Nine: Social Influences
Consider the phenomenon of the stampede: one antelope on the fringe of a herd perceives a predator and runs away, and other join in until the entire herd is running at top speed. Most of the members of the herd never saw the predator, but are running because they trust that there must be some reason that the others are doing so. When one animal tires and stops running, the herd slows down and comes to a halt. Again, it is not because they know the threat has passed, but they are imitating the behavior of others.
For all our pretenses at individuality, human beings are also social creatures who are prone to the same behavior: reacting to the actions of others, without evaluating environmental stimuli.
Consider a common prank in which a person stares of into the distance as if he sees something interesting. Other people stop and stare as well, trying to see what the original person saw - they did not see it, but are responding to the original person's signals. A group of people gathers, and continue to pause until someone suggests that there's nothing there and wanders off, at which point others give up the attempt to see it - and again, they are reacting to the behavior of the person rather than to their own perceptions.
The same little trick is used in advertising: human models are posed to be looking at something in the ad, and the viewer follows their cues and focuses their attention on where the model seems to be looking. Eye-tracking software confirms that the most viewed portion of a page is the perceived focal point of the model.
Asch's experiments are also mentioned, in which a test subject is placed in a room with one or more stooges who are prompted to give the wrong answer to a question (generally comparing the length of two lines). In most instances, the subject will go along with the answer given by the stooges, even when it is obvious to him that the answer is wrong. This is not automatic, but it is significant: at least 75% of volunteers gave incorrect answers when asked in the company of stooges, whereas only 1% gave an incorrect answer when they were questioned alone.
Individuals in Herds
A common problem with western psychology is that it considers the individual human being as an isolated creature, the thoughts within each person's mind are purely internal. It is certainly true that there is no collective brain and that each person's thoughts are his own, but individuals are strongly influenced by the society to which they belong.
Society is an amalgam of individuals, but each individual is a member of several groups: their family, their peers, their religious organization, their neighbors, their co-workers, and others. They have a sense of belonging to some groups and wish not to be identified with others. And this has a strong influence on their individual choices.
The author presents an argument, based on the evolution of bees, that peoples' genetics affect their social behavior. There is also a theory that social behavior affects genetics. Whatever the case there is an interplay between the two, such that society affects and influences the individual person.
(EN: The attempt to link social behavior to genetics is likely a distraction - it seems an interesting theory, but would take place over many generations. There is a more immediate effect that can affect a person within the span of moments, and it's more psychological than physiological.)
Principles of Influence
The author refers to Cialdini's book on influence and attempts to correlate them to social pressures.
- Reciprocity - A person feels obliged to return a favor. Swindlers exploit this by doing a small favor and demanding a larger one in return.
- Commitment - A person feels obliged to keep their promises to others. Swindlers exploit this by insisting a commitment was made when it was not.
- Consistency - A person feels obliged to be constant in their behaviors. Swindlers exploit this by suggesting that they must do something to remain consistent.
- Social Proof - A person feels that they must conform to others in society, particularly those who are part of their social group. Swindlers exploit this by suggesting people like them have done what they want their mark to do.
- Liking - A person fears being disliked by others and will do things to stay in their good favor. Swindlers exploit this by signaling they will like a person who does their will, or dislike one who does not.
- Authority - A person fears drawing the ire of people in positions of authority. Swindlers exploit this by suggesting people in authority expect them to behave a certain way.
- Scarcity - A person feels panicked when the consumption of others will mean there's none left for them. Swindlers will exploit this by creating the impression of scarcity of time-sensitivity.
(EN: I have reading notes on Cialdini's book, which is quite good - but this description is not comprehensive: it's not all social pressure.)
There are a few anecdotes that relate to some of these principles.
The first was an advertising campaign in the 1800s that got women to take up cigarette smoking. In this instance, it played on the fact that smoking was considered a male habit, and that it would be consistent to the concept of a liberated woman to smoke. It also used feminist role-models to associate smoking to a desirable character.
The second simply mentions shopping days like black Friday and cyber Monday, which leverages a few factors. First, it makes frenzied binge-shopping seem like a social norm. Second, it plays on fears of scarcity by suggesting that time is of the essence to get a bargain before popular items sell out.
Conformity and Compliance
The author returns to the notion of authority: there are various experiments that have demonstrated that people will do things to appease authority figures, but there are also instances in which people make choices to appease non-existent authorities. In many ways, conformity to social norms is obedience to imagined rules: a person does what they assume "society" expects of them.
In some instances, conformity makes an individual compliant to the perceived will of a more specific group. If they wish to belong to a certain group, they will seek to define the group norms according to their perception, and become obedient to an assumed authority. No-one in the group has created any rules, but it is assumed that because people all act in the same peculiar way, a rule exists and that belonging to the group requires compliance.
A few observational studies are mentioned in scant detail about individuals who do exactly that - their desire to "fit in" causes them to make assumptions. And moreover, they make assumptions rather than ask because asking what are the rules of a group is a declaration that they are not a member of the group - those who belong "just know" and those who wish to belong must pretend to be knowledgeable.
The difference is subtle, but conformity is a different thing to compliance. Compliance requires there to be an authority who directly communicates his demands, whereas conformity has no figurehead.
Celebrity and Crowd Endorsement
Endorsement can be an effective way to get people to want a brand for psychological reasons. It's quite common for a brand to leech off the popularity of a celebrity by paying them to endorse a product. Their admirers want to be like them, and will consider using the same brand as a method of being perceived as having the same personal qualities.
There are also "everyman" and "man in the street" endorsements that do not rely on a single personality, but having the appearance of popularity in general causes people to have a positive perception of brands. Depending on the product's appeal, the endorsements can be selected to give the impression that people of a specific class/status like a brand, or it an be general popularity across various classes.
There's a mention of questionable practices in celebrity endorsements, as there are celebrities - or more likely their publicity handlers - who will make a social media post about a brand for a fee, giving their fans the impression that they use or at least favor a brand. This has a precedent in the fees charged for "personal appearances" - very often when a celebrity is "spotted" by the media at a restaurant or nightclub, they were paid to be there and the press/paparazzi were tipped by the owner.
These same practices are used for crowd endorsements: it's well known that there are companies overseas that, for a fee, will get tens of thousands of people (usually fake accounts) to log in and "like" a brand. The phrase "astroturfing" has been coined to describe this practice - it's creating the false appearance of grass-roots support. One firm in particular charts $1.000 for 1,000 Facebook "likes" from its artificial people. While some social media firms (Twitter, in particular) have attempted to discourage or ban this practice, they have a difficult time doing so, as the firms make their robot accounts resemble real people and use various tactics (including hacks) to hide the source of their likes.
Reciprocity of Attraction
One theory of influence involves reciprocity of attraction: if someone seems to admire you, you tend to admire them in return. This is where brands (and people for that matter) tend to get things wrong when it comes to social media: they want to amass fans and admirers who "like" their posts, but they are unwilling to "like" things that their fans post. If they paid attention to the principle of reciprocity, they would be more appreciative of their customers rather than demanding their appreciation.
(EN: An interesting concept, with a few caveats. First, this tends to be gender-specific - men respond more warmly to admirers than women, who are often likely to treat an admirer as a threat. Second, people want to be liked by the right people/brands - if a person has no esteem or a negative reputation, being "liked" by them is a nuisance rather than a compliment.)
A case-study is presented of an unknown brand, who amassed more than two million subscribers to its YouTube feed simply by clicking "like" buttons on videos posted by other users. A second experiment is mentioned in which an individual created a Facebook pages of "total drivel" that he expected no-one would like, but by randomly "liking" the posts of other users, his pages amassed a sizable following.
Scarcity Drives Demand
The author mentions the principle of scarcity, which is generally believed to derive from the behavior of others. If something is rare, it is desired. If it is available in limited quantity and appears to be rapidly diminishing, it creates a near-manic need to have it. This is the reason marketers use phrases such as "limited edition" and "order before supplies run out."
The Worchel experiment (1975) is also mentioned: when people were given a choice of two jars of cookies, most of them chose from the jar with the least cookies. (EN: However, it's been questioned whether the demand was generated by an apparent scarcity or social proof - participants may have been motivated on the assumption that there was something wrong with the fuller jar because fewer people were taking those. Both seem plausible.)
He then strays into the apparent value of things that are difficult to obtain. It's generally observed that people think that something is better quality because its price is higher, but there's also a sense that something is higher quality if it is harder to get. (EN: Which may not be that different, as difficulty of acquisition is just as much part of the cost of ownership as the money price of an item.)
The mania that sometimes arises when a new product is released or a new store is opened is also tenuously linked to scarcity: people fear that others will mob the place, so they rush to reserve their place in line - and this rush further supports the perception of scarcity.
Loyalty and Esteem
The source of customer loyalty is difficult to pinpoint.
- It is often suggested that customers are loyal to a firm that serves their interests - that a good outcome makes them more likely to do business with the same provider rather than shop around.
- It is likewise suggested that a person forms a bond with a brand based on identity, and will accept an inferior product if they feel that using the brand contributes to their personal identity.
- Another theory is that brand is a social signal, and using the brands of the group to which one belongs (or aspires to belong) is important for social bonding, more so than the value of the product.
- The author also suggests that loyalty is also a factor of consistency. People value consistency in others, and seek to display consistent behavior to others: using the same brand every time is a sign of personal integrity.
- And then there are theories of habituation: most adults still use the brands that their parents used, simply because it is a matter of habit to use them and saves them the effort of considering their needs and evaluating options.
Commoditization both undermines and supports customer loyalty. If all brands are perceived to be more or less the same, there is no reason for a person to be loyal to a given brand, so they tend to buy indifferently - whatever is most convenient or cheapest. But at the same time, if all brands are more or less the same, there is no reason for a person to switch brands: they will reap no reward for taking the risk of dealing with an unknown brand.
The banking industry is mentioned as a specific example: one bank is the same as the next. Since they all pay and charge roughly the same amount of interest, the difference between one and another is a fraction of a percent. And since people are doing more of their banking business electronically, the physical location of branches and teller machines is far less significant than it was in the past.
(EN: This has turned into rather a mess - but regarding social behavior, consider the second, third, and fourth bullet points at the opening of the section.)
Loose Bits
The author cautions against the false appearance of authority. Whenever the source of a statement is anonymous, it's worthwhile to question whether it is legitimate. People are fond of claiming to be backed by authority. They will say "science has proven" without reference to a specific study, or "according to an industry expert" without naming the source. Very often, there is no study and no expert, but the person is claiming that one exists in order to get someone else to accept what they say as valid.
(EN: Naming the source doesn't guarantee authenticity, as sources are often misrepresented. Quotes are often attributed to the wrong source, and sometimes quotes are attributed to someone who never said any such thing. In other instances, a person misquotes or misinterprets a quote: consider how often bible verses are completely mangled, or how famous figures such as Darwin or Freud are quoted as saying something completely the opposite of what they actually said by people who never actually read the work from which they are quoting.)
The "voice of the crowd" is often corrupted by trolls and white knights, who either rave or bash a company with a religious fervor. Ratings are pinned to the lowest or highest possible mark, and comments are loaded with superlatives and extreme statements. Further, it's well know that some companies game the system, posting fake reviews about their products and their competitors. People in general understand this, and do not consider reviews from anonymous individuals or people they do know personally know to be reliable. So the voice of the crowd has less power and credibility than it is claimed.
(EN: An analysis of review comments also suggested that people review to promote themselves - that a positive review is a person who wants others to admire their buying decision and even negative reviews are seeking personal validation. People will be candid with those whom they know, but when the audience is anonymous there is no such sense of duty.)