Norm Violation Effect and The Impact of Transgressive Art
Louise Barendregt
University of Amsterdam
Bachelorthesis/ Bachelor project Sociale Psychologie
L.G. Barendregt 10208380 24-05-2015
Abstract
In this research we explore whether the artist is seen as more influential if his work is more diverse. We hypothesize that if an artist produces art that both conforms to and deviates from the norm, the artist will be seen as more influential. In four different conditions the participant saw four painting in on, two, three or four styles and answered questions about the
comparability, influence, valuation, versatility, competence, transgression and attractiveness of the paintings and artist. The comparability and versatility were significant and there was a trend for influence and attraction. The more styles the participants saw the more influential the painter was perceived.
Introduction
All people live according to particular social rules, otherwise defined as norms. These norms are used and relied on to understand and respond to social situations, especially when one is uncertain in their situation (Cialdini, 2001). Hollander’s (1958) idiosyncrasy credits theory entails that if someone conforms to the norms, he accrues credits, and if he deviates from these norms he loses credits. For this to effect to occur there has to be a group norm and the individual has to be aware of this norm, otherwise it would be impossible to conform or deviate consciously. If one does not conform to the norms and loses more credits than he accrues he will most likely be pushed out of the group. There is a point where one has accumulated enough credits, which can be translated into a higher status and, this in turn can give him the leeway to deviate from the norm. Thus having enough credit gives you power, which allows you to break the norms.
A higher status equals more power, and power is said to corrupt people. These powerful people are often known to impose norms on other but not as much on themselves (Lammers et al., 2010). Having power gives them the right to violate norms, perform
idiosyncratic behaviour, due to the credit they build up by first conforming to the norm. Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Gündemir, & Stamkou (2011) explored the reversed effect; if people that violate norms are seen as more powerful. They investigated the influence people are perceived to have due to norm violation in social situations. This effect was found and that suggests that people see violating norms as proof of a higher status.
Van Kleef et al. (2011) have found this effect in social context. To investigate if the potential of norm violating behavior to increase one’s perceived influence can generalize to other contexts, we will in the current study focus on transgressive art. The subject of art is a valid choice because art plays an important role in people’s lives and you see it everywhere;
on the street, on television, etc. Almost every one listens to music, watches movies or goes to museums. Many people enjoy art and it also influences them in different ways, as Joe
Hallgarten (2012) wrote:
“In reality, art has always influenced and will always influence the way policymakers make decisions. They will bring the totality of their experiences to bear on any issue and, for most people, some of those experiences will be cultural.”(p. 240)
It seems that art can have a big impact on how people think and on how people make decisions. This makes it interesting to explore what factors make art influential.
Art appreciation depends on multiple variables, for example the context in which it is placed (museum or art gallery) and the distinctiveness of an artist (Leder, Belke, Oeberst & Augustin, 2004). Furthermore, age and perceptual ability play a role in art perception and appreciation (Chevier & Delorme,1980). Attitudes toward art also depend on situational factors. For example Schimmel and Förster (2008) showed that people who had to think about their future had a more positive attitude towards unconventional art than people who did not think about their future. Hogan (2013) writes about art appreciation being a psychological process because it is so intertwined with our emotions and responses. He also assumes that there must be a form of violation of expectancies and a form of predictability. One way to explain this idea of violation and predictability in art appreciation is with the idiosyncratic credits theory. This means an artist’s work will be appreciated more if he first shows he can conform to the norm. If he does this well enough he can also make art that deviates from the norm and still be respected, he is allowed to break the rules and is he will be perceived as more powerful. This means that when an artist is more powerful he will be able and ‘allowed’ to paint multiple styles.
In this study we will investigate whether this also works the other way around, as Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Gündemir, & Stamkou, (2011) did with social contexts. This will
be done by investigating if transgression perception depends on whether an artist deviates from the norm set by his past work and, whether deviation from what an artist used to do plays a role on the influence inferences people make. This means we will explore whether the artist is seen as more influential if his work appears to be more diverse. We hypothesize that if an artist produces art that both conforms to and deviates from the norm, the artist will be seen as more influential.
Method Participants
The participants will be first year Psychology students that will be rewarded with course credit. In a between-subjects design, participants will be randomly divided in one of the four conditions: one-style condition, two-style condition, three-style condition or four-style condition.
Procedure
Participants were randomly divided in one of the four conditions: one-style condition, two-style condition, three-style condition or four-style condition. To make sure the participant do not know what the research is about they are told that they have to answer the questions for a museum that is researching what people like to see. The painting they get to see are below a timetable which shows that the painting are painted in different moments in his life (when he was in his 20’s, 40’s, 50’s and 70’s, see appendix A). And had to answer questions about the focal painting and the artist. This was all done on computers.
Materials
Kazimir Malevich, a Russian artist who was famous for his Suprematistic style, made all the paintings. For the different conditions we took paintings of different styles, made between 1903 and 1934. In the one-style condition the participants will see four paintings in
the suprematism style. In the two-style condition they will see three painting that are
suprematistic and one that is in the Cubic style. In the three-style condition they will see two suprematistic paintings, one cubic painting and one impressionistic painting. In the four-style all four paintings are in a different styles, one suprematistic, one cubic, one impressionistic and one realistic (see appendix A).
When seeing the four painting they have to answer questions about the artiston four scales; influence inferences, volition inferences, versatility perception and competence
perception. Influence inferences will be measured by rating how much participants agree with 8 statements on a 7-point scale (1=do not agree to 7= absolutely agree; I think this artist… has greatly influenced other artists). We will also measure volition inferences with 8
statements on a 7-point scale (1=do not agree to 7= absolutely agree; I think that... this artist’s decisions are the product of his own will). To measure the versatility perception there will be four statements rated a 7-point scale (1=do not agree to 7= absolutely agree; I think that... this artist has a multifaceted personality). The competence perception was measured by rating 5 statements on a 7-point scale (1=do not agree to 7= absolutely agree; I think this artist is … talented).
Next participants have to answer questions about the focal painting on three scales, that is, transgression perception, attraction perception and complexity perception. The participants get two options and have to decide which they think fits best with the painting, there are four questions on the transgression perception scale (I think this artwork is… realistic vs. abstract; … conventional vs. unconventional), four questions on the attraction perception scale(I think this artwork is… uninteresting vs. interesting; …uninspiring vs. inspiring) and three questions on the complexity perception scale (I think this artwork is… easy to understand vs. hard to understand).
Finally there are two more scales that are measured, purchase intention and art familiarity. Purchase intention will be measured by rating four questions on a 7-point scale from 1=not at all to 7=very much (Would you buy merchandise depicting this painting?; Would you buy a book about this artist?; How much would you be willing to spend on buying a large poster depicting one of the paintings you’ve just seen? (€5, €10, €15, €20, €25, €30, €35)). Art familiarity will be measured with three questions on a 7-point scale from 1=not at all to 7=very much (How interested are you in art in general?; Do you have any art-related education?; Do you like visiting museums?) and a question about how many times they averagely visit museums per year.
Results
Manipulation check
To check whether the participants perceived the multiple styles per condition the comparability of the different paintings with the focal painting was used as a ‘manipulation check’. A multivariate ANOVA was performed to test if the conditions differ significantly in comparability of the different paintings to the focal painting. The test showed that the four conditions differ significantly. The means of comparability did increase per condition as shown by the means in Table 1, but the first and second condition did not differ significantly and neither did the third and fourth condition.
Reliabilities
To check if all the questions of a given scale load on the same factor we carried out Factor Analyses and reliability analyses. The Cronbach’s Alpha of art familiarity (α = .716) and value (α = .741) are acceptable. The Alpha of the transgression of the focal painting (α = .632) is not high but it is still sufficient to work with. The reliabilities of attraction of the focal
painting (α = .944), influence inferences (α = .90), competence perception (α = .922) and versatility perception (α = .902) are excellent. Thus all the scales were reliable.
Table 1
Effect of Number of Styles on Comparability, Influence, Valuation, Versatility, and Competence of the Artist, and Transgression and Attractiveness of the Focal Painting.
Variables Number of Styles F p η2
1 M(SD) 2 M(SD) 3 M(SD) 4 M(SD) Comparability 2.82 (1.26) 3.19 (.63) 4.53 (1.18) 4.92 (1.12) 11.25 <.01 .42 Influence 4.49 (1.14) 4.65 (1.13) 4.59 (1.00) 5.36 (.96) 1.79 .16 .11 Valuation 3.28 (1.25) 3.73 (1.11) 3.50 (1.37) 4.12 (1.09) 1.11 .36 .07 Versatility 4.15 (1.26) 5.17 (.70) 6.00 (.1.53) 5.90 (.73) 7.50 <.01 .33 Competence 5.35 (.93) 5.47 (.72) 5.62 (1.39) 6.03 (.81) 1.15 .34 .07 Transgression (focal) 4.88 (.76) 5.08 (.52) 5.02 (1.44) 5.25 (.76) .35 .79 .02 Attractiveness (focal) 3.94 (1.65) 5.04 (1.25) 2.94 (1.64) 4.37 (1.59) 3.92 .014 .20 MANOVA
To check if the conditions differ in influence inferences, versatility, attraction
perception, transgression perception, competence, valuation, and art familiarity we performed a multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA).
There is a trend for Influence Inferences, which shows an effect of the number of styles show on the influence inferences made by the participant. In condition four, with four different styles, the influence inferences are significantly higher (p=.04) than condition 1, with just one style. The other conditions did not differ significantly from each other. There is a main effect of versatility perception. Versatility perception is significantly lower when showing one style than showing two styles, three styles or four styles. There was also a main effect of attraction perception. Condition 3 is significantly lower than condition 2 and
condition 4. Condition 1 did not significantly differ from the rest. There was however no main effect of valuation, perceived competence and perceived transgression.
There was also a main effect for art familiarity; in the third condition people had the lowest art familiarity.
Correlation
To check if there is a connection between art familiarity and art perception we
performed a correlation analyses. There is a significant correlation between art familiarity and attraction perception (p <0.01). The correlation that was found was positive (r = .455) which indicates that people with a higher art familiarity find art more attractive.
Mediation
Two mediations were performed; the first one was with attraction perception. A higher number of styles had a positive effect on influence inferences F(3, 46) = 6.70, p =.003, η 2 = .22. A higher number of styles had a positive effect on attraction F(3, 46) = .104, p =.75, η 2 = .002. So there was no mediation of attraction on influences inferences. The second one was with versatility as mediator on influence inferences. A higher number of styles had a positive effect on influence inferences F(3, 46)=11.48 , p< .001, η 2 = .33. A higher number of styles had a positive effect on versatility F(3, 46) = 18.61, p < .001, η 2 = .28. The standardized indirect effect was .33. We tested the significance of this indirect effect using bootstrapping procedures. Unstandardized indirect effects were computed for each of 10,000 bootstrapped samples, and the 95% confidence interval was computed by determining the indirect effects at the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. The bootstrapped unstandardized indirect effect was .84, and the 95% confidence interval ranged from .18, .54. The direct effect of the number of styles on influence inferences became non-significant (p = .76) which means there is a full mediation of versatility between number of styles and influence inferences.
Conclusion
We hypothesized that if an artist makes art that both conforms to and deviates from the norm, the artist will be seen as more influential. Deviating from the norm had a positive effect on perceived influence. Showing more styles increased perceived influence, which is what we expected due to the idiosyncrasy credits theory by Hollander (1958), because it shows that the artist can conform to the norm and deviate from it. Norm violation in art creates more power.
First we checked our manipulation, to check if the conditions actually differed from each other. The comparability, of the paintings to the focal painting, showing one or two styles differed from showing three or four styles. This means that participants noticed that there where more styles shown in the last two than in the first two but they did not notice a difference between the number of styles in condition 1 versus condition 2 nor between condition 3 versus condition 4. This seems to suggest that the difference shown is not big enough between these conditions, showing 1 style has the same effect on comparability as showing 2 styles and showing 3 styles had the same effect as showing 4 styles.
Also the artist is perceived as more versatile if he can paint multiple styles. There does not seem to be a difference between the number of styles, as long as it is more than one. The results of the mediation show that the number of styles positively affects versatility perception and that this then has a positive effect on the influence inferences. So the versatility of the artist is affected by deviating from the norm and this affects perceived influence.
Discussion
Most of the results supported our hypothesis, but there are some discussion points for this research. One of the biggest limitations in this research is the small sample size. A lot of the data seems to support the hypothesis but is not significant. Different results could possibly
be found if the sample size is larger. There were enough participants to use the data but more participants would make the data a lot more stable.
Another problem is the fact that the transgression perception is not significant. It is possible that this would change with a bigger sample or maybe with revised questions. The fact that versatility was significant made it possible to use this factor. Still is a problem that we wanted to use the transgression scale and this was not possible.
The last discussion point is about the attraction perception, where the data is quite illogical. We would expect a linear pattern where the painting would be perceived as more attractive as the number of styles shown increases. Instead, the condition with the focal painting was perceived as most attractive when two styles were shown. When four and one styles were shown it was found less and less attractive, and when three styles were shown it was found least attractive. The correlation between art familiarity and attraction perception could possibly mean that people with a lower art familiarity less critical and therefore find all painting more attractive. This should be studied and controlled for in a next study.
Museums could use this information when deciding their new collections. They have to make sure to show multiple styles of the artist. It is possible that this is only needed with unknown painters. When visitors already know the artist it is possible that only showing the transgressive style has the same effect as showing multiple styles of an unknown painter. Curators can also use these data because the valuation is not significant but it is still highest in the condition with the most styles, so if an artist can paint various styles his of her paintings will be worth more. Artists can use this effect by trying to paint as much different styles as they possibly can to become more influential.
References
Cialdini, R. B., & James, L. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4). Boston, MA: Pearson education.
Chevrier, J., & Delorme, A. (1980). Aesthetic preferences: influence of perceptual ability, age and complexity of stimulus. Perceptual and motor skills, 50(3), 839-849.
Hallgarten, J. (2011). Speaking doubt to power: Art as evidence for public policymaking. Public Policy Research, 18(4), 235-242.
Hogan, P. C. (2013). Art appreciation and aesthetic feeling as objects of explanation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(02), 147-148.
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological review, 65(2), 117.
Inglis, I. (1996). Ideology, Trajectory & Stardom: Elvis Presley & The Beatles. International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music, 53-78. Lammers, J., Stapel, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy:
Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 737- 744.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British journal of psychology, 95(4), 489-508.
Schimmel, K., & Förster, J. (2008). How temporal distance changes novices' attitudes towards unconventional arts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(1), 53.
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Gündemir, S., & Stamkou, E. (2011). Breaking the rules to rise to power: How norm violators gain power in the eyes of others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 500–507.
Appendix A
Systematic display of the conditions
