Monkey see, monkey do

The Issue: In chapter four of Influence, Robert Cialdini discusses the principle of Social Proof, the idea that we view our behavior to be correct or incorrect based on the majority response.

Major Strength: Cialdini uses countless examples based on scientific studies as well as instances we face on a daily basis to support his argument for social proof. These include common occurrences where studies show individuals are less likely to act in an emergency situation, whether its a crime or a medical issue, if a large number of others are presence. The idea indicates individuals look to see how others are responding, and if no one is acting, then the assumption is there is no real need. Also, the belief that someone else has surely been assertive enough to make a call for help, thus there is no need for you to do so as well. Larger scale examples are also used such as the Jonestown incident, where just fewer than a thousand people followed cult leader Jim Jones from San Francisco to South America. Cialdini breaks down Jonestown and Jones’s method of persuasion. His foresight and understanding of psychology played hugely to his favor in being able to control the behaviors of his followers. The idea to alienate the People’s Temple followers from all that is familiar was a major step in gaining almost full control of their thinking patterns. By creating the community in Guyana, followers only had each other to look to for examples of how to act and react. Jones was the one that set the precedence for all of that and due to the lack of other examples it became an easy path for those community members to follow. That understanding was illustrated wonderfully in this writing.

Major Weakness: One weakness, in my mind, to Cialdini’s presentation of social proof came when he discussed the link in increased airplane and car deaths to the publicity of suicides. While numbers and scientific analysis shows a connection in these instances, Cialdini seemed a little less confident in his writing that social proof prevails in these scenarios. The discussion appeared to be hollow in that Cialdini was not very convincing that he bought the connection himself. At least that was the case in the early stages of the discussion. He did seem to draw a stronger stance on the topic when presenting David Phillips’ argument based on the “Werther effect.” Cialdini does admit Phillips’ findings were the convincing factors for him that the theory has grounds to stand on. Still, if the person attempting to convince me of belief feels the need to tell me what clinched his thoughts, the cynicism in me thinks he’s still not fully sold.

Underlying Assumption: The underlying assumption to me is that everyone blindly follows the masses without an ability to assess the situation individually and make an informed decision. During the reading, I certainly could put myself in situations and understand how our opinions can and are impacted by the actions of others, but Cialdini’s failure to acknowledge an individual’s ability to process that along with his/her own assessments leaves the masses to be generalized. Sure there is merit to the argument, but I believe there is an entirely other side that needs to be assessed.

Provocative Questions: If Cialdini’s presentation of social proof studied more closely the ability of individuals to process their own analysis of a situation with the reaction of the majority, would the case for pluralistic ignorance be quite as strong?