What is social proof? - Chapter 4

How does social proof manifest itself in practice?

Although almost everybody would agree to the statement that people generally don’t like fake laughter, we all watch TV sitcoms that constantly shower us with pre-recorded laughs and applause. Researchers as well as TV directors know that the audience tends to laugh more often and longer if they are presented with these stimuli. Furthermore, they are especially helpful with lame jokes since we rate them as funnier in the presence of laughter from others. These findings introduce the principle of social proof, which states that we define correct behavior by looking at what others are doing (or think is appropriate). Again we encounter an adaptive nature in this principle: generally, we make fewer mistakes when obeying the rule. There are several examples of how professionals manage to take advantage of this. Bartenders for example fill their tip jars with some dollar bills before opening the bar. This shall indicate to other customers that it is an appropriate behavior to be generous when tipping. Even church ushers employ the same technique.

Also, the principle is the reason for such classic advertising terms as “fastest-growing” or “largest-selling”, giving the impression that other customers think the product is good. The estimation of motivation and sales consultant Cavett Robert maintains that 95% of people imitate and only the remaining 5% initiate, therefore there is huge potential in manipulating others by showing them how to act properly. But there are also clinical applications, as Albert Bandura (1967) has shown in the context of anxieties. Little children with a fear of dogs simply had to watch another child play with a dog for 20 minutes daily. It did not matter whether it was a live observation or a pre-recorded tape: on the fourth day, 67% could pet and scratch the dog, even without supervision. An important aspect was the amount of children that were depicted: the more the greater the impact. This improvement was even strengthened when the children were retested a month later. This approach was also successfully applied by Robert O’Connor (1972) to withdrawn preschool children. He exposed them to films depicting children engaging in social interactions. In these cases, the effects were immediate and the previously isolated kids were even the most socially active in their schools six weeks after the intervention.

For a further description of the impact of social proof, consider the case of most sects and cults: a majority of them share the idea of a final time of salvation after which the world is going to end and many prophesized a specific date. However, most of them also share the interesting fact that even after prophecies about such apocalyptic events have been disconfirmed, members of the cults become often more convinced of their beliefs. To investigate this interesting fact, Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter (1964) infiltrated incognito a sect that promoted the salvation of their members by aliens. The leaders of the 30 members were Dr. Thomas Armstrong and Marian Keech, a woman who allegedly received messages from the aliens whom she called "Guardians". With a method of "automatic writing", she set up the core beliefs of the group, which were closely related to Christian teachings. One day she received the information that earth was going to end (by means of a flood starting in the western hemisphere) and that the cultists were the only ones to be saved with flying saucers by the Guardians.

During the preparation shortly before the apocalypse, the researchers recognized two interesting behavioral changes. First of all, commitment to the group was strengthened; as a result some members abandoned their families or quit their jobs to completely devote themselves to the sect. Second of all, they showed an astonishing attitude of inactivity. Although they had initially spread their word about the upcoming apocalypse, they now stopped recruitment and maintained secrecy at all costs (e.g. copies of the lessons were destroyed, signs and passwords were introduced, and the public was avoided). Hours before the expected arrival of the flying saucers they withdrew into their house and began reciting their passwords and remove everything metallic from their clothes (due to a message from Keech).

After it became clear, that neither a flood, nor flying saucers would arrive, Marian Keech allegedly received another message, explaining that due to their devotion, God had spared the world from the flood. Shortly after that, another message asked Keech to publicize the news to the world. Remarkably, although just a few hours ago the group refused to admit any new members or share their information on the upcoming event with anyone, they now eagerly tried to call newspapers to explain their beliefs and the events. During the time that followed, applicants to the group were almost always granted access. The reason for this 180° change in attitude can be found in the principle of social proof: the members had given up a lot (e.g. families, money, employment etc.), making their cult a specially valuable entity that needed to be confirmed at any cost. Since physical evidence had been destroyed by the absence of the flood and Guardians, they needed to establish social evidence. Due to the fact that the principle of social proof states that the more people believe in an idea, the more individuals will perceive it as true, they had to convert as many people as possible.

What is the role of uncertainty and what is the effect of pluralistic ignorance?

As it was shown by the previous example, the principle of social proof works best in those cases in which we are uncertain about how to act appropriately or in which we are unfamiliar with the situation because in these situations we are more likely to look carefully at what others do or think. To promote the use of shopping carts (an apparatus that caused a lot of confusion when first introduced), Sylvan Goldman let hired shoppers wheel the carts through his grocery stores, resulting in a huge success.

There is one important fact that people tend to forget when they - often unconsciously - observe the people around them: these persons are very likely to examine others' behavior as well, especially in situations with a high degree of uncertainty. A phenomenon that often results is called pluralistic ignorance. The tragic impact this phenomenon can have is illustrated by the case of Catherine Genovese, who was murdered in New York in 1964, although it took the killer 35 minutes and several people heard her screams and watched from their windows without calling the police. During that time, the media attributed the behavior of these neighbors to increasing anonymity in big cities and the resulting selfishness and insensitivity of their inhabitants.

However, some years and several analyses later, social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley (1968) published their idea that probably no person called for help because the assault was so public. The so called bystander effect states that the more people are present, the less responsibility is ascribed to each individual. Furthermore, in the context of social proof people are often unsure of whether it is appropriate to call for help or not. The screams could also stem from a family fight in which case it would be rude to interfere. Or a person lying on the ground does not necessarily have a heart-attack; he or she could also be drunk. Looking around for evidence in some cases leads to the pluralistic ignorance effect, since other people are searching for social evidence as well. One study that supports this idea showed that when an assistant simulated a seizure, 85% percent of participants helped when they were alone but only 31% did so when they were together with five bystanders. Similarly, the same researchers found out that if they were alone in a room, 75% of participants in another study would report on smoke that was coming from a leak under the door, 38% did so when they sat in the same room together with two other people and only 10% took action when they were left with two other people who were secretly instructed by the experimenters to act as if nothing was happening. Furthermore, in company of strangers the pluralistic ignorance effect seems to be strongest.

In summary, all factors that have been mentioned as risky in the context of pluralistic ignorance can rather be found in big cities than in rural parts of the country: cities are changing faster, resulting in more uncertainty; they are more densely populated, heightening the likelihood of being with unfamiliar others in cases of emergency.

However, research also indicates that we are likely to get help in an emergency when other witnesses are aware of the dangerous quality of the specific situation. This leads to some suggestions on how to behave if help is needed, especially since analyses indicate that within some ten years, 50% of the human population will live in big cities. To decrease the effect of pluralistic ignorance when help is needed, it is advised to select one individual from the crowd and address him or her directly, explaining that an emergency is at hand. This should reduce uncertainties and increase the personal responsibility for the selected individual.

What is the role of similarity?

Except for the presence of uncertainty, people are also susceptible to the effects of social proof when they observe other persons who are similar to them. This could be one of the reasons why more advertisers make use of average looking people who give testimonials. Research supports this theory. Take one study for example which showed that charity donations on a US campus increased by more than 50% when the fundraiser claimed to be similar to the donors, stating that he is a student at their university too. Furthermore, younger subjects are susceptible to the effect of similarity as well. This is indicated by the finding that anti-smoking programs in schools are more effective when same-age peers work as teachers. Also, children who were shown clips depicting peers at a positive dentist visit decreased their own anxiety to the doctor.

What are further implications of social proof?

One especially puzzling statistic serves as an example of the power of social proof: after a suicide article on the front-page news, airplane and automobile crashes increase significantly. One interpretation is called social condition, and it states that the same social conditions that lead to suicide in one person lead to an accidental death in another (e.g. extreme stress leads some people to commit suicide, whereas others drive more dangerously). If those other people operate planes or cars, they will account for the increase in the mentioned statistics. However, this interpretation can be disproved by another statistic that shows increasing fatalities exclusively in those areas in which suicide stories were extensively publicized. There is even a relationship in the form of "the more a suicide is publicized in an area, the greater the increase in accidents". Another theory, the bereavement account, explains it differently: since front-page suicide stories often involve famous or public figures, readers are shocked and become more careless around cars and planes. Again, there is an additional finding that disproves this theory: articles that tell of lone suicides produce more accidents that involve one person, whereas murders with following suicide produce crashes with more than one victim.

Employing the principle of social proof, David Phillips has developed his Werther effect (named after the famous story of J.W. v. Goethe) which states that people who read of a suicide and are prone to commit it themselves will imitate this deadly behavior (e.g. between 1947 and 1968, around 58% more suicides after front-page story within a two-month period). Some of the people may use obvious techniques to kill themselves, others may want to hide this from their families and therefore cause plane or car crashes (also to provide their bereaved with money from the insurance). Furthermore, they are likely to imitate the behaviors of the cover stories, accounting for different increases in single or multiple deaths. Some other interesting statistics that resulted from Phillips' investigation: one week after front-story suicide, dying in a fatal crash of a commercial airliner is three times more likely; victims of car accidents will die four times more quickly after a suicide news-story. What is more, reflecting the similarity aspect of social proof, victims of the original suicide and the people killed later tended to be similar in age.

But not only news of suicides have an effect on the social surrounding. It has been shown that broadcasting heavyweight championship fights is followed by an increase in homicide rates (i.e. both are acts of violence). Furthermore, the defeat of a black fighter produced a significant increase in homicide rates among young black males within 10 days after the initial broadcast, whereas the defeat of a white fighter led to a heightened rate in young white males. Similar examples can be given by copycat product tampering or mass murders. The cases of current killing sprees at schools show an interesting pattern: all of the well-known rampages (e.g. Littleton, Columbine) took place in rural areas, not big cities. Again, social proof provides the best answer: people who are unsure of themselves look at what others in their condition do. Therefore it is advised for media officials to carefully decide how to publicize certain stories.

How does Reverend Jim Jones and his actions exemplify the principle of social proof?

Remember Reverend Jim Jones from chapter two? He was the leader of the People's Temple, which was a sect in San Francisco. However, it became more famous in the context of Jonestown in Guyana, where Jones led his followers in 1977. They lived relatively undisturbed in the jungle area until an incident in 1978, when a member of congress from California and three of his fellow travelers were murdered while they tried to leave Jonestown. The party wanted to investigate Jones and his sect. Since he was convinced that he would be made responsible and arrested for the killings, the Reverend decided to lead his cult to death: he requested each of his followers to drink strawberry-flavored poison. Some of the few people who resisted described how their fellow members drank the poison willfully and as if they were hypnotized. Several explanations for these disturbing acts of compliance have been offered. Some mention Jones' charisma or the religious nature of the cult, where faith in the leader's wisdom was a priority.

Others have focused on the members themselves. Most of them were poor and uneducated, seeking for a place where decisions were made for them. However, all those accounts seem insufficient. Dr. Louis Jolyon West, who was an authority and close investigator of cults and especially the People's Temple, says that the events were very unlikely to have happened in San Francisco. The followers were isolated from their familiar civilized surroundings and found themselves in the jungle with completely different social and physical norms and a high degree of uncertainty. As we already know, people are very susceptible to the effect of social proof in unfamiliar situations and seek affirmation of their behavior in similar others. Certainly, in an environment like the jungle, the people who seemed most familiar were the members among themselves. As a result, Jim Jones did not need strong arguments to convince the members of his cult to commit suicide: looking around in confusion, social proof and the principle of pluralistic ignorance took over and they quickly recognized that killing themselves was the appropriate action since there are always some fanatics in a cult-like group like the People's Temple.

What are the defenses against the effects of social proof?

Social proof can be regarded as an inner autopilot which works perfectly until false information is put into the system. It guides our behavioral in an efficient way but problems can arise in two ways, in both cases, used information turns out to be wrong. First of all, there are instances in which social evidence has been manipulated voluntarily. This is the case when television directors employ faked laughter to influence us toward a more positive attitude concerning their shows, for example. Other examples are the 1820's claquers, pleureuses, bisseurs, and rieurs (people who were hired by an opera to give applause, cry, call for repeat, and laugh respectively, leading genuine visitors to imitate their behavior). Interestingly, just like today's fake laughter in sitcoms or the obviously hired actors in commercials, there was no need to hide the artificial nature from the public. However, this carelessness is an opportunity to defend against this weapon of social influence. Consciously experiencing this deception and being alert of its effect on us will often be enough to temporarily disconnect our built-in autopilot.

The second way in which input to our system can be wrong is not artificial in nature. The pluralistic ignorance effect is one example of how a natural error can lead us astray. A story that illustrates this in an amusing way happened in Singapore, when customers of a bank frantically started to withdraw their money. The reason for this was a bus strike: at one bus-stop in front of the bank, people were waiting in vain, creating a long queue. Passersby misinterpreted this as a bank crash and even more people watching the scenery fell prey to the pluralistic ignorance effect. It is therefore advised to check the information around us from time to time to make sure that our autopilot is working correctly.

Two last examples shall close this chapter. The first explains why many pilots make a wrong decision to land their planes when weather conditions change to the bad. They had focused too much on social evidence that landing was still possible by looking at those planes that made it before them. Instead, they should have focused on the physical evidence as indicated by their instruments. Lastly, some professional bettors at horse races have found a way to get others to put their money on a bad horse. They use the principle of social proof, since a lot of people on horse tracks know little about the game. Logically, these people will pick the favorite, which is indicated by the amount of money that is set on the horse. Just after the windows where bets are placed open, the professional puts down a reasonable amount of money on an inferior horse and by this ignites a chain reaction. Finally, he or she will put more money on a different jockey, the one he or she was planning to bet on in the first place. In most cases, the initial investment will pay off.