Social conformity and the Salem witch trials

The Salem witch trials existed as simply one eruption following a series of violent storms dating back to the beginning of the burnings. Thousands of innocents were put to death in Europe in the previous years, but less than twenty died in Salem, making it a blip on the radar compared to the overall mass of killings. With this in mind we can’t help but question why Salem has attracted so much of our attention. It could perchance be that no one has conceived an undeniable explanation for the incident this in turn might give rise to the fear that a witch hunt like Salem may occur again.

When studying the origins of a witch trial one must essentially examine the social and psychological underpinnings of the group. In all of the varieties of witch trials, from the Red Scare to the Clinton impeachment, these sometimes scandalous tendencies appear to be universally analogous with each other. Thus meaning that a definite, yet not so simple social conformity predisposition is involved in all of these episodes. The occurrences of the Salem witch trials and the beliefs held by the citizens can be explained, at least in part, by the psychological biases held by the general public.

While it is true that people tend to adhere to popular ideas in order to validate their own personal beliefs, it is more truthful to say that the popular view was created and sustained by their conformity and by group-think. Although, the popular belief may have originated from someone or something influential and high up in the hierarchy (the Church) its power comes from its mass acceptance. Once a leader supports a certain idea the rest of the ‘herd’ will follow creating a bandwagon effect, performing or believing in a certain thing just because others do or believe in it. These ideas and practices are then referred to as memes. The beliefs held at Salem were not novel, but centuries old and essentially memes or units of cultural information. As demonstrated, the witch trials have everything to do with psychology (which is behind virtually every human action and concept), but the most important tool in recognizing these tendencies is to examine the trial itself.

Salem, like most other villages was made up of a very rigid caste system. The meetinghouse is an excellent example of this. The seating in this religiously oriented building was arranged so that the women and men were separated, the rich and powerful sat towards the front, the poor in the back, and the slaves and children in the balconies. This acted as a vivid visual representation of the hierarchy present in the society. The closer one is to the reverend the more power one has and the more important one is to God. Because of the blatancy of one’s social position stereotypes and a sense of segregation thrived, therefore making the poor and unpopular especially vulnerable to accusations. The public was conditioned to be biased against each other, allowing the source of an individual’s personal conflict to be directed on someone else who was most often less popular and influential.

As could be expected, the first few women indicted were not of high standing in the society. For instance, Tituba, the slave of Samuel Parris was an especially easy target; her heritage, race, and social stature had already evoked suspicions and prejudices from the villagers; accusing her of bewitchment simply acted as a method of substantiating these beliefs.

The act of accusing itself played upon the widely held beliefs of the townsfolk. When Abigail and the other girls when into fits of convulsions and seizures the ultimate cause was accepted as bewitchment. Once asked who was the cause of these afflictions they pointed fingers, conveniently, to some of the most vulnerable individuals in town.

After the initial allegations, there was an explosion of, “I saw ‘so-and-so’ with the Devil.” Each person accused pointed the finger at other people in order to escape persecution and feed the fire. Interestingly enough, once a new person was accused many of the other townspeople jump in and accuse that person of doing other evil deeds. This effect echoes the bias of hindsight, the “I knew it all along” effect. Seemingly ordinary and often charitable things that the alleged witch did for them are now reminisced as malicious acts. A fictional example is Goody Putnam’s testimony against Rebecca Nurse for the deaths of her babies (from the Crucible by Arthur Miller). This instance is also a good example of belief bias in which one will tend to accept the conclusions that correspond with one’s beliefs. The notion that Putnam could not bear a child to term was too shameful for her which was subconsciously repressed and the blame was directed to an outside source (an example of defensive projection or “scapegoating”). Since the popular reason for misfortune in those years was the Devil, bewitchment was automatically attributed to the cause.

The group polarization phenomenon also explains why so many people jumped in to accuse. People tend to be more extreme in their opinions and decisions in groups in order to make a point and polarize from the opposing opinion. Thus the more people joined Abigail in the frenzy, the stronger the pressure to make and maintain an accusation.

The attribution error is a critical element in explaining why individuals sought to point the finger in the first place. In order to gain a better sense of control people often attribute a specific cause to the events around them. For instance, when another person has erred, one will imply that it is due to internal personality characteristics. However, when the individual has made a mistake, he or she will most likely attribute the causes to certain situational factors in order to deflect the blame from themselves.

Spectral evidence was the primary and virtually only grounds for prosecution. Only when this type of ‘proof’ was denounced by authorities, the witch trials came to an end. Why was this allowed in court? Since witchcraft was a very difficult charge to prove spectral evidence provided a seemingly fool-proof verification. This played upon peoples beliefs that witches did not physically perpetrate these acts; they commissioned intangible spirits or the Devil to commit the crimes. The “victims” could easily pretend to be bewitched and obtain control over others and gain sympathy from the town, making it an easy way for someone low in the social hierarchy to gain popularity. This kind of behavior is referred to as a social trap: one harms themselves and/or others by working in one’s own self-interest. “Goody Proctor, bit, pinched, and almost choked me!” exclaimed Ann Putnam Jr., one of the most active girls in the witch craze, indicted over 60 people. Her extensive list of accusations may have been at least partially due to the pressure she faced by her parents and community elders who held numerous grudges against the “witches”.

It appears that this adherence to popular ideas is more than a validation of one’s own beliefs, but also a type of societal survival mechanism used to conform and adapt. In addition, the adoption of many of these common beliefs acts as a psychological defense mechanism, giving them a seemingly rational explanation and a sense of control.

Since the burnings had been so prominent in Europe it seemed only a matter of
time until the chaos broke out in America. The Puritans shared the same beliefs about witches as their neighbors across the Atlantic, they had been raised on the same fairy tales, and their reverends preached the same propagandized fear. Almost everyone adhered to the same widespread ideas and incorporated them into their lives to shift responsibility for strokes of bad luck and poor crops to the Devil and his minions. Such a profound and odious occurrence should be used as a learning experience. Yet, this lack of personal responsibility and blame has not subsided. Instead, it has molted onto different forms (the Red Scare, the holocaust) with increasing variability. People do not seem to learn from the mistakes of others, but, in actuality, repeat them. Perhaps one day we will be able to kick this defensive cycle and take back control of the wheel, rowing our own boat instead of letting the water carry us where it pleases.

2006