Creative deviation: How few rule breakers determine group dynamics

If a pedestrian drops trash on the street, the likelihood that others will do the same increases. How contagious rule breaking is has been studied many times. One thing is clear: others have an influence on whether you break social norms and become a thief or evade taxes. A new study from the University of Amsterdam has now examined the extent to which the severity of the violation influences one's own behavior. They published their results in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B at the end of October.

In a digital behavioral experiment, the 750 participants were asked to work on a task individually. From a series of 100 boxes, some of which flashed briefly in the middle, they were asked to choose the one that glowed brightest. However, the boxes also had monetary amounts assigned to them, ranging from a British penny on the far left to a pound on the far right.

The further to the right the participants clicked from the box they were actually looking for - and the more they broke the rules of the game - the more money they could win. There were no sanctions. After the first click, they saw someone else's choice and were allowed to vote again.

The result: Almost 23 percent of the participants chose the most profitable box on the far right from the start and thus committed a serious breach of the rules. Such violations were particularly frequently imitated, increasing to up to 39 percent. If boxes were chosen just a little too far to the right, this also led some people to break the rules. However, a small group of 4.4 percent significantly outperformed cheating predecessors.

You are reading a text from our future department. If you're interested in more positive perspectives, subscribe to TEAM FUTURE, the constructive newsletter on climate, knowledge, utopias. Every Thursday you will receive an email from us with strong thoughts for you and the planet.

🐾 Sign up now for the TEAM FUTURE newsletter – free of charge

Rule-abiding behavior, on the other hand, was hardly contagious, so rule breaking increased significantly overall. In a simulation, the researchers calculated how group dynamics could develop based on the results. The 4.4 percent who behave much more brazenly when infected by others are driving an escalation curve. This is only weakened by the fact that almost a quarter of all participants adhered unwaveringly to the requirement.

The study can only be transferred to real life with certain reservations. After all, everyday actions are usually less abstract and anonymous. Violations of the rules have legal or social consequences. This is intentionally excluded from the study in order to demonstrate clear causality. Nevertheless, it shows that rule violations by a few can be enough to infect the collective's behavior.

That doesn't have to be a bad thing. Creative deviation from the rule can help social development, for example to fight for justice. Maybe a reason to think about which rules could be broken