Social Proof Revisited
Good Morning America (GMA) aired a brief segment about a child crying on a busy sidewalk. Using hidden cameras, they filmed the various reactions of passing strangers. According to the report and those clips aired, most folks walked by without even glancing at the child. The most common exceptions were other children, at least one of whom convinced his mother to get involved. The most energetic intervention shown was a woman described as a grandmother who not only spoke with the child, but searched the area of the responsible adult and also intervened when an adult GMA employee started walking away with the child.
In his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, author Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D describes social proof by stating "that one means we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct" (p116.) He further assets that this applies especially to determining correct behavior. I enjoy this book as it covers several areas related to the ways we influence each other, providing very clear examples and research. In this chapter, a host of experiments similar to the GMA scene provided some very convincing results paralleling the above.
Another interesting result was that people were more likely to intervene in staged emergencies when alone than when in groups or in the presence of actors who ignored the emergency. Social proof is a valuable time-saving tool for decision making. It appears that at times it can backfire by providing inappropriate information which is then not questioned. Should I follow the cars ahead of me in the traffic jam as they begin signaling for the next exit? Or was it a mindless stampede started by the guy who normally exits there? Is that pale, sweating elderly man leaning against the mall wall really OK as we all pass by or does he need an ambulance?
In using social proof unquestioningly, I am essentially surrendering independent thought in favor of the shortcut. In a confined building suddenly on fire, this can be a life-saving way to find the unseen open exit located by the first people out. Follow the crowd because it is following the leaders who are now outside and across the street. When the herd is reacting to a mistaken assumption or improper choice, though, the consequences can be less happy.
There are obvious questions for me, such as asking how often I use social proof as a crutch to support the easier decision; do I really want to get involved with the crying child? Will my intentions be mistaken when I stop to help and the mother suddenly appears to defend her child from the stranger? Maybe everything is just fine the way it is - everyone else seems to think so! I try to handle this type of thing by switching perspectives at the time, by questioning the little stories my fears make up, but it seems the tendency does not disappear just because I'm aware of it!
Some less obvious questions are related to the times I may not recognize the influence of social proof, or when I may see it but don't question it due to other distractions or more pressing considerations. What decisions am I making that are almost automated, that are perhaps not even in line with my beliefs or ethics? And what other influences are out there affecting me daily, nudging my behaviors this way and that, operating just under my radar?
Once again, I come back to focusing on the moment as a way of slicing through the confusion. Not as a cure-all, but as a path of improvement. It seems to me that much of the power of social proof is due to our habits of directing attention elsewhere, thinking about things unrelated to the moment we are standing in. Of course we find great benefits in anticipating future possibilities or in reviewing past scenarios, and I know I have developed those skills to a powerful level. And I understand I am not alone in this in my culture! When looking for reasons to develop the skill of fully entering the current moment, though, perhaps I should add this morning's GMA segment to my list.
Put simply, I suspect there are times when it is not proper to let others do my thinking for me and it seems the only way for me to recognize the danger is by being present and observant enough to see it happening.
In his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, author Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D describes social proof by stating "that one means we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct" (p116.) He further assets that this applies especially to determining correct behavior. I enjoy this book as it covers several areas related to the ways we influence each other, providing very clear examples and research. In this chapter, a host of experiments similar to the GMA scene provided some very convincing results paralleling the above.
Another interesting result was that people were more likely to intervene in staged emergencies when alone than when in groups or in the presence of actors who ignored the emergency. Social proof is a valuable time-saving tool for decision making. It appears that at times it can backfire by providing inappropriate information which is then not questioned. Should I follow the cars ahead of me in the traffic jam as they begin signaling for the next exit? Or was it a mindless stampede started by the guy who normally exits there? Is that pale, sweating elderly man leaning against the mall wall really OK as we all pass by or does he need an ambulance?
In using social proof unquestioningly, I am essentially surrendering independent thought in favor of the shortcut. In a confined building suddenly on fire, this can be a life-saving way to find the unseen open exit located by the first people out. Follow the crowd because it is following the leaders who are now outside and across the street. When the herd is reacting to a mistaken assumption or improper choice, though, the consequences can be less happy.
There are obvious questions for me, such as asking how often I use social proof as a crutch to support the easier decision; do I really want to get involved with the crying child? Will my intentions be mistaken when I stop to help and the mother suddenly appears to defend her child from the stranger? Maybe everything is just fine the way it is - everyone else seems to think so! I try to handle this type of thing by switching perspectives at the time, by questioning the little stories my fears make up, but it seems the tendency does not disappear just because I'm aware of it!
Some less obvious questions are related to the times I may not recognize the influence of social proof, or when I may see it but don't question it due to other distractions or more pressing considerations. What decisions am I making that are almost automated, that are perhaps not even in line with my beliefs or ethics? And what other influences are out there affecting me daily, nudging my behaviors this way and that, operating just under my radar?
Once again, I come back to focusing on the moment as a way of slicing through the confusion. Not as a cure-all, but as a path of improvement. It seems to me that much of the power of social proof is due to our habits of directing attention elsewhere, thinking about things unrelated to the moment we are standing in. Of course we find great benefits in anticipating future possibilities or in reviewing past scenarios, and I know I have developed those skills to a powerful level. And I understand I am not alone in this in my culture! When looking for reasons to develop the skill of fully entering the current moment, though, perhaps I should add this morning's GMA segment to my list.
Put simply, I suspect there are times when it is not proper to let others do my thinking for me and it seems the only way for me to recognize the danger is by being present and observant enough to see it happening.
posted by Darrell G. King
| 9:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home