuals group each other would be through race, ethnicity, gender, age and sexual orientation. These types of groupings often arise out of physical differences and similarities that are easily noticed, but groupings can also be made based on just having the knowledge that someone else is different in a certain type of way. For instance, football players may distinguish themselves by code, i.e. rugby, NRL, AFL, soccer etc., similar to how artists may divide themselves into the categories of painters, musicians and dancers. Whilst just about anyone could decide to partake in these activities, groupings may still be made regardless of the aforementioned traits.

Self categorisation as a theory has also been used to explain the conflict between in-groups and out-groups. Various studies have shown consistent trends of discrimination from in-groups towards out-groups purely based on the fact that there are differences present, regardless of whether members of these groups have previously interacted. This kind of behaviour can be linked to the part of the deference emotion system that denotes that people make decisions based on their group's behaviour. When members of the in-group behave in a certain kind of way, regardless of whether their behaviour is deemed morally right or wrong, an individual part of the same group is likely to behave and act in accordance to avoid rejection and to maintain membership.

Case study continued Consider the aforementioned case study. Jenna has found herself in a situation where the group she is wanting to fit in with (the in-group) is engaging in behaviour directly aimed at negatively impacting another individual (the out-group). A desire to remain with the in-group may be outweighing any morals Jenna has about discriminating against others.

Self discrepancy theory

Self discrepancy theory, developed by Edward Tory Higgins in 1987, denotes that the self can be split into three components: the actual self, the ideal self and the ought self. The actual self pertains to how one views themself and the attributes they believe they currently posses; the ideal self is how one hopes to present and the traits they wish to someday posses; and the ought self refers to how one believes they actually should be, the attributes, traits and behaviours they believe they should have and engage in. The theory further identifies how inconsistencies of actual-ideal self and actual-ought self often result in negative affects (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. The self-discrepancy theory describes the conflict people feel between how they see themselves and how they feel they should be.

Some commonalities between the self discrepancy theory and the deference emotion system are the feelings of alienation, shame, anxiety and dissatisfaction. When we rebuff deference and steer outside societal norms, we are often presented with feelings of shame and disappointment from others, not dissimilar to how one may experience feelings of alienation when they are outcast from a group for not being who they probably feel they should be (the ought self).

Case study continued Referring back to the original case study, it is likely that Jenna would be feeling inconsistencies between her ought self and actual self in her current situation. Whilst her actual self may feel uncomfortable with her group's behaviour, her ought self is preventing her from speaking up out of fear of alienation and r ejection.

Motivations

What are the driving factors that push people to crave acceptance and fear being outcast? Motivations come in many forms, but are often either intrinsic or extrinsic (see Figure 4). In regard to the deference emotion system, much of the research is dependent on the presence of extrinsic motivations, but taking into account the relevant social psychology theories above, it can be argued that both types of motivation can play a big role in determining one's deference to social pressures.

Figure 4. Extrinsic motivation are often environmental factors, where intrinsic motivation are internal.

Intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivations are derived from the feelings and wants within oneself, usually based off what one values in life and what is important to them personally. Intrinsic motivations could present as a desire to improve one's own performance in a role, participating in activities simply because it is fun and more. As of current, research has found that it is less likely for intrinsic motivations to prompt the actions of the deference emotion system as these motivations are more to do with satisfying one's own unique and personal needs.

Extrinsic motivation

Extrinsic motivation is more commonly associated with environmental factors and outside sources of reward. Where intrinsic motivation stems from personal desires, extrinsic motivations come in the form of wanting to please others, attain goals and rewards such as trophies or pay rises, and avoid punishments such as demotions or losing. A large part of the deference emotion system relies on the extrinsic motivations imposed on one to act and behave in a particular way, as it has currently been proven difficult to prove the unconscious, intrinsic motivations for conformity. It is important to note, however, that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations can combine to influence behaviour as it is relatively uncommon for one to be consistently present without the other.

Quiz yourself! Choose your answers and click "Submit": 1 Intrinsic motivations are outside factors that inflict on your behaviour: True False 2 It is solely outside factors, such as peer pressure, that motivate us to behaviour in a specific way: True False

Reward and punishment

The concept of reward and punishment is a main contributor to the deference emotion system as the basis of the feelings and emotions one feels when being accepted or rejected from social situations rests on the prospect and salience of potential reward or punishment. In order to experience and receive rewards, either material or immaterial (e.g. money, gifts, social praise etc.) in the case of the deference emotion system, it would not be uncommon for one to assimilate and/or concede to the majority if that is what is required.

The same concept applies to punishment. People will go out of their way to avoid punishments such as rejection, demotion, alienation etc., again by assimilating and acting in accordance and agreement with the larger crowd. However, when one acts in line with their own personal values and morals, it would not be uncommon to experience both reward and punishment in the same instance. For example, refusing to assimilate into a crowd in order to stay true to one's personal opinions may result in feelings of pride and self-efficacy, however, due to not succumbing to the pressures around them, they may be made to feel ashamed for having the values and morals they do instead of conforming to the majority.

Implications

When acting with or without deference, are individuals only aiming to please others, or is there a part of the self that is seeking inner satisfaction? It is worthwhile to consider the intrinsic motivations when conceding to or resisting deference. In identifying the reasons as to why one acts in alliance with social expectations, even in spite of true values, it could help identify possible underlying needs that crave satisfaction.

The deference emotion system could be a useful tool in mapping out the conditions in which one is more or less likely to concede their natural nature of self in order to fit in. If this mapping out could be done in an effective form, it could likely act as an aid to people who suffer from social anxiety and severe peer pressure. It could be used as an aid to help them recognise situations in which they are more likely to change their character for the sake of fitting in.

Whilst the basis of the deference emotion system can be a useful tool in understanding how people behave in social situations they way they do, there is still a lot of room for research and applications to really discover exactly why it is people behave this way. Scheff's initial deference emotion system idea focuses very heavily on social situations only, but there are a number of situations in which the need to be accepted and appreciated arise in small groups and even whilst alone. If future research can be steered in the direction of where these underlying factors of inner desires to fit in come from, the deference emotion system could become an important tool and overall interesting way to help people work through potential anxieties they have about conformity and rejection.

What would you do? Think of a time where you were in a situation that made you feel like you needed to fit in with the people around you. Think about what it was about the situation that made you feel like if you didn't act accordingly with everyone else, you might be rejected. Did you sacrifice your values for acceptance and social gain? Or did you do something to remove yourself from the situation? People will often find themselves, at least once in their lives, having to make a decision that will test their willingness to be socially accepted and what they will give up to make that happen.

Conclusion

The deference emotion system identifies the situations whereby individuals feel prompted to engage in certain behaviours, based on social norms and expectations. It summarises the feelings of shame and reward people experience when they defy and obey these expectations, respectively. As a relatively under researched area, there are various social psychology theories that can be applied and linked to the system to help define the intricacies of these behaviours, including social identity theories and the concepts of motivations and reward/punishment.

Many interesting points can be brought up here, but a common question remains that asks just how far will one go to be accepted? It is no secret that to achieve big things, people often have to sacrifice along the way and make compromises in order to get there. However, in the realm of social acceptance, is it a common act to betray one's own values to work their way in with a crowd? If so, the deference emotion system could be a particularly useful tool in identifying the types of situations these occur.

See also

• Overcoming social stigmas (Book chapter, 2016)
• Attributions and emotion (Book chapter, 2023)
• Self-discrepancy theory and emotion (Book chapter, 2023)
• Self-discrepancy theory (Wikipedia)
• ERG theory (Wikipedia)
• Behavioural economics and motivation (Book chapter, 2022)

References

Clanton, Gordon; Scheff, Thomas J. (1994). Microsociology: discourse, emotion, and social structure. Social Forces, 73(1), 321. doi:10.2307/2579932. ISSN 0037-7732.

Goss, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship and ‘the social’: Towards a deference emotion theory. Human Relations, 58(5), 617–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705055965

Harris, N. (2007). Shame, ethical identity and conformity: Lessons from research on the psychology of social influence. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228384588_Shame_ethical_identity_and_conformity_Lessons_from_research_on_the_psychology_of_social_influence

Higgins, E. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 93-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60306-8

Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127-156. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/0162-895X.00230

Kanat-Maymon, Y., Yaakobi, E., & Roth, G. (2018). Motivating deference: Employees' perception of authority legitimacy as a mediator of supervisor motivating styles and employee work-related outcomes. European Management Journal, 36(6), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.02.004

Martin, B. (1963). Reward and punishment associated with the same goal response: A factor in the learning of motives. Psychological Bulletin, 60(5), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045000

Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 39(2), 152–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312437704

Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2019). Social identity theory. In K. Sassenberg & M. Vliek (Eds), Social Psychology in Action. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_9

Scheff, T. J. (1988). Shame and Conformity: The Deference Emotion System. American Sociological Review, 53(3), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095647

Stolier, R., & Freeman, J. (2016). The neuroscience of social vision. In J. Absher & J. Cloutier (Eds), Neuroimaging Personality, Social Cognition, and Character. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800935-2.00007-5

Strauman, T. (1996). Stability within the self: A longitudinal study of the structural implications of self-discrepancy theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1142-1153. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8979383/

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Political psychology (pp. 276-293). Psychology Press.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.

Wilkinson, R. (2006). Health, hierarchy, and social anxiety. The New York Academy of Sciences, 896(1), 48-63. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08101.x

External links

• The deference emotion system (Jstor.com)
• Societal expectations and inner desires (Youtube.com)