The Issue: The principle of social proof is about how humans behave certain ways because we see others behaving that way. Cialdini discusses social proof and gives examples of many different situations where social proof can be seen in action.
Strength: Cialdini does a great job at explaining what social proof is and how it can be understood through a variety of situations. The examples he gives are clearly not all of the same severity, but he can link them all together through the principle of social proof. As I look back at what I highlighted, I am noticing that Cialdini does a good job of repeating himself without sounding like he’s repeating himself. I think that is great because he really emphasizes the point and tries to get readers to understand but not to a point where it’s completely redundant in ineffective. His discussion of the bystander effect was particularly impactful. I have studied this before but had never heard it put in quite the same terms. When he writes, “It means something very different to say that bystanders failed to help because they were busy versus because the street on which the incident occurred was busy,” it adds a lot to the readers understanding.
Weakness: The examples Cialdini gave were really helpful at explaining the social proof phenomenon, however, they turned dark quite quickly. It would have been great to see more everyday/ordinary examples rather than cults and murders and suicides. It would be helpful to get an understanding of examples where social proof is more relevant to the average person.
Assumption: The biggest weakness of the principle of social proof is that people are unable to think for themselves. It seems as though people are made out to be robots that can be controlled by the others around them. The one occurrence of someone thinking on his own was the man who walked out after the flood/spaceman event failed to happen. The principle of social proof assumes that people are strictly looking to others on how to behave. I understand how this is a general/overarching principle, but it seems as though there would also be plenty of exceptions.
Questions: Is there a certain demographic group that can be seen to be more heavily influenced by the bystander effect or by the actions of others? Are there certain situations where the principle of social proof can be disproven that are not discussed here?