العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolSOCIAL PROOF
'Social proof', also known as 'informational social influence', is a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ambiguous social situations when people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behavior. Making the assumption that surrounding people possess more knowledge about the situation, they will deem the behavior of others as appropriate or better informed.
Recently, in April 2007,
the Washington post convinced Joshua Bell, a famous violin
virtuoso to play in the Washington DC subway during the morning rush hour. So
he took his $3.5 million Stradivarius violin and played. Almost no one noticed or
stopped to listen. He collected a total of $32 for an hour of playing (not counting a $20 bill that was given by a person who recognized him).
This is a wonderful example of the power of social proof.
The above is sometimes given as an example of Social Proof in action. The subway commuters are using each others' response to the violinists in order to determine their response to him. Without the cues that signal the violinist's quality that accompany him when performing in a concert hall, such as expensive tickets and posters, the violinist is judged by other commuters' reaction to him: as most commuters are primarily concerned with reaching their place of work, this forms the response the commuters signal to one another about the violinist.
There are few domains where one's skill level is as apparent as in violin performance -yet even so, this master violinist's contribution was ignored. In domains where skill is more ambiguous, one would expect the impact of social proof to be even more extreme.
To be fair, the performance did take place at a time and place where passers-by were rushing to/from trains and work and may not have been at their optimal state of alertness. Furthermore, the amount of money that the average street performer makes, based on his ability, is not known. It could be postulated that regardless of a street performer's ability, other external or societal factors cause him to make relatively little amounts of money.
One might also conclude that certain skills or abilities demonstrated within the wrong context, at the wrong place or the wrong time, or in front of an untrained audience, are just not given enough credence by passers-by to be compensated ''monetarily'', and it might not necessarily be true that these demonstrations are completely ignored. The performer in the Post article stated that he was being "ignored," but it is difficult to tell the mental state or awareness of these passers-by from only a limited perspective of his and a few interviews.
Social value of unfamiliar people is ambiguous and requires a lot of effort to assess accurately. Given limited time and motivation, other people will often evaluate others based on how surrounding people behave towards them. For example, if a man is perceived to be in a company of attractive women, or is associated with them, then his perceived social value and attractiveness will be perceived to be greater. The implied cognition in this case would be "All those girls seem to really like him, there must be something about him that's high value".
If he is seen to be rejected by many women, his social value will be judged negatively. The implied cognition is then "I just saw him being rejected by many women, there is probably a good reason why they don't like him".
Similarly, a person who has been unemployed for a long time may have a hard time finding
a new job - even if they are highly skilled and qualified. Potential employers misattribute
the person's lack of employment to the person rather than the situation. This causes the
potential employers to search more intensively for flaws or other negative characteristics are "congruent" with or explain the person's failure, and to discount the applicant's virtues.
Similarly, a person who is in high demand - for example a CEO - may continue to get
many attractive job offers and can as a result extract a considerable wage premium -
even if his/her objective performance has been poor. When people appear successful,
potential employers and others who evaluate them tend to search more intensively for virtues
or positive characteristics that are "congruent" with or explain the person's success, and
to ignore or unestimate the person's faults. People who experience positive social proof
may also benefit from a halo effect. Other attributes are deemed to be more positive
than they actually are. Additionally, the person's attributes may be viewed with
a positive framing bias. For example, a person might be viewed as arrogant if
they have negative social proof, and bold if they have positive social proof.
(See Donald Trump).
For these reasons, social proof is important in determining a potential employer's
consideration set. Social proof naturally also applies to products and is used
extensively in marketing and sales. Situations that violate social proof can cause
cognitive dissonance, and can cause people to have a sense of loss of control or
failure of the "just world hypothesis".
The concept of "Social Proof" and the fundamental attribution error can be easily exploited by persuading (or paying) attractive women to display (or at least fake) public interest in a man. Other people will attribute the women's behavior as due to the man's character and are unlikely to consider that they are interested in him due to the actual reasons (external gain).
Some men use photos of themselves surrounded by attractive women to enhance their perceived social value. The effectiveness of such tactic without support by other consistent behaviors associated with high social value is questionable.
Some nightclub and bar owners effectively employ social proof to increase their venue's popularity. This is usually done by deliberately reducing the rate at which people are allowed to enter, thus artificially causing the line to be longer. Uninformed customers might perceive the long line as a signal of the place's desirability and may wait in the line merely because "if all these people are waiting, the place must be good", while in fact the venue is mediocre and nowhere near its full capacity.
Theaters sometimes use specially planted audience members who are instructed to give ovations at pre-arranged times. Usually, these people are the ones who clap initially, and the rest of the audience follows. Such ovations may be perceived by non-expert audience members as signals of the performance's quality.
Contrary to common annoyance of canned laughter in television shows, television studios have discovered that they can increase the perceived "funniness" of a show by merely playing canned laughter at key "funny" moments. They have found that even though viewers find canned laugher highly annoying, they perceive shows that happen to use canned laughter more funny than the shows that do not use canned laughter.
'Identification of the surrounding group with self'
If the group people who are performing a certain behavior are perceived to belong to the same or similar group, then one is more likely to conform to the groups behavior than if one does not identify with the group.
'Possession of special knowledge'
If one perceives that s/he is better advised about a situation than the surrounding group, then s/he is less likely to follow the group's behavior.
'Identification with Authority'
If one perceives themselves as a relevant authority figure in the situation, they are less likely to follow the surrounding group's behavior. This is a combination of "Identification of the surrounding group with self" and "Possession of special knowledge". People in authority positions tend to place themselves in different categories than other people and usually they have special training or knowledge that allows them to conclude that they are better informed than the surrounding group.
★ Cialdini, R. (1993) ''Influence: Science and practice'' (3rd edn), New York: HarperCollins
| Contents |
| Example of social proof |
| Applications of social proof |
| Social proof modifiers |
| References |
Example of social proof
Recently, in April 2007,
the Washington post convinced Joshua Bell, a famous violin
virtuoso to play in the Washington DC subway during the morning rush hour. So
he took his $3.5 million Stradivarius violin and played. Almost no one noticed or
stopped to listen. He collected a total of $32 for an hour of playing (not counting a $20 bill that was given by a person who recognized him).
This is a wonderful example of the power of social proof.
The above is sometimes given as an example of Social Proof in action. The subway commuters are using each others' response to the violinists in order to determine their response to him. Without the cues that signal the violinist's quality that accompany him when performing in a concert hall, such as expensive tickets and posters, the violinist is judged by other commuters' reaction to him: as most commuters are primarily concerned with reaching their place of work, this forms the response the commuters signal to one another about the violinist.
There are few domains where one's skill level is as apparent as in violin performance -yet even so, this master violinist's contribution was ignored. In domains where skill is more ambiguous, one would expect the impact of social proof to be even more extreme.
To be fair, the performance did take place at a time and place where passers-by were rushing to/from trains and work and may not have been at their optimal state of alertness. Furthermore, the amount of money that the average street performer makes, based on his ability, is not known. It could be postulated that regardless of a street performer's ability, other external or societal factors cause him to make relatively little amounts of money.
One might also conclude that certain skills or abilities demonstrated within the wrong context, at the wrong place or the wrong time, or in front of an untrained audience, are just not given enough credence by passers-by to be compensated ''monetarily'', and it might not necessarily be true that these demonstrations are completely ignored. The performer in the Post article stated that he was being "ignored," but it is difficult to tell the mental state or awareness of these passers-by from only a limited perspective of his and a few interviews.
Applications of social proof
Social value of unfamiliar people is ambiguous and requires a lot of effort to assess accurately. Given limited time and motivation, other people will often evaluate others based on how surrounding people behave towards them. For example, if a man is perceived to be in a company of attractive women, or is associated with them, then his perceived social value and attractiveness will be perceived to be greater. The implied cognition in this case would be "All those girls seem to really like him, there must be something about him that's high value".
If he is seen to be rejected by many women, his social value will be judged negatively. The implied cognition is then "I just saw him being rejected by many women, there is probably a good reason why they don't like him".
Similarly, a person who has been unemployed for a long time may have a hard time finding
a new job - even if they are highly skilled and qualified. Potential employers misattribute
the person's lack of employment to the person rather than the situation. This causes the
potential employers to search more intensively for flaws or other negative characteristics are "congruent" with or explain the person's failure, and to discount the applicant's virtues.
Similarly, a person who is in high demand - for example a CEO - may continue to get
many attractive job offers and can as a result extract a considerable wage premium -
even if his/her objective performance has been poor. When people appear successful,
potential employers and others who evaluate them tend to search more intensively for virtues
or positive characteristics that are "congruent" with or explain the person's success, and
to ignore or unestimate the person's faults. People who experience positive social proof
may also benefit from a halo effect. Other attributes are deemed to be more positive
than they actually are. Additionally, the person's attributes may be viewed with
a positive framing bias. For example, a person might be viewed as arrogant if
they have negative social proof, and bold if they have positive social proof.
(See Donald Trump).
For these reasons, social proof is important in determining a potential employer's
consideration set. Social proof naturally also applies to products and is used
extensively in marketing and sales. Situations that violate social proof can cause
cognitive dissonance, and can cause people to have a sense of loss of control or
failure of the "just world hypothesis".
The concept of "Social Proof" and the fundamental attribution error can be easily exploited by persuading (or paying) attractive women to display (or at least fake) public interest in a man. Other people will attribute the women's behavior as due to the man's character and are unlikely to consider that they are interested in him due to the actual reasons (external gain).
Some men use photos of themselves surrounded by attractive women to enhance their perceived social value. The effectiveness of such tactic without support by other consistent behaviors associated with high social value is questionable.
Some nightclub and bar owners effectively employ social proof to increase their venue's popularity. This is usually done by deliberately reducing the rate at which people are allowed to enter, thus artificially causing the line to be longer. Uninformed customers might perceive the long line as a signal of the place's desirability and may wait in the line merely because "if all these people are waiting, the place must be good", while in fact the venue is mediocre and nowhere near its full capacity.
Theaters sometimes use specially planted audience members who are instructed to give ovations at pre-arranged times. Usually, these people are the ones who clap initially, and the rest of the audience follows. Such ovations may be perceived by non-expert audience members as signals of the performance's quality.
Contrary to common annoyance of canned laughter in television shows, television studios have discovered that they can increase the perceived "funniness" of a show by merely playing canned laughter at key "funny" moments. They have found that even though viewers find canned laugher highly annoying, they perceive shows that happen to use canned laughter more funny than the shows that do not use canned laughter.
Social proof modifiers
'Identification of the surrounding group with self'
If the group people who are performing a certain behavior are perceived to belong to the same or similar group, then one is more likely to conform to the groups behavior than if one does not identify with the group.
'Possession of special knowledge'
If one perceives that s/he is better advised about a situation than the surrounding group, then s/he is less likely to follow the group's behavior.
'Identification with Authority'
If one perceives themselves as a relevant authority figure in the situation, they are less likely to follow the surrounding group's behavior. This is a combination of "Identification of the surrounding group with self" and "Possession of special knowledge". People in authority positions tend to place themselves in different categories than other people and usually they have special training or knowledge that allows them to conclude that they are better informed than the surrounding group.
References
★ Cialdini, R. (1993) ''Influence: Science and practice'' (3rd edn), New York: HarperCollins
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
