Social proof

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

According to the principle of social proof, people, in order to decide what to believe and how to act in a given situation, are guided by what they believe and what other people do in a similar situation. The propensity to imitate is found in both children and adults.

Where everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks too much

Walter Lippmann

I don’t know of people who like mechanical laughter recorded on a cassette tape. When I tested people who visited my office one day - a few students, two phone repairmen, a group of university professors, and one janitor - the reaction to such laughter was invariably negative. Phonograms of laughter, which are often used on television, did not cause anything but irritation in the test subjects. The people I interviewed hated tape-recorded laughter. They thought he was stupid and fake. Although my sample was too small, I would bet that the results of my research fairly objectively reflect the negative attitude of most American television viewers to phonograms of laughter.

Why, then, is tape-recorded laughter so popular with TV presenters? They achieved a high position and excellent salary, knowing how to give the public what it wants. Nevertheless, TV presenters often use phonograms of laughter, which their audience finds tasteless. And they do it despite the objections of many talented artists. The demand to remove the taped "audience reaction" from television projects is often made by scriptwriters and actors. Such requirements are not always fulfilled, and, as a rule, the matter does not go without a struggle.

Why is it so attractive to the television presenters that the laughter is recorded on the tape? Why are these shrewd and tried-and-true professionals defending practices that their potential viewers and many creative people find offensive? The answer to this question is both simple and intriguing: experienced TV presenters know the results of special psychological research. In the course of these studies, it has been found that recorded laughter makes the audience laugh longer and more often when humorous material is presented, and also makes it more funny (Fuller & Sheehy-Skeffington, 1974; Smyth & Fuller, 1972). In addition, research shows that tape-recorded laughter is most effective for bad jokes (Nosanchuk & Lightstone, 1974).

In the light of this data, the actions of TV presenters take on a deep meaning. The inclusion of phonograms of laughter in humorous programs increases their comic effect and contributes to the correct understanding of jokes by viewers, even when the presented material is of low quality. Is it any wonder that tape-recorded laughter is so often used on television, which continually presents a lot of crude handicrafts like sitcoms on blue screens? The bigwigs of the television business know what they are doing!

But, having unraveled the secret of such a widespread use of phonograms of laughter, we must find an answer to another, no less important question: "Why does the laughter recorded on the tape have such a strong effect on us?" Now it is not TV presenters who should seem strange to us (they act logically and in their own interests), but we ourselves, TV viewers. Why are we laughing so loudly at comic material set against a backdrop of mechanically fabricated fun? Why do we find this comic trash funny at all? Entertainment directors don't really fool us. Anyone can recognize artificial laughter. It is so vulgar and fake that it cannot be confused with the real one. We know very well that a lot of fun does not correspond to the quality of the joke that it follows, that the atmosphere of fun is not created by the real audience, but by the technician at the control panel. And yet this blatant fake is affecting us!

The principle of social proof

To understand why tape-recorded laughter is so infectious, we first need to understand the nature of another powerful weapon of influence - the principle of social proof. According to this principle, we determine what is right by figuring out what other people think is right. We consider our behavior to be correct in a given situation if we often see other people behaving in a similar way. Whether we're thinking about what to do with an empty popcorn box in a movie theater, how fast to get on a particular stretch of highway, or how to grab a chicken at a dinner party, the actions of those around us will largely determine our decision.

The tendency to think of an action as correct when many others do the same usually works well. As a rule, we make fewer mistakes when we act in accordance with social norms than when we contradict them. Usually, if a lot of people do something, that's right. This aspect of the principle of social proof is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. Like other instruments of influence, this principle provides people with useful rational methods of determining the line of behavior, but, at the same time, makes those who use these rational methods toys in the hands of "psychological speculators" who lay waiting along the path and always ready to attack.

In the case of taped laughter, the problem arises when we react to social proof in such a thoughtless and reflective manner that we can be fooled by biased or false testimony. Our foolishness is not that we use the laughter of others to help ourselves decide what is funny; this is logical and consistent with the principle of social proof. Foolishness occurs when we do this when we hear obviously artificial laughter. Somehow, the sound of laughter is enough to make us laugh. It is pertinent to recall an example that dealt with the interaction of a turkey and a ferret. Remember the turkey and ferret example? Because brooding turkeys associate a certain chip-to-chip sound with newborn turkeys, turkeys show or ignore their chicks solely based on this sound. As a result, a turkey can be tricked into showing maternal instincts for a stuffed ferret while the turkey's recorded chip-chip sound is playing. The imitation of this sound is enough to "turn on" the "tape recording" of maternal instincts in a turkey.

This example perfectly illustrates the relationship between the average viewer and the TV presenter playing back soundtracks of laughter. We are so used to focusing on other people's reactions when determining what is funny that we can also be forced to respond to sound rather than the essence of a real phenomenon. Just as the sound of a "chip-chip" separated from a real chicken can induce a turkey to be motherly, so a recorded "haha" separated from a real audience can make us laugh. Television presenters exploit our addiction to rational methods, our tendency to react automatically based on an incomplete set of facts. They know their tapes will trigger our tapes. Click, buzzed.

The power of the public

Of course, it's not just people in television who use social proof to make a profit. Our tendency to think that an action is right when done by others is exploited in a wide variety of circumstances. Bartenders often "salt" their tipping dishes with a few dollar bills early in the evening. In this way, they create the appearance that previous visitors have allegedly left a tip. From this, new customers conclude that they should also tip the bartender. Church gatekeepers sometimes "salt" collection baskets for the same purpose and achieve the same positive result. Evangelical preachers are known to "seed" their audiences with specially selected and trained "bell-ringer" who come forward and donate at the end of the service. Researchers from the University of Arizona, who infiltrated Billy Graham's religious organization, witnessed preliminary preparations for one of his sermons during the next campaign. “By the time Graham arrives in a city, an army of 6,000 recruits is usually waiting for instructions on when to step forward to create the impression of a mass movement” (Altheide & Johnson, 1977).

Advertising agents love to tell us that a product is "selling out surprisingly fast." You don't need to convince us that the product is good, just say that many people think so. Organizers of charitable television marathons devote a seemingly unreasonable majority of their time to an endless list of viewers who have already pledged to contribute. The message that should be conveyed to the minds of the evaders is clear: “Look at all those people who decided to give money. It should be, and you should do it. " In the midst of the disco craze, some discotheque owners fabricated some sort of social proof of the prestige of their clubs, creating long queues of people waiting while there was more than enough room on the premises. Sellers are taught to spice up batches of a product thrown onto the market with numerous reports of people who have purchased the product. Sales consultant Robert Cavett in a class with trainee salespeople says: "Since 95% of people are imitators by nature and only 5% are initiators, the actions of others convince buyers more than the evidence we can offer them."

Many psychologists have studied the operation of the principle of social proof, the use of which sometimes yields startling results. In particular, Albert Bandura was involved in the development of ways to change unwanted behavior patterns. Bandura and his colleagues have shown that it is possible to relieve phobic people of their fears in a startlingly simple way. For example, to young children who were afraid of dogs, Bandura (Bandura, Grusec & Menlove, 1967) suggested simply observing a boy playing with a dog merrily for twenty minutes a day. This visual demonstration led to such noticeable changes in the reactions of fearful children that after four "observation sessions" 67% of children expressed their readiness to climb into the playpen with the dog and stay there, caressing and scratching it, even in the absence of adults. Moreover, when the researchers re-evaluated the fear levels in these children a month later, they found that the improvement over this period did not disappear; in fact, children were more willing than ever to "mingle" with dogs. An important practical discovery was made in Bandura's second study (Bandura & Menlove, 1968). This time, children were taken who were especially afraid of dogs. In order to reduce their fears, relevant videos were used. Their display proved to be as effective as a real-life display of a brave boy playing with a dog. And the most useful were those videos in which several children were shown playing with their dogs. Obviously, the principle of social proof works best when proof is provided by the actions of many others.

Films with specially selected examples have a powerful influence on children's behavior. Films like these help solve many problems. Psychologist Robert O'Connor (1972) has done an extremely interesting study. The objects of the study were socially isolated preschool children. We have all met such children, very timid, often standing alone, far from the flocks of their peers. O'Connor believes that these children develop a persistent isolation pattern at an early age that can create difficulties in achieving social comfort and adjustment in adulthood. In an attempt to change this model, O'Connor created a film that included eleven different scenes shot in a kindergarten setting. Each scene began with a show of uncommunicative children, at first only observing some kind of social activity of their peers, and then joining their comrades to the delight of everyone present. O'Connor selected a group of particularly introverted children from four daycare centers and showed them the film. The results were impressive. After watching the film, children who were considered withdrawn began to interact much better with their peers. Even more impressive was what O'Connor found when he returned for observation six weeks later. While the withdrawn children who had not seen O'Connor's film remained socially isolated as before, those who saw the film were now leaders in their institutions. It seems that the twenty-three minute film, seen only once, was enough to completely change the inappropriate behavior. This is the power of the principle of social proof.

Protection

We began this chapter with an account of the relatively harmless practice of recording laughter on tape, then we moved on to discuss the causes of murder and suicide - in all these cases, the principle of social proof plays a central role. How can we protect ourselves from such a powerful weapon of influence, the action of which extends to such a wide range of behavioral responses? The situation is complicated by the realization that in most cases we do not need to defend ourselves against the information provided by social proof (Hill, 1982; Laughlin, 1980; Warnik & Sanders, 1980). The advice given to us on how we should proceed is usually logical and valuable. Thanks to the principle of social proof, we can confidently walk through countless situations in life, without constantly weighing all the pros and cons. The principle of social proof provides us with a marvelous device, similar to the autopilot found on most airplanes.

However, even with autopilot, the aircraft can deviate from the course if the information stored in the control system is incorrect. The consequences can vary in severity depending on the magnitude of the error. But since the autopilot provided to us by the principle of social proof is more often our ally than our enemy, we are unlikely to want to turn it off. Thus, we are faced with a classic problem: how to use a tool that benefits us and at the same time threatens our well-being.

Fortunately, this problem can be solved. Since the disadvantages of autopilots appear mainly when incorrect data is inserted into the control system, it is necessary to learn to recognize when exactly the data is erroneous. If we can sense that the social proof autopilot is operating on imprecise information in a given situation, we can turn off the mechanism and take control of the situation when necessary.

Sabotage

Bad data compels the principle of social proof to give us bad advice in two situations. The first occurs when social proof has been deliberately falsified. Such situations are deliberately created by exploiters seeking to create the impression - to hell with reality! - that the masses are acting in the way that these exploiters want to force us to act. Mechanical laughter in television comedy shows is one variation of fabricated data for this purpose. There are many such options, and often the fraud is strikingly obvious. Cases of this kind of fraud are not uncommon in the field of electronic media.

Let's look at a concrete example of the exploitation of the principle of social proof. To do this, let us turn to the history of one of the most revered art forms - operatic art. In 1820, two regulars of the Parisian opera, Souton and Porcher, made an interesting phenomenon "work for themselves", called the clack phenomenon. Souton and Porcher were more than just opera lovers. These were the businessmen who decided to go into the applause trade.

Opening L'Assurance des Succes Dramatiques, Souton and Porcher began renting themselves out and hired workers to singers and theater administrators who wanted to secure audiences for the show, Souton and Porcher were so good at eliciting a thunderous ovation from the audience with their artificial reactions that they soon claqueurs (usually consisting of a leader - chef de claque - and a few privates - claqueurs) have become an enduring tradition throughout the world of opera. As the musicologist Robert Sabin (Sabin, 1964) notes, “by 1830 the claqueurs had gained great popularity, they raised money during the day, applauded in the evening, everything is completely open … Most likely, neither Souton nor his ally Porcher would have thought that the the system will become so widespread in the world of opera."

The clerks did not want to stop there. Being in the process of creative research, they began to try new styles of work. If those who record mechanical laughter hire people who "specialize" in giggling, snorting, or loud laughter, the klaks trained their own narrow specialists. For example, pleureuse would start crying at the signal, bisseu would scream “bis” in a frenzy, rieur would laugh contagiously.

The open nature of the fraud is striking. Souton and Porcher did not consider it necessary to hide the claquera, or even change them. The clerks often sat in the same seats, show after show, year after year. One and the same chef de claque could lead them for two decades. Even money transactions were not hidden from the public. A hundred years after the inception of the claqueur system, the Musical Times began printing prices for the services of Italian claqueurs in London. In the world of both Rigoletto and Mephistopheles, the audience was manipulated to their advantage by those who used social proof even when it was clearly falsified.

And in our time, all kinds of speculators understand, just as Souton and Porcher understood it in their time, how important mechanical actions are when using the principle of social proof. They do not consider it necessary to hide the artificial nature of the social proof they provide, as evidenced by the poor quality of mechanical laughter on television. Psychological exploiters smile smugly when they manage to put us in a quandary. We must either let them fool us, or we must abandon the useful, in general, autopilots that make us vulnerable. However, such exploiters are mistaken in thinking that they have caught us in a trap from which we cannot escape. The carelessness with which they create fake social evidence allows us to resist.

Because we can turn our autopilots on and off at will, we can move on, trusting the course set by the principle of social proof, until we realize that the wrong data is being used. Then we can take control, make the necessary adjustments and return to the starting position. The apparent artificiality of the social proof that we are presented with provides us with a key to understanding at what point to get out of the influence of a given principle. Thus, with just a little vigilance, we can protect ourselves.

Looking up

In addition to cases where social proof is deliberately falsified, there are also cases where the principle of social proof leads us down the wrong path. An innocent mistake will create snowballing social proof that will push us towards the wrong decision. As an example, consider the phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance, in which all witnesses to an emergency see no cause for alarm.

Here it seems appropriate to me to cite the story of one of my students, who at one time worked as a patrolman on a high-speed highway. After a class discussion on the principle of social proof, the young man stayed to talk to me. He said that he now understands the cause of frequent city highway accidents during rush hour. Usually at this time, cars move in all directions in a continuous stream, but slowly. Two or three drivers start honking to indicate their intention to move into the adjacent lane. Within seconds, many drivers decide that something - a car with a stalled engine or some other obstruction - is blocking the road ahead. Everyone starts honking. Confusion ensues as all drivers seek to squeeze their cars into open spaces in the adjacent lane. In this case, collisions often occur.

The strange thing about all this, according to the former patrolman, is that very often there is no obstacle ahead on the road, and the drivers cannot fail to see it.

This example shows how we respond to social proof. First, we seem to assume that if a lot of people do the same thing, they must know something that we don't. We are ready to believe in the collective knowledge of the crowd, especially when we feel insecure. Secondly, quite often the crowd is mistaken because its members act not on reliable information, but on the principle of social proof.

So if two drivers on a freeway accidentally decide to change lanes at the same time, the next two drivers may well do the same, assuming that the first drivers noticed an obstacle ahead. The social proof faced by the drivers behind them seems obvious to them - four cars in a row, all with turn signals on, are trying to swerve into an adjacent lane. New warning lights start flashing. By this time, social proof has become undeniable. The drivers at the end of the convoy do not doubt the need to move to another lane: "All these guys in front must know something." Drivers are so focused on trying to squeeze into the adjacent lane that they are not even interested in the actual situation on the road. No wonder an accident occurs.

There is a useful lesson to be learned from the story my student told. You should never completely trust your autopilot; even if incorrect information has not been deliberately put into the automatic control system, this system can sometimes fail. We need to check from time to time whether decisions made with the help of autopilot do not contradict objective facts, our life experience, our own judgments. Fortunately, such verification does not require much effort or time. A quick glance around is enough. And this little precaution will pay off handsomely. The consequences of blindly believing in the incontestability of social proof can be tragic.

This aspect of the principle of social proof leads me to think about the peculiarities of hunting North American bison of some Indian tribes - blackfoot, Cree, serpent and raven. Bison have two characteristics that make them vulnerable. First, the bison's eyes are positioned in such a way that it is easier for them to look to the sides than to the front. Secondly, when the bison run in a panic, their heads are lowered so low that the animals cannot see anything over the herd. The Indians realized that you can kill a huge number of buffaloes by driving the herd to a steep cliff. Animals, focusing on the behavior of other individuals and not looking ahead, decided their fate themselves. One shocked observer of such a hunt described the result of the bison's extreme confidence in the correctness of the collective decision.

The Indians lured the herd to the abyss and forced it to throw itself down. Animals running behind nudged those in front of them, all of them taking the fatal step of their own free will (Hornaday, 1887 - Hornaday, W. T. “The Extermination of the American Bison, with a Scetch of Its Discovery and Life History.”Smith-sonian Report, 1887, Part II, 367-548).

Of course, a pilot whose plane is flying in autopilot mode should glance at the instrument panel from time to time, and also just look out the window. In the same way, we need to look around us whenever we begin to orient ourselves towards the crowd. If we do not observe this simple precaution, we could be faced with the fate of drivers who are involved in an accident trying to change lanes on a freeway, or the fate of the North American bison.

Excerpt from the book by Robert Cialdini, "The Psychology of Influence".

In addition, an excellent film on this topic, which has already been posted on the Kramola portal: "Me and Others"