Phil Graves (3:00)

In the experiment, they had some stooges who were in on it, who were told not to react when the smoke started to come into the room. And then other people who were there who were not aware of what was going on or that there would be smoke. And what they found was that ordinarily smoke comes into the room, people get up and go, what the heck's going on? But when you've got people who are sitting there and looking like this is perfectly normal, nothing's wrong. Other people who didn't know what was going on didn't react.

Phil Agnew (3:31)

In the experiment, only 10% of individuals actually got up and left the room and called for help. The remaining 90% of individuals followed the crowd. If others stayed in the room, they stayed seated too. Today, my guest on Nudge explains why this happens.

Phil Graves (3:48)

My name is Phil Graves. I'm a consumer psychologist, author of the book Consumerology.

Phil Agnew (3:55)

Lantaign and Dali's study found something fascinating. We follow the actions of others, even if that action might be detrimental to us. This deference to the group can be found everywhere. Cialdini, in his 1990 study, found that littering changed in direct proportion to the amount of litter visible. The researchers increased the number of pieces of litter litter on the ground from one piece to two pieces to four pieces and then eight pieces. And they saw that littering from other people actually increased, starting at 10% and then to 20% and 23%. And finally when eight pieces were on the ground, it increased to 41%. With pieces of litter already present, people were far more likely to follow the social norm of just throwing their rubbish on the ground rather than in the bin.

Phil Graves (4:42)

It's a helpful illustration of the extent to which we are all largely unconsciously tuning in to what the people around us are doing.

Phil Agnew (4:51)

In his book Influence at Work, Steve Martin shares a study conducted by a TV crew for a show all about helping others. The crew filmed footage at a busy junction where commuters hurried past a street musician at a station entrance. At first they found, which most of us would expect, that very few people actually tipped the musician. Very few stopped to put money in their box. And then, halfway through the film, a stooge dropped some money, quite a lot of money, into the performer's hat in full view of many approaching travelers. Immediately, the TV crew counted an eight fold increase in the number of commuters who donated amongst those who actually saw somebody else doing it. The crew then interviewed those additional donors and said, why did you donate? But they gave entirely incorrect reasons they said, oh, it's because I'm a generous person, or oh, it's because he was playing a song I like, rather than the correct answer, which is, I did it because I saw someone else doing it first.

Phil Graves (5:52)

You know, I use it, I use a kind of an evolutionary psychology example of this, of the berry on a bush. So it's like, you know, you're wondering what you can eat, you're wondering what you can do. You see someone walk up to a bush and eat one of the berries, well, now you get the sense that's probably safe because someone else has done it. Two, you can probably feel closer to that person if you go and eat a berry from that bush too. And that's important because we survive better when we're social creatures and any fears you've got are alleviated because you've seen someone else do it and not react badly and all the rest of it.

Phil Agnew (6:23)

This evolutionary trait can influence us in all sorts of unconscious ways. Cialdini, again in his book Influence, writes how a shopping mall in Essex in the UK had an extremely congested food court over lunch. For help, the food court managers turned to a team of researchers who tested quite an interesting solution. The idea itself was fairly straightforward. The researchers created two posters urging the shopping centre visitors to enjoy an early lunch at the food court. One poster included an image of a single person doing just that, enjoying that early lunch. The other poster was identical with the same text, except the image was of not just one person eating lunch early, but several visitors eating lunch early, now reminding customers about the opportunity to eat an early lunch. As the first poster did, that did work. It proved successful. It produced a 25% increase in customer activity in the food court before noon. But the real success came from that second poster, which lifted pre noon consumer activity not by 25% but by 75%. If you want to get someone to eat lunch earlier, just show lots of other people following that exact behavior.

Phil Graves (7:35)

And it's something where I had an experience of this. I mean, I would regard myself, and I'm sure others would agree, as not desperately fashion conscious. But I went into my, went to my wardrobe, was looking for a jumper to wear, saw this perfectly functional green jumper and I like green as a color and thought, yeah, I don't feel like wearing that. And I realized that it was a particular shade of green that was kind of quite fashiony when I bought it. But a couple of years on I had an unconscious sense that I hadn't seen this kind of shade of green around very Much. And so my reaction to that was to feel, you know, it didn't feel like the thing I wanted to wear.

Phil Agnew (8:12)

Phil's jumpers. And eating before noon, well, all of that might sound a little bit inconsequential, but following the herd has far more serious implications. Again, in the brilliant book Influence, Cialdini cites FBI forensic experts who analyse the dramatic growth in certain crimes over very short periods. So in the 1970s, there was a huge increase in airport hijackings. In the 80s, there was a dramatic increase in product tamperings. And these forensic experts delved into these spurts of crime and found that each time there was a spurt, it linked to a nationwide news story. Every time a nationally publicised incident of a hijacking or product tampering hit the screen, the news spawned, on average, according to the research, 30 more incidents of that exact crime. We see someone conduct a crime and more criminals are more likely to conduct it. But this principle, which is known as herd mentality or social proof, it's of course found in marketing as well. If I see someone drink a Guinness, I'm more likely to drink one too. If I see someone buy an electric car, I'll be likely to do the same. And some smart companies try to trigger this impression of popularity, not by just selling more of their products, but by making their products more visible.

Phil Graves (9:30)

One of the brilliant things with the ipod was the white headphones. At that time, no one had white headphones. White headphones are a stupid color because you know you're going to stick them in your ears, they'll come out with a bit of brown earwax on, probably, but what was the difference? Anyone who was walking around with white headphones, you noticed it. And then it's like, okay, so you're developing this unconscious sense that everybody is using one of the. Or, you know, anyone, anytime anyone is using one of these Apple products, you're aware of it. And that's massive for marketing people because there is a, a sweet spot for marketing communication which is signaling the right implicit associations, capturing attention and signaling social proof. And if you end up in the middle of that Venn diagram, you're probably in a pretty successful place.

Phil Agnew (10:16)

Yellow Livestrong bands, Aperol spritz, avocado on toast. All of these products gained heightened sales because, like the ipod, they stand out. They stand out. Compared to other products in that category, they're more visible and thus they imbue a greater sense of popularity because our preferences are constantly adjusting to those around us. And if we see others around us consuming a certain product, we'll be more likely to do so too. Just listen to this cracking 2008 study, which aimed to subliminally influence the crackers people ate.

Phil Graves (10:49)

The crackers experiment was more subliminal in a way, in that people were asked to watch a video about people talking about. I think it was. I might be advertising or something. But there was a. There was. There was a primary reason for them watching this. Yeah, they were talking about a series of ads. And actually the people who were being featured in the video that the participants of the study were watching had been told to pick one type of cracker from two bowls of crackers that were on the table. And the people watching also had access to the same crackers. And what they found was that the people would mirror the crackers that the people who were in the video were selecting. And so in that situation, you could make a complicated decision and yet a simpler way of not having to use your brain and minimise the glucose wasted on this decision is kind of, I'll have what she's having, I'll eat what they're eating.

Phil Agnew (11:43)

As Phil said this, as he talked about this study, I realised that I do this exact thing all the time. I'm at a restaurant with my friends and I'll decide in advance, once I look at the menu, what I want to order in. Usually that might be a pizza, for example, and then one of my friends who orders ahead of me asks for a salad or a taco bowl or anything else, really, and I'm suddenly drawn to their choice. Suddenly, I don't want pizza, I want what they're getting.

Phil Graves (12:10)

You know, the restaurant example you're talking about, you know, sometimes that'll be driven by a fear of missing out, that someone else chooses something and you're thinking, oh, I think I'd have enjoyed that more. And that loss aversion is a really powerful drive. I mean, my wife is, you know, she always wants to know what I'm ordering and I always refuse to tell her. And then she kind of orders and I order something and she sort of mentally kicks herself because she thinks, oh, that might have been better.

Phil Agnew (12:35)

But it's not just loss aversion that causes us to follow the crowd. We also fear being ostracized for going against the grain, whether that's ordering something odd at a restaurant or attempting to save a penalty in a game of football. Dave Trott, in his fantastic book Crossover Creativity, shares stats on 965 penalties taken across the past 10 Premier League seasons. He said that of the 965 penalties, only 168% had been saved. That's about 17.4% by goalkeepers who either dived to the left or the right to save the penalty. But the most surprising statistic showed that if they hadn't dived, if they'd simply stood in the middle of the goal, not tried to dive to save the penalty, one way or the other, they were would have actually saved not 17% of the penalties, but 33% of the penalties. That's because 33% of the penalties are hit directly down the middle. But most goalkeepers dive. So the question is, why don't goalkeepers just stand still and double the amount of saves they make? Well, Dave Trott concludes that it's down to social norms. The goalkeeper's behaviour is dictated by others. He says, we basically perform to an expected norm and if it works, we get greater appreciation. If we go against that norm and it fails, we get greater disappointment. The crowd will be annoyed if their goalkeeper just stays down the middle for every single one of the penalties in a penalty shootout, because it looks like they're not doing anything. It looks like they're doing something different from the norm. If they follow the herd, they'll be criticised less so. The safest route is to follow the norm. The norm for a goalkeeper is to make a spectacular dive and it's definitely not just to stand still. We follow the herd, even if it's to our own detriment. Take this classic example by a British university attempting to reduce binge drinking. The administrators at the university were rather shocked to discover that the average student drank around six pints every time they went out for a night out. This was far more than the recommended amount of pints or drinks anyone should consume on a single night. So the university created big banners across the campus saying the average student drinks six pints per night is far more than the recommended allowance. Stop binge drinking next time you go out. This seems entirely reasonable until you realise that people follow the crowd. And all this message did was made those drinking less than six pints, or at least those that remembered drinking less than six pints, well, it made them drink more. They felt like they weren't drinking enough of their peers, they felt like outcasts and they suddenly drank more to keep up with their friends. So do not make the unwanted behaviour seem commonplace. Make it seem abnormal. Ing knew this all too well when the Dutch bank emailed customers telling them that they were saving less than most of their neighbors. More people became interested in saving more. People clicked on the email to open the saving page more often. They could have said thousands of people like you aren't saving enough, but that would have only backfired. Instead, they made it clear that most people save more. And I went a little bit viral on LinkedIn a few months ago talking about just this. I found an advert for Skin and Me and this is a ellipse balm which I believe helps reduce sunburn on your lips. And they proudly declared in this advert that 91% of you do not apply enough SPF. They then go on to say we've got you. And then they talk about their lip balm. And I said in my post that this is sort of proven to backfire because all they are doing is saying that the vast majority of people don't use their product. And what the science says is that will almost always make people more likely to continue not using that product. Social norms influence what we eat, what we wear, how we save a penalty, and how much we drink on a night out. But perhaps most surprisingly, social norms can dramatically influence who we vote for in elections. Find out how psychologists found a way to take one politician's speech and make it dramatically more effective after this quick break, the podcast I'd like to recommend Today is the DTCpod brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for professionals. The DTC pod is a pod that is all about direct to consumer companies and products. If you're in E commerce, if you create sites where you sell stuff direct to consumers, this is a podcast that you definitely should listen to. If you're interested in learning the stories behind your favorite DTC brands, then this is a podcast where you'll be able to find and understand those success stories. So go and listen to the DTC Podcast wherever you get your podcasts. In a world drowning in noise, only a few stories break through and stay with us on the Audience Connection. Podcast hosts Lydia Chan and Oli Atkinson bring together storytellers, brand leaders and behavioral scientists to reveal how great content sparks action and builds lasting connection. Each week, guests share ideas that you can put to work immediately, whether you're growing a brand, leading a team, or trying to truly reach your audience. If you want your content to be remembered and not forgotten, go and subscribe to the Audience Connection wherever you get your podcasts. Hello and welcome back. You are listening to Nudge with me, Phil Agnew. So far we've spoken about how social norms can affect commercial behaviour, but my guest Phil Graves is also conscious that these norms can affect our voting preferences.

Phil Graves (18:07)

When it comes to the political world. And you know, how people are making decisions about who they want to run their country, there's an awful lot we should be concerned about. So we should definitely be concerned about opinion poll results because we often believe that they're accurate. Because the close opinion poll to the event is normally close and the exit polls are normally close, but they are not always close. And the reason they're not always close is because they're using models. Because, you know, you ask someone, okay, who are you going to vote for? 1, they lie sometimes because of the perception of how they might be perceived by who they say they're going to vote for. Sometimes they say they're going to vote for someone and they don't actually bother to get out their chair or send their postal vote in. So they're using models to try and kind of adjust for all of this. But models change and models go wrong and things go awry. But of course, in the process with those models, they are signaling to the electorate, oh, most people, or a lot of people want to vote for party X. And what we've seen is that, that that is influencing. So that's a concern.

Phil Agnew (19:17)

Phil writes in his book how opinion polls like these can also generate results that are proven to be entirely wrong. He's got a great example of Bailey's Liqueur, incredibly successful British drink. Originally, when that was released, it was shown to consumers and consumers were given opinion polls to rate it and they said they hated it. They said, I'll never drink anything like this, I don't want a spirit that's creamy. But the team at Bailey's launched it anyway because of one senior manager's gut feeling and obviously it worked. It's now a dramatic success. But what's perhaps more surprising is just how easy it is to swing someone's opinion.

Phil Graves (19:49)

But then there was a very specific study done where during an election debate, and I think this was the 2010 election, and they had an election debate with David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg. And what the broadcasters added, I guess to try and make it more interesting to the viewers, was what was described as a worm, which was people showing their live, real time reaction, they had a group, a fairly small group, undecided voters about how they were reacting to what the politicians were saying as they were saying it. So, you know, they were favourable, they were unfavorable, whatever. And so a team of researchers decided to experiment with what would happen if you manipulated this worm in favor of one candidate more than another. Important point. The content of what these people are saying is exactly the same. The idea would be that you or I watching it should form our own view about what we think about what they're saying. But their study clearly showed that wasn't what was happening, because they looked at people's overall favourability, where they'd manipulated it in favour of Nick Clegg. 79% of people said they thought he had performed best in the debate. When they manipulated it in favour of Gordon Brown, 47% thought he'd performed best in the debate, which was the highest score above the other two.

Phil Agnew (21:10)

This is a widely cited 2011 study titled Social Influence in Televised Election Debates. It was conducted on 150 participants and it found that the majority of viewers were unaware that the worm had been manipulated. And yet their perception of who won the debate was influenced by the worm. Their choice of their preferred prime minister was influenced too, and of course, so was their voting intention.

Phil Graves (21:35)

So they completely swung the sentiment that arose from watching this discussion by signaling what other people thought. And of course, no one knew who those other people were or why they were suddenly particularly important deciders about what was a good political commentary and what wasn't. So it's pretty unnerving the extent to which we will be influenced by what we perceive other people to be thinking or doing.

Phil Agnew (22:04)

There is something slightly ominous about how the authors of this 2011 paper finish their abstract. They write, we argue that there is an urgent need to reconsider the simultaneous broadcast of average response data with televised election debates. And yet, just consider what has happened since 2011. Social media has made live often quite visceral. Polarised opinions of politicians, instant opinions of politicians, well, it's made that the norm. Broadcasters have become, I believe, far less balanced. They're incentivized to throw their weight behind one view because that tends to get more engagement. And opinion polls have propagated. The latest YouGov polling on a politician will often lead news stories. We now expect live, instant reaction to every political story. And yet all the evidence shows that it is this reaction to the story, not the story itself, that actually fuels opinions. Changing an opinion really isn't as hard as many of us make out. My preferences are largely dictated by those around me. I like to believe that my enjoyment of a cold, creamy pint of Guinness is due to my mature taste. But in reality, it's almost entirely down to the popularity and visibility of that drink. If drastically fewer people drunk Guinnesses, there's no way I would. And if it's that easy to change what I drink, it's definitely easy to change other decisions I make in my life, including what I wear, what I eat, and almost certainly who I vote for. That is all for today folks. Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Nudge. And thank you again for Phil Graves for joining me on the show. This is his last appearance on Nudge, so I will give a big plug to his fantastic book Consumerology. It's a fantastic read. It's been out for over a decade, but it is still just as relevant today as it was when it was released. If you want to learn exactly how consumers make the decisions they do and what market research often gets wrong, you should go and read that book. I've left a copy of it in the Show Notes, so go to the Show Notes to check that out. Also, in today's Show Notes and in every Show Notes that I create for the show, I cite all of the studies I have referenced. Today I realize that you are probably listening to this podcast, not looking at your phone. Or at least I hope you're not. You may be doing something else, having a walk, driving, car, walking the dog, whatever it will be. And you might want to come back to some of the studies that I've spoken about on the show. Well, if that is ever the case, just go to the Show Notes and you will find them all there. You will also find them in the announcement email that I write every Monday for my newsletter subscribers. Every Monday my subscribers get an email announcing the latest episode with an image showcasing what the episode's about, a bit of a description and all of the sources that I talk about, plus a bit of a behind the scenes look at how the episode was created. So if you ever want to get those show notes before the episode even launches or just just have a look at how the show is produced, make sure you do Go and sign up for the Nudge newsletter. Not only do you get that Monday announcement email, you also get my Friday newsletter where I share the best behavioral science tip I have found that week. The newsletter is completely free to sign up to. It's loved by many, many people. I should say that the vast majority of people listening to this show probably subscribe to the newsletter. I should probably say that as well. And it's very easy to sign up. All you have to do is go to nudgepodcast.com, that is nudgepodcast.com and click newsletter in the menu or just click the link in the show notes. All right, folks, that is all for this week. Thank you so much for listening. I'll be back next Monday with another episode of Nudge, Cheers.