Social Psychology in the Movies: The Breakfast Club

 Social Psychology in the Movies: The Breakfast Club

Margo Steele and Maya Moran Piedfort

The Breakfast Club is a classic 1980s comedy-drama that follows five high school students from very different social groups who are forced to spend a Saturday together in detention. Claire, the “princess,” John Bender, the “criminal,” Brian, the “brain,” Allison, the “basket case,” and Andrew, the “athlete,” all find themselves under the strict supervision of the harsh and authoritarian Principal Vernon. As the day goes on and they are forced to interact, the students begin to open up about their lives, pressures, and insecurities. Through shenanigans, honest conversations, and shared experiences, they form an unlikely bond and challenge the stereotypes they once held about one another. 

Social psychological concepts are central throughout The Breakfast Club, especially due to its focus on social groups and dynamics. The film illustrates a wide range of concepts, including self-monitoring, attribution processes such as the fundamental attribution error, self-fulfilling prophecies in person perception, stereotypes through social categorization, psychological reactance in response to authority and restriction, familiarity through the mere exposure effect, and group processes like deindividuation. 

Self-Monitoring

A key part of Bender’s personality is his refusal to conform. This lack of either the ability to recognize the norms and desires of those around him, or the desire to follow them, or both, marks him as a low self-monitor (Snyder, 1987). Self-Monitoring (Snyder, 1987) is the rate to which one changes their behavior or self-presentation as a response to the desires of the people who surround them. A high self-monitor is someone who notices and greatly values the desires of others, also sometimes colloquially called being a people pleaser. Snyder and Gangestad's (1986) Self-Monitoring Scale allows one to test oneself and see where one lies on the scale of low to high self-monitoring. 

I have no doubt Bender is a textbook low self-monitor, seen in the way in which he makes no attempt to follow the norms of the room, aka silence, and instead behaves consistently with his own desires, causing a ruckus. Brian, on the other hand, is a high self-monitor, as he is very aware at all times of the actions and opinions of others, trying to soothe the energy of the room when it reaches a crescendo, and then trying to morph into a cool guy (not a virgin) later in the movie when everyone is smoking together.

Attribution

The fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency to explain other people’s behavior as a result of their personality while underestimating the impact of situational factors (Ross, 1977). This error is evident when the characters initially judge each other’s behavior as personality-driven, assuming they act the way they do simply because of who they are. However, as they open up to each other, they start to recognize the pressures and circumstances influencing each other’s actions.

A clear example is Bender, who is labeled the group’s “troublemaker.” At the start of detention, the others assume his rude demeanor and rebellious actions mean he’s a bad person, attributing his actions to his character. Later in the film, Bender reveals the abuse and neglect he experiences at home, which helps explain why he acts defensive and aggressive towards others. This moment shows the characters shifting from blaming his personality to understanding the situational pressures shaping his behavior. 

Person Perception

Self-fulfilling prophecies occur when a belief or expectation about a person leads others to behave in ways that make that belief come true (Merton, 1948). Throughout the day, as the group bonds, the others—especially Bender—repeatedly assume that Claire, as the “princess,” will choose popularity over their new friendship. They constantly question her sincerity, tease her about her social status, and insist that she will ignore them once they return to school. These responses make Claire feel pressured and emphasize the social consequences she might face if she openly stayed friends with them. 

During a group conversation, she admits they’re right and that—come Monday—she likely wouldn’t acknowledge them at school. In this way, the group’s expectations and treatment of Claire push her toward the very response they predicted, reinforcing the stereotype attached to her label and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton, 1948).

Stereotypes

Social categorization occurs because, as humans, we automatically and quickly sort others into groups based on shared attributes (Krueger & DiDonato, 2008). This concept is central to the film, as each student is assigned a label: the brain, the athlete, the basket case, the princess, and the criminal. From the beginning, they are aware of these social categories, and before they truly get to know each other, they immediately treat each other according to these labels. 

Claire sits apart and acts polite and reserved, Andrew tries to maintain distance while still appearing like the responsible jock, Brian is quiet and studious, Allison isolates herself and behaves peculiarly, and Bender immediately causes trouble and mocks others. Their interactions quickly turn into teasing and judgment, with Bender calling Brian a dork and making comments about Claire being spoiled and shallow. None of these judgments are based on real knowledge of one another. Instead, they come from the social categories each student represents. 

The entire premise of the film revolves around social categorization (Krueger & DiDonato, 2008) because the characters believe they know who the others are based solely on the categories they belong to, despite having never actually interacted before. The film shows how these five teens move beyond these stereotypes, get to know one another on a personal level, and discover that they actually have more in common than they thought. 

Psychological Reactance

Psychological reactance (Brehm, 1956) occurs when an individual feels that their freedom and autonomy are being threatened, which motivates them to react defensively. This response is especially clear during the scene where Principal Vernon keeps giving Bender detention. Each time Vernon tries to assert his authority by raising his voice, threatening harsh punishment, and emphasizing the rules, Bender becomes more defiant. Instead of complying, he insults Vernon, talks back, and continues to challenge him. The more detention he gets, the more Bender escalates his behavior. His reaction illustrates psychological reactance because, when he feels his freedom is being controlled, he tries to regain a sense of autonomy by resisting authority (Brehm, 1956).

Familiarity

The mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968) is a phenomenon in which the more you are exposed to a stimulus, the more you begin to like and be drawn to it. In the introductory scenes of The Breakfast Club, the students all deeply dislike each other. However, as time progresses, they begin to interact more kindly with one another. The first true instance of this is seen when they begin whistling together, which occurs around 32 minutes into the movie. This suggests that they like each other more because they have been exposed to one another, as they have been locked in the detention room with nothing else to focus on. By the end of the movie, they are all considering each other friends.

Group Dynamics

Sometimes, when in a group in which blame can be evenly distributed, deindividuation (Zimbardo, 1969) will occur, a phenomenon in which individuals will perform acts they would otherwise never do if on their own. This can be seen in the actions of the students of The Breakfast Club. Even the most innocent students, Brian and Claire, engaged in impulsive, deviant behavior by leaving the room with Bender at the beginning of the movie, and later on smoking weed. They did this because they were all part of the group and therefore lost their individual accountability for the actions of the group. Most of the students would likely not have instigated these acts. However, within a group and without personal responsibility for their actions, they joined in on the shenanigans. 

To tie these concepts together, we can look at the reality of high school as a whole. Many people can relate to tendencies like losing themselves in the crowd, befriending those immediately close to them (regardless of long-term compatibility), focusing more on their own actions than others’, letting the beliefs of authority figures shape their self-perception, and grouping people into stereotyped categories. The message of The Breakfast Club is that, despite all that divides young people from each other, we are all very similar on the inside. This may be why this film was so popular in its time and continues to be. The mid 80s were all about breaking free of barriers and following your own path, and this movie shares a message that we are all similar on the inside.

n = 1413 words

Honor Code: I have acted with honesty and integrity in producing this work and am unaware of anyone who has not. /s/ Maya Moran Piedfort, /s/ Margo Steele

References:

Brehm, J. W. (1956). Post-decision changes in desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 384-389.

Krueger, J. I., & DiDonato, T. E. (2008). Social categorization and the perception of groups and group differences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 733-750. 

Merton, R. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174-221). Academic Press.

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman. 

Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125–139.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9(2), 1–27.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17, 237–307.