New study sheds light on when to stand out or fit in

When it comes to job interviews, conventional wisdom often suggests that standing out is key to securing a position—seemingly at odds with the general human tendency to conform. A new study by SFI Complexity Postdoctoral Fellow Katrin Schmelz and her co-authors reveals that it may indeed be wise to stand out in such situations, but surprisingly, not just to attract attention.

Published in The Economic Journal, the study sheds light on situations where people may strategically attempt to stand out or fit in. The possibility of being selected for something good like a job offer or award encourages anticonformity, while the threat of being selected for something bad—maybe an unpleasant duty or layoff—leads to more conformity, the authors found.

For the experiment, Schmelz and her co-authors Fabian Dvorak and Urs Fischbacher at Konstanz University in Germany studied the behavior of 871 students in three domains: factual knowledge, personal taste, and creativity. In each case, participants made decisions both independently and after seeing the choices of others. When they could be selected for something bad, participants overwhelmingly chose to conform, potentially out of fear of drawing attention. However, in situations where rewards were involved, some participants deliberately chose to stand out.

The study also investigated how “evaluators” selected individuals for a positive reward or an undesirable consequence. The results suggest that having things in common with an evaluator is much more important than being noticeable. Evaluators preferably assigned rewards not to those who stood out, but to those similar to themselves. When selecting for punishment, people who stood out were more in danger, while being similar to the evaluator provided protection.

Nevertheless, standing out can be a powerful strategy to attract a reward when the group is diverse. If the evaluator’s tastes are similar to those of the majority group, fitting in won’t make it likely to be selected. But if the evaluator’s tastes are different from the majority, standing out greatly increases one’s chances of being selected (as long as the minority is not too small.) The study suggests that job candidates may want to reconsider the standard business suit they were planning on wearing to their interview in favor of a more casual look—assuming enough committee members like a casual look.

The study also uncovered a limitation of standing out to attract rewards: This approach may falter when a population or group is too homogeneous. In groups with high similarity, it is unlikely that an evaluator exists who will prefer a candidate who is different from the rest. This presents a worrying implication for hiring practices, as it suggests that efforts to promote diversity could be undermined in rather homogeneous environments.

Interestingly, the study revealed different levels of conformity depending on the domain. For example, people were more likely to conform in factual scenarios—situations where there is a right or wrong answer. However, when it came to creativity or matters of personal taste, there was more room for anticonformity, especially when rewards were involved.

“Conformity is important for stability and following social norms, while anticonformity is key for creativity and innovation,” Schmelz says.

Overall, the results of the study shed light on human tendencies to conform or break away and offer a deeper understanding of the psychological factors that drive these behaviors. By recognizing these patterns, both individuals and evaluators can make more informed decisions in settings where evaluations and judgments carry weight.