4: Situational Awareness
The author refers to the Asch experiment, in which a test subject was part of a group that was asked a question and asked to answer in turn - only the group was made of seven actors who each gave the same wrong answer, and the subject was the last to be asked. In 33% of instances, subjects went along with the answer everyone else had given, even when it was obviously wrong, just to go along with the group.
Asch also considered the reasons that might explain conformist behavior, and arrived at three possible explanations:
- The subjects conclude that the other seven people were right, and their own idea must be wrong.
- The subjects know that the other sever are wrong, but decide to go along anyway
- The subjects are not conscious of the influence of others, but have been influenced anyway.
Ultimately, it is conceded that Asch "had no concrete method" for exploring the mental processes behind conformity - but he does seem to have been onto something.
A similar experiment was done some years later (Berns) - a test of judging three dimensional shapes (whether one shape was the same as another, only rotated) in which subjects were tested individually and in groups, and it was found that 40% of people conform to the wrong answers in a group setting.
Of particular importance is that Berns measured electrical activity in the brain during these experiments, expecting to see a difference (if people are agreeing without thinking, the activity should be in a different part of the brain). However, the majority of activity in the brain was in the same locations as it was when the individual was solving the problem without being in a group, which suggests that the group's choice affected their perception (they believed the wrong answer was right).
Also worth noting: where subjects chose to give the correct answer, the measurements showed increased activity in the amygdale, the part of the brain that is reckoned to be associated to primitive aggression responses, which the author uses to suggest that people go along with the group because disagreeing is unpleasant. (EN: That's a bit of a stretch. Disagreeing with others likely triggers an amygdala response because verbal disagreement is a kind of conflict, a mild one, such that the person feels stimulated, but this stimulation is not necessary "unpleasant.")
Internal and External Attribution
From a perspective of sociology, people wish to belong to groups and generally accept that belonging requires compromise: to be accepted by others means predicting and conforming to their norms, even when an individual feels that those norms are wrong. "Peer pressure" occurs when members of a group explicitly attempt to define the norms - but people who wish to belong (to join or remain accepted by the group) will proactively seek to guess at the norms without being explicitly told. This principle applies to virtually all cultures, to some degree.
It's noted that there is a difference in explanations of behavior: when we describe the behavior of other people, we consider it in terms of internal factors (their personality or character), but when we describe our own behavior, we consider it in terms of external ones (the situation or environment). This is particularly true when a given action has a negative outcome - the defense of being a good person in a bad situation.
Going back to sociology, the internal/external perception is also based largely on culture. Westerners, particularly Americans, are more focused on the individual whereas Eastern cultures consider the situation. This has a broader impact on perceptions.
Subconscious Stimulation
The author mentions a supermarket experiment in which shoppers purchased more French wines when French music was playing, and more German wines when German music was playing. When asked at the checkout, none mentioned that the music might have had to do with their selections, and when it was suggested, 86% denied it had anything to do with their choice. A few other examples are providing - people walking more slowly after hearing words associated with old age, people being tidier in an environment that smelled strongly of cleaning solvent, people buying cheaper products on a Web page where money was shown in the background, etc.
The author stresses that this is not the same as "subliminal" advertising because the stimulus is above the threshold of perception (it is "liminal"), though it may arguable be "subconscious" advertising because while the mark is aware of the stimulus, he may not be aware of the effect it has had.
Taking the Easiest Option
An interesting contrast: only 12% of Germans have consented to be organ donors, whereas almost 100% of Austrians are. The reason for this discrepancy is the way in which they are approached: Germans must explicitly opt into the donor program, Austrians are automatically enrolled unless they opt out.
This speaks to a tendency of people who do what is easiest, not necessarily what they feel is right. They are prone to go with the default settings, whether it's something as frivolous as their cell phone ring tone to something as significant as their medial alternatives
(EN: A few studies I've seen on the subject include that 95% of computer users never change the default settings of Microsoft Word, and A:B tests of Web designs that show that about 60% of people select the first option provided in a list of choices.)
The author reports on an economist and a law professor who have a theory about the way choices are presented: people who structure choices for others are creating a context for decision-making that enables them to gently nudge people in the direction of the choices they want them to make. In general, there is a default choice we want them to make, but leave them the ability to change it, knowing that most will not.
Reason and Rationalization
The author regards gamblers and insurance buyers as both making the same mistake: the system is rigged such that you pay more for the chance of winning (or being protected from a loss) than it is mathematically worth - to cover the expenses and profit margin of the casino or insurance firm. We recognize this logically, but are driven by hope or fear to make an illogical choice.
How we feel about something influences how we think about it - it's called an "affective response" - and neuroscience researchers are finding that emotion has a lot more of an impact than many expect. Quite often, reason is used merely to justify emotional response. If you like something, you will find a way to rationalize it.
(EN: This is half of it - but what they are also finding is that emotion is not as ephemeral and random as once believed. Our past experience and rational faculty determine what our emotional response will be - so reason affects emotion, emotion affects reason, and the whole thing's a vicious circle.)
When outcomes are vivid, people pay less attention to the probabilities: gamblers and policyholders are both so focused on one possible outcome that they do not pause to consider whether the value they are getting for their wager/premium is fair.
Mindless Conformity
Another serious mistake occurs when people do things because they think that they should, rather than because they think about what they are doing.
One example is obeying authority - consider Milgram's experiment in which individuals administered electric shocks to test subjects because they had been instructed to do so. In other instances, it's because a person does what they feel is appropriate to their role, as Zimbardo's prison experiment demonstrated.
Such experiments show that mindless conformity is aptly named: people clearly are not thinking about the situation in either of these experiments.
The Power of Inertia
It's a common observation that people cling to older ways of doing things, and are hostile to suggestions of change. "We've always done it this way" is a common organizational justification for refusing to give any consideration to a suggestion or consider unfamiliar alternatives. Unless a crisis arises, we carry on in the usual way.
This is deeply ingrained in western culture - the desire to create written rules, regulations, procedures, and the like reflects a tendency to make a decision once and stick to it for all time. We do what we've always done, without questioning whether it makes sense to continue doing it.
There is a much convenience in inertia: we do not have to think about things, just follow procedures. There is also a sense of safety: those who follow procedures are not responsible for the outcomes. "I did what someone else told me to do rather than thinking for myself" is taken as an ironclad defense when a written document is involved.
An interesting anecdote is presented in which a doctor discovered problems in the procedure that technicians use in administering IV lines to patients. Inserting IV lines in patients is a common procedure, done about five million times a year, and 4% of patients experience complications - to the tune of $3 billion in medical costs and 20,000 to 30,000 preventable deaths per year. He altered the procedure for one hospital and these numbers dropped by two-thirds. And then a federal agency stepped in and accused him of violating federal regulations: any change in procedure is regarded as "experimental" and can only be done with federal monitoring and the written consent of the patient.
Suggested Practices
- Be aware of your situation and the way it might influence your decision process.
- Consider the impact of the decision to those it impacts, not merely the decision-maker
- Be wary of any pressures you may get from your organization, superiors, or peers
- Question inertia. Investigate whether the usual way is still the best way
- Involve others. If people were good at detecting their own blind spots, they wouldn't exist
(EN: The author doesn't quite make the point I thought he might be reaching for: pausing to think about the process to be used in solving a problem before you actually start solving a problem can be very helpful in avoiding some, possibly most, of these issues.)