
Peer pressure’s effects are perhaps more powerful than we thought (2014) - thebent
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/04/people-around-you-control-your-mind-the-latest-evidence
======
7402
Regarding buying food on an airplane, what about the effect of simple
politeness?

I'm not sure I would call it "peer pressure," when I feel uncomfortable about
eating food next to someone who doesn't have any. Maybe it's a cultural thing,
but I would rather wait to eat until the person next to me also has food.

Once I was on a train, and the woman next to me offered to share some of the
sandwich she brought with her. I said, "no thanks, I was about to go get some
food from the dining car." I got my own sandwich and brought it back. I
understood completely what was behind her offer, and I am sure we both felt
more comfortable eating together, even though we didn't know each other and
would never see the other person again.

~~~
auggierose
There's politeness, and then there is that.

------
MustardTiger
This is why certain groups have such a strong interest in controlling twitter,
facebook, google, etc. Most people simply go along with what they perceive as
the majority opinion. This used to take the form of doing whate everyone
around you does, which is why political views tended to group up so much by
community.

But we no longer have communities, we no longer speak to actual people,
especially not about anything like politics. So that instinctive conformity is
now based on easily falsified information presented though the media. This is
why facebook prevents certain topics from trending, and puts others that are
not naturally trending into the trending queue.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _But we no longer have communities, we no longer speak to actual people,
> especially not about anything like politics._

Oh but we do have communities, and we do talk to actual people (also about
politics!) - it's just no longer strongly tied to your location. Blame the
invention of the telephone, that lets you stay in touch with your family and
friends at long distances, and the invention of the car, that lets you visit
them often.

~~~
MustardTiger
>Oh but we do have communities, and we do talk to actual people (also about
politics!)

No, we don't. Communities have bonds. Seeing facebook spam is not the same as
talking to a person, and joining a group of people who post likeminded
facebook spam is not a community. It just scratches the same instinctual itch
as a community.

>Blame the invention

Blame has nothing to do with it. Understanding how and why people control
information to manipulate the public and undermine democracy is important.
Trying to blame dead people for technology they invented is not.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _No, we don 't. Communities have bonds. Seeing facebook spam is not the same
> as talking to a person, and joining a group of people who post likeminded
> facebook spam is not a community. It just scratches the same instinctual
> itch as a community._

You and I may be using Facebook differently. I'm not thinking about random
Facebook groups and news feeds of people you don't even remember. But e.g. for
me, there are people with whom, due to temporal and geographical constraints,
Facebook (both site and Messenger) is the primary means of communication, and
said communication is frequent and often deep. It's just another tool, not
unlike the phone or telegram or paper mail.

> _Understanding how and why people control information to manipulate the
> public and undermine democracy is important._

How: with free speech.

Why: because they have goals they want to achieve.

This actually is democracy working as designed - people being free to bullshit
one another. The hope might have been that bullshitting from different actors
will cancel out, but that doesn't generally work due to, among other things,
simple randomness.

~~~
wutbrodo
> You and I may be using Facebook differently.

This is almost certainly the case. I feel like much of the time when people
confidently generalize (on HN and elsewhere) about "how everybody uses
Facebook", they end up talking past each other because there are just vastly
different patterns of usage that you never have occasion to get exposed to
(given that your friend group is more likely to have usage patterns similar to
your own). I once got downvoted pretty heavily on HN for responding to someone
talking about removing their Facebook friends that they don't know by asking
"Is this something that people do? Friend people that they've never met or
spoken to?". Apparently that's totally a thing, but I never would've known

~~~
MustardTiger
It may be the case, or it may not. Since we're not discussing how we use
facebook, it is both unknown and irrelevant. We're talking about how facebook
uses us, not at all the same thing. Facebook curates what you see no matter
how you use facebook.

------
Udik
It gets worse. You are x% more likely to buy food if you just _see_ or _smell_
it, without even a "peer" enjoying it. Isn't that horrifying? That must be
called something like food-pressure.

~~~
hinkley
Around here we just call that Cinnabon.

~~~
otoburb
At the Yonge-Eglinton TTC station in Toronto it's especially difficult not to
succumb to the scent of Cinnabon wafting through the air.

~~~
hasenj
It will not force you to buy it if you hate cinnamon. I can't stand the smells
coming off a cinnabon shop.

------
paxtonab
The article is from 2014 and it is about a paper studying "social effects in
consumption" in a controlled situation (i.e. while you are stuck in an
airplane), and another paper about social influences of high schoolers signing
up for an SAT prep class.

While the studies are interesting, it is hardly worthy of the click-bait
title.

TL;DR if you sit next to someone on an airplane who buys a drink you are 30%
more likely to buy a drink yourself (and presumably the study successfully
controlled for people traveling together).

Edit: The post title was just changed from what I clicked on "People around
you control your mind: The latest evidence" which was so much more
entertaining!

~~~
louprado
The original title was also more accurate. The experiment involved neither
"pressure" nor "peers".

~~~
thebent
Yeah, have to agree with louprado here. The 'People around you control your
mind' although a bit more entertaining and click baity is actually more
accurate than 'peer' or 'pressure'.

------
quirkot
"Peer pressure's effects are perhaps more powerful than we thought" only if
you've never heard of Stanley Milgram

~~~
gricardo99
Unless there's a lesser-known experiment by Stanley Milgram on peer pressure,
the most famous one is about "obedience to authority figures"[1]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)

~~~
goodJobWalrus
There is also Asch experiment

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments)

------
rgbrenner
On the airline experiment: says if the person sitting next to you purchases
something, you're 30% more likely to purchase something.

Isn't the person next to you more likely to be your friend or family member?
What portion of people travel alone? And if they're related, chances are high
they have similar expectations/acceptance of in-flight purchases.

Edit: found this article with more details:
[https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/pedro-m-gardete-
fellow...](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/pedro-m-gardete-fellow-
airline-passengers-influence-what-you-buy) Apparently, if they have the same
reservation #, it doubles.

~~~
oldmanjay
Reservation information was used to control for people flying together - not
that I would consider it a foolproof method. In all the times I've flown,
probably 80% were with someone but the reservations were not made together. I
doubt I'm the only one for whom this is representative since it was business
travel.

------
bimr
as @tiglionabbit mentioned, this is priming. The term should be famous now
thanks to the books "Thinking Fast and Slow" and "Nudge". Also probably a dose
of recency bias. [http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/psyching-
us-...](http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/psyching-us-out/?_r=0)

~~~
gojomo
And yet, perhaps an equally-apt word is _infamous_ , because 'priming' effects
appear often among those psychological research results that fail-to-
reproduce:

[http://www.chronicle.com/article/Power-of-
Suggestion/136907/](http://www.chronicle.com/article/Power-of-
Suggestion/136907/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)

~~~
bimr
Although, to be fair to Richard Thaler, the article you cite itself falls prey
to the 1/n "mental accounting" heuristic. It gives half of its attention to a
call center replication that did support the priming effect.

------
ftrflyr
I drink once in my life. When I was 20. Why? I was interested in what being
drunk felt like from a scientific perspective. Upon drinking all the liquor I
could find in the house, the room began to spin and I didn't like the feeling
of not being in control so I found the nearest couch and passed out.

I often wonder if I am programmed differently than other people. Peer pressure
has never really had any effect on me. When people would try to convince me to
drink, I would grab a root beer and relish in the joy of drinking something
that not only tastes great (not having to acquire a taste for) but did not
result in a loss of my inhibitions. (Yes, I am well aware of the argument that
sugar and soda are probably far worse than occasionally drinking).

Growing up I often pondered the reasons why people begin drinking: Peer
pressure, wanting to fit in, the need to feel cool, etc. None of these things
every pushed me in the direction of needing to drink.

~~~
stouset
> Upon drinking all the liquor I could find in the house, the room began to
> spin and I didn't like the feeling of not being in control so I found the
> nearest couch and passed out.

I don't know that evaluating drinking alcohol by getting hammered is really
going to lead to a reasonable analysis. Most alcohol consumption is within
reason.

> I often wonder if I am programmed differently than other people. Peer
> pressure has never really had any effect on me. When people would try to
> convince me to drink, I would grab a root beer and relish in the joy of
> drinking something that not only tastes great (not having to acquire a taste
> for) but did not result in a loss of my inhibitions.

It sounds like it has more of an effect on you than you realize, just in the
opposite direction. You come across as feeling superior for your choice to not
drink alcohol and instead "drink things that taste great" (implying that
people drink alcoholic beverages despite disliking the taste) and that "don't
result in a loss of inhibitions" (as if this is universally a bad thing).
Honestly, it sounds like you started out with your conclusions (alcohol is
bad/dumb/whatever) and went out in search of evidence supporting that
conclusion ("drinking all the liquor I could find in the house").

People drink alcohol for a variety of reasons. Peer pressure, wanting to fit
in, and feeling cool plays roughly zero part in it once you get past high
school. People enjoy the flavor of cocktails, liquors, beer, wine, and other
alcoholic beverages. People enjoy the "social lubricant" effect of moderate
consumption. And yes, people think it's fun to get drunk (news flash: it is,
at times!).

If you don't want to drink or don't enjoy drinking, good for you. Do your own
thing. But damn do you come across as feeling better than others for making
that choice.

~~~
ftrflyr
> If you don't want to drink or don't enjoy drinking, good for you. Do your
> own thing. But damn do you come across as feeling better than others for
> making that choice.

While I won't argue your other points, I will push back a bit on the comment
above. Since you seemed to gather so much from a sentence, let me ask you
this, why do you care?

If you are going to go out of your way to make a personal attack when nowhere
in my expressing MY THOUGHTS did I make an attack on anyone, then that is your
prerogative. You make some wild accusations based on me explaining an
experience that is personal to me. While I am not sorry you took what I said
in a negative light, it does shed light on how you view yourself as a person
and others who don't agree with your line of thinking.I wish you the best in
you finding who you are.

(edit) Apparently, some of you don't like my comment. Let me clean it up a bit
for those downvoters.

~~~
stouset
> Since you seemed to gather so much from a sentence, let me ask you this, why
> do you care? If you are going to go out of your way to make a personal
> attack when nowhere in my expressing MY THOUGHTS did I make an attack on
> anyone, then that is your prerogative.

I don't care. And I didn't mean this to be a personal attack. Maybe you didn't
mean it to come across the way I read it. Maybe you don't feel smugly superior
to people who drink. But as written, your message came across (to me, and I'm
guessing to those who upvoted me) the way I presented it.

At the very least, you grossly misrepresent the motives of people who drink as
being primarily driven by peer pressure and a desire to conform. And your
"experiment" of "drink everything in the house" comes across as misguided at
best, and as chasing evidence in support of your preconceived notions at
worst.

Given that, are you really so surprised that people took umbrage?

~~~
ftrflyr
> people took umbrage?

People no. You, yes. Please don't speak for other people.

> you grossly misrepresent the motives of people who drink

I do? I offered my OPINION on why I believe people drink. What qualifies me to
give such an opinion?

10+ years as a bartender (from dive bars to high-end restaurants - the last
being Spiaggia in Chicago). During that time, I continued to further my
understanding of why people drink. Asking clients and gaining deeper
knowledge. Let me ask you...why did you start drinking? Yes, you can point out
that after high school...blah, blah, blah. I am not speaking to the fact that
those have a choice once they reach an age where they are less pressured into
doing things they have less control over at a younger age. You seemed to have
completely missed the point of the article and my commenting an experience
where peer pressure has not affected me.

So yes, I would say I am qualified to make statements not only about my
personal experiences (those of which NEVER supported a position for or against
drinking). You seemed to have done that for me.

> "experiment" of "drink everything in the house" comes across as misguided at
> best

Misguided at best? You are grasping at straws now.

> preconceived notions at worst

At worst? Let's put this into context.

Whether or not I develop an opinion before or after an experiment doesn't
predict the outcome of that experiment. That is like saying because I heard
about how bad heroin was growing up and tried it then...what exactly? What are
you trying to say exactly? Because as far as I can tell, you are saying a
whole lot without actually saying anything.

~~~
voidtype
> 10+ years as a bartender

> Only drank once at 20, proceeded to get blackout drunk.

~~~
ftrflyr
And?

~~~
tunap
You have touched on an exposed nerve, to eschew such a fundamental past-time
for many. The lack of prosody in the comm allows readers to fill the void of
inflection to match their expectations, don't take it personal. Just don't say
'I don't watch TV' or there may be pitchforks & ropes in your future.

~~~
voidtype
Oh my god this is such a dumb reply. I was pointing out that it's pretty
unbelievable that you would be a bartender for 10 years and only have had a
drink (or in OP's case gotten blackout drunk) once in your life.

I would _hate_ to order a drink from someone like that. Follow a formula for a
cocktail all you want, you should still know what it tastes like. It's like a
patisserie chef who has only ever eaten one cannoli.

------
sethbannon
Makes me think airlines will soon start strategically placing "purchasers"
throughout the plane in order to maximize the effect of this social pressure.

~~~
maneesh
Giving up several hundreds in ticket revenue to make 1-2 people 30% more
likely to buy a drink...

~~~
Declanomous
You could give people a free drink card before the flight. Problem solved.

~~~
prokes
I can't understand why this is being downvoted.

Declanomous is offering a hypothesis that improves on the original comment of
giving away seats. While the impact of buying a drink vs. receiving a drink
may differ, and the study only studied "buys", peer pressure works in other
ways, too. One could argue that people drinking in the vicinity "pressures" or
influences others to drink, so the solution Declanomous provided could 1)
increase beverage revenue at low cost and 2) increase customer good will (the
free drink recipient) at low cost.

In fact, Southwest may know this as they send out free drink coupons to
frequent flyers.

~~~
Declanomous
Thanks for backing me up. My experience Southwest is actually what made me
think of that. I used my free drink coupon on a flight recently. The person
sitting across from me ended up changing their order to a alcoholic beverage
as well. It works just as well as purchasing a drink in any case, because you
order before you present the coupon.

I suggested a card, such as a gift card, because I suspect watching someone
swipe a card has a larger effect than watching someone hand over a printed
coupon. It would also work for those back-of-seat infotainment systems that
allow you to swipe a card to buy something.

I work in marketing for a non-profit, and I spend a lot of time figuring out
how to get people to tell other people they gave to us. I'm sure this is
marketing 101. The funny thing is that I probably overthink marketing
experiments. I love pouring over data like Gardete did, but most of the other
marketing people I know would just use A|B testing. Even though their
experimental design makes me shudder, it gets the job done. From the
perspective of a middle manager, it doesn't really matter if you understand
the solution as long as it works. I think understanding why allows you to
build on your successes and failures, but that's a self-serving bias.

------
salmonellaeater
In the airplane situation, I think it's worth stepping back to consider
whether peer pressure is the simplest explanation. I think it's much more
likely that people are just free-riding on others' mental effort of evaluating
whether buying things on an airplane is worth it.

------
the_economist
Paul Graham wrote about this in an essay called Cities & Ambition:
[http://paulgraham.com/cities.html](http://paulgraham.com/cities.html)

------
gumby
The SAT Prep example was more interesting to me.

The whole article was frustratingly brief, but I guess that's what the market
is calling for these days. Or is it just the influencers?

------
anindha
People sitting next to each other are more likely a group and going to perform
the same action because of this. Two people decide to watch a movie together
or two people decide to get lunch on the plane rather than before getting on.

They need to control for tickets bought together.

------
oldmanjay
Headline says control, numbers and article conclusion say influence. My
skepticism says when someone attempts to reproduce this, it may just vanish.
My cynicism says the post is preparing this as an excuse for trump winning.

~~~
wutbrodo
There are connotations of "control" that make it a flashier, more imprecise,
more clickbaity way to say influence. Specifically, having some degree of
control less than total control over one's behavior means roughly the same
thing as having influence.

~~~
oldmanjay
If you have to explain away the meaning of something by using an order of
magnitude more words, you're bullshitting

~~~
wutbrodo
That is truly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Part of explaining
something someone doesn't understand is making context explicit, context that
is unstated and shared by those who do understand. Rules like yours that sound
cute but make no sense are a poor, poor substitute for actual thought.

------
oldmanjay
Now that the headline is changed from the click-bait attempt at reducing
individual responsibility for actions, I'm struck by just how insidiously
pervasive these attempts seem to be. One could make a slightly paranoid case
that it is a left-leaning goal to convince people that the aren't in charge of
themselves anyway, so just let mama gov't take over.

~~~
ZoF
It's almost as if the end-game is a docile/subdued populace who is so unsure
of themselves that they'll welcome basic income/restricted speech/gun control
with open arms.

Sounds like a right wing conspiracy to me :)

~~~
oldmanjay
More like observation that political types like to maintain control by aiming
people at ideals they can never achieve.

~~~
ZoF
ok.

