This is more behavioral/consumer focused but has Social implications and it is mind blowing.
Default Option
The chart above (from a study by Eric Johnson and Daniel Goldstein titled "Do defaults save lives?") shows the percentage of people in each country who consent to donate their organs.
What is interesting is that many of the countries in yellow on the left (Denmark, UK, etc.) are similar to many of the country in blue on the right (Belgium, Sweden, France, etc.) in terms of economics, development, etc. So why the staggering difference in consent to donate organs?
It turns out the difference is based on the framing of the options (opt-in versus opt-out) on the government form. Here is essentially how it plays out:
Yellow Countries (Opt-In Form)
"Please check the box if you want to donate your organs."
Nobody checks the box. Nobody donates.
source : Reference
Ordinary People can possibly turn into Evil
Ordinary people like you and me can turn evil in the right circumstances. Deindividuation is a theory to explain the tendency of violence to emerge in large crowds of people (see also: vigilante justice). It refers the process of losing hold of our own identity, which can occur with the anonymity and diffusion of responsibility offered to us when in large groups.
Image
Do you know why firefighters, when responding to the possibility of an active suicide jumper, push onlookers away from the scene? It is because people will gather and taunt the suicide jumper. Take the 2008 suicide of teenager Shaun Dykes, who jumped to his death after 3 hours of failed police negotiations when bored onlookers began to shout for him to jump. Does this shock you? This sort of behavior is actually common enough that it has its own term "Suicide-Baiting."
Or how about the rioting and looting that takes place after a tragedy such as Hurricane Katrina? You may suspect that only hardened criminals are doing the looting, but that would be wrong! In fact, you or I might do the same if placed in a similar situation.
So what's happening here? How can ordinary people behave in such an atrocious manner? Deindividuation is affected by 3 factors:
1. Anonymity (such as when browsing the internet, or hidden in group)
2. Diffusion of Responsibility (the feeling that responsibility for what occurs is spread out among your group, and thus you are absolved)
3. Group Size (a very large group contributes both to anonymity and diffusion, and you effectively vanish as an individual)
Take this classic study on the night of Halloween in 1976. Researchers Ed Diener and colleagues set out a large bowl of candy for trick-or-treaters, and controlled the independent variables of anonymity (some kids were asked their names), group size (recorded whether kids were alone or in group), and responsibility (some children were "placed in charge" or the group and told they would individually be held responsible if group took extra candy). Finally, all groups were instructed to take only 1 piece of candy- the researcher then closed the door so that the kids were alone.
Image
What the study found was that alone and identified children stole candy only 8% of the time, whereas anonymous children in a group stole candy nearly 60% of the time. Furthermore, when the anonymous group had been left in the symbolic hands of one child (not shown on graph) the group stole candy 80% of the time! This because the group felt less responsible for their actions when they knew there was a "leader" who would take the blame for them.
It is wise to keep this in mind the next time you see a large group behaving terribly. Whether they are children stealing candy, teenagers vandalizing property, or adults engaging in vigilante justice- breaking up the group and calling out individuals is paramount to stopping the influence of Deindividuation.
To Kill a Mockingbird
One of the best examples of this is in the film To Kill a Mockingbird, when a large mob gathers to lynch the innocent black character Tom Robinson. The mob is threatening Atticus Finch, who refuses to stand aside- when suddenly his little daughter Scout Finch steps up and confronts the mob. She gets nowhere talking to the crowd, but is successful when she singles out the familiar Walter Cunningham, telling him that she goes to school with his son. Suddenly his features contort, he transforms into an individual again, and tells the crowd to leave. What a powerful idea.
source: Reference
"You wouldn't jump off a bridge if all your friends were doing it, would you?", said everyone's parents at one time or another.
Chances are, you probably would.
In psychology, there is a concept known as Social Proof. From Wikipedia:
Social proof, also known as informational social influence, is a psychological phenomenon where people assume the actions of others in an attempt to reflect correct behavior for a given situation.
For a great example of an experiment displaying the power of social proof, check out Leo Polovets' answer to Amazing Mind-Blowing Facts: What are some mind-blowing facts about social psychology? For a more somber example, google Jonestown.
What fascinates me about social proof is just how ubiquitously it is used in marketing and advertising.
Ever wonder why McDonald's shows how many people they have served? You look at that sign and implicitly begin thinking, "247 billion?? Damn, that's a lot of hamburgers. They can't be that bad if so many people have eaten them. Maybe I'll stop in..."
Ever wonder why the majority of online retailers have a "Bestsellers" section? A best-selling category is great for browsers who do not have a specific item in mind, especially first-time customers. These customers are most comfortable buying something that has already been purchased a lot, as the value of the item has been vouched for by others.
How many times have you thought this to yourself: "Man, 20,000 people give this new app a 4.6? I should check it out." Social proof at work again. What about this sneaky one: "Damn, 3,500 people upvoted this Quora answer?" *upvotes*
The list goes on and on.
Anytime you see a mention of the number of people who have made a decision that you are considering making, social proof is at play. Once you start to see it, you'll realize it's everywhere.
Now, if you want to see how these tips got used, please have a social proof to enhance this dating life, check out Matt Schlenker's answer to What are tips/hacks to make your online dating profile stand out?
83% of the people you follow already have. ;)
source: Reference
Some social psychology inspired from The 48 Laws of Power.
- Never outshine the master.
You might be smarter than your boss or your senior but if they realize this, then they will feel insecured. They might harm you in the best possible way.
- Never appear too perfect
Envy creates silent enemies. They even turn friends into enemies.
- Think as you like but behave as per other’s expectation.
When you oppose someone’s beliefs then you hurt their ego. That increases your enemy.
- Be royal in your own fashion. If you want to be treated as a King, behave like one.
How you treat yourself determines how people treat you. If you don’t have self respect, you will be bullied by everyone.
- Destroy your enemies by making them your friends.
Resentment create enemies. Make sure if you have oppressed someone, then give a compensation so that he there is a minimum chance of conspiracy from his side.
- The human tongue is a beast only few can master.
The book "You Are Not So Smart" dedicates its first chapter to talk about something awesome called "Priming". I'll try my best to sum it up here.
Basically, there was this experiment where two participants would sit at a table, facing each other. They would have to agree on a fair division of 10 dollars between the two.
Now the way they would do this is they would reach in a bag to take one of two pieces of paper. One of them would get a piece of paper with the word "offer", and the other a piece saying something like "decide". The one with the "offer" role would have to make an offer, freely – let's say, "we both get $5" or "I get $7 and you get $3". The other one would have to decide on accepting or refusing the offer.
Now, there's not one catch, but three:
1. If the offer isn't accepted, no one gets any money. This means it has to be at least somewhat fair to both sides – while preferably maximizing profits for the offerer.
2. One of the participants is actually an actor. There's only one participant, and the researchers made sure it's always the one who gets the "offer" role.
It's getting simpler now, right?
Here's the third and main catch:
3. Half of the participants waited for the experiment in a different waiting room. One of the waiting rooms had a business-themed decoration, featuring briefcases, expensive pens, office art, suits, ties and firm handshakes. The other one had a beach-themed decoration, with sea, sand, surf and sun.
What happened is that the vast majority of participants which had waited in the business-themed room were agressive in their offers. They would argue and try to "sell" their offer. They would say things like "sure, I'll get $8, which is way more than you do, but you'll get $2, which is $2 more than nothing!"
On the other hand, the vast majority of the people which had waited in the relax-themed room would carelessly and generously made a 50% offer so both people would leave the room with $5 and be done with it.
The takeaway is that our actions are always being influenced by the values and messages perceived in our environment. Always. Unconsciously.
Isn't it scary?
Basically, there was this experiment where two participants would sit at a table, facing each other. They would have to agree on a fair division of 10 dollars between the two.
Now the way they would do this is they would reach in a bag to take one of two pieces of paper. One of them would get a piece of paper with the word "offer", and the other a piece saying something like "decide". The one with the "offer" role would have to make an offer, freely – let's say, "we both get $5" or "I get $7 and you get $3". The other one would have to decide on accepting or refusing the offer.
Now, there's not one catch, but three:
1. If the offer isn't accepted, no one gets any money. This means it has to be at least somewhat fair to both sides – while preferably maximizing profits for the offerer.
2. One of the participants is actually an actor. There's only one participant, and the researchers made sure it's always the one who gets the "offer" role.
It's getting simpler now, right?
Here's the third and main catch:
3. Half of the participants waited for the experiment in a different waiting room. One of the waiting rooms had a business-themed decoration, featuring briefcases, expensive pens, office art, suits, ties and firm handshakes. The other one had a beach-themed decoration, with sea, sand, surf and sun.
What happened is that the vast majority of participants which had waited in the business-themed room were agressive in their offers. They would argue and try to "sell" their offer. They would say things like "sure, I'll get $8, which is way more than you do, but you'll get $2, which is $2 more than nothing!"
On the other hand, the vast majority of the people which had waited in the relax-themed room would carelessly and generously made a 50% offer so both people would leave the room with $5 and be done with it.
The takeaway is that our actions are always being influenced by the values and messages perceived in our environment. Always. Unconsciously.
Isn't it scary?
source: Reference
This post first appeared on The Feel Good Things Over The Internet, please read the originial post: here
