Invisible Influence

by Jonah Berger

  So companies use signals, like where an applicant went to school, the jobs they held previously, or other readily available information as a proxy for qualities that are difficult to evaluate. A candidate graduated from Brown? That’s no guarantee that he or she will do well, but the company makes an educated guess based on what they’ve observed in the past. If Brown grads tend to perform well, the company will start to use that as a signal of who to hire.

  The same holds true for social situations like the party with the bean dip. There’s not enough time to ping-pong around, briefly sampling each potential conversation partner before deciding who to talk to. And while we could try collecting information about them from other people we know, that would be laborious and time-consuming.

  So instead, we use people’s choices as signals of who they are and what they’re like. Someone who wears a North Face jacket might be outdoorsy. Someone who uses an Apple laptop might be creative. Research finds that people even make inferences about others based on their shopping lists. Whether someone bought Häagen-Dazs or generic ice cream, for example, influenced others’ willingness to let that person babysit their children.1

  In some ways, these inferences seem silly. Does what ice cream someone bought really provide that much information about whether they’d be a good babysitter? Not really.

  But, from another perspective, they make a lot of sense. Without making these, and many similar inferences, life would be a lot more difficult. How else could we get a sense of which person at a party we might enjoy talking to, or which job applicant might be a better fit?

  * * *

  Signals provide an easy shortcut.2 A way to simplify decision making. We use observable characteristics like how someone dresses, how she talks, or what she drives as a clue to more unobservable characteristics, like whether she’d be fun to grab a beer or go to dinner with. We piece together clues to help us solve the puzzle.

  And signals aren’t set in stone. They can be revised with new information. If every time we met someone dressed like a hipster he was boring—or, even worse, stole our wallet—we’d probably stop talking to people dressed like that pretty quickly.

  But we don’t just make inferences about others; we also choose things based on who they are associated with.

  Suppose you were asked to vote on a new welfare policy. It offers $800 a month for families with one child and an extra $200 a month for each additional child. In addition, it provides full medical insurance, a job training program, $2,000 in food stamps, extra subsidies for housing and day care, and two years of paid tuition at a community college. Benefits are limited to eight years, but the program would guarantee a job after benefits ended, and would reinstate aid if a family had another child.

  Would you be in favor or opposed to such a policy?

  When we think about attitudes toward social policies like these, we usually think they are driven by our personal opinions. Our own beliefs about or feelings toward the issues. Some people are more liberal and others are more conservative. So it wouldn’t be surprising if conservatives preferred more stringent welfare policies while liberals preferred more generous ones. Indeed, when Stanford professor Geoffrey Cohen examined how people felt about this relatively generous welfare policy, he found that liberals loved it and conservatives hated it.3

  But Cohen didn’t stop there. He also gave some conservatives the same policy, except this time he added just one additional piece of information: that Republicans tended to like it. He told people that the policy was supported by 95 percent of House Republicans and that Republican lawmakers felt that the policy “provides sufficient coverage. . . . without undermining a basic work ethic and sense of personal responsibility.” Same full medical benefits, same guaranteed job after benefits ended, same generous policy overall.

  Conservative should hate this policy. It goes against everything they believe in. In fact, no real-world welfare program at the time was more generous than the policy stated here.

  But they didn’t. Simply telling conservatives that other Republicans liked the policy was enough to completely switch their views. Now conservatives loved the lavish welfare policy. They didn’t just support it, they were extremely in favor of it. All because they thought their party liked it.

  If you’re liberal, this probably confirms what you’ve felt for a long time. That Republicans are weak-minded conformists who just do whatever the party says. They don’t really think critically about the issues, they just follow the party line. No wonder Republicans have run the country into the ground. Democrats are more thoughtful and pay more attention to the actual issues, right?

  But not so fast. Because liberals were just as susceptible to social influence. When just given policy information, liberals preferred the generous welfare policy to a more stringent one. But adding group endorsements completely changed their views. If liberals were told that Republicans liked the generous welfare policy, they said they opposed it. And when liberals were given a stringent welfare policy but told that other Democrats endorsed it, they favored it as well. In fact, they liked it even more than the generous policy in the absence of group information. People’s attitudes entirely depended on who the policy was associated with.

  When people were asked what drove their policy attitudes, though, their party barely figured in the discussion. They said that the details of the proposal and their own philosophy of government drove their decision. What the typical Democrat or Republican believes? They said it barely mattered at all.

  And they were wrong. Because people’s attitudes weren’t just slightly nudged one way or another depending on group endorsement, their attitudes completely changed based on which party supported or opposed them. Regardless of whether the welfare policy was generous or stringent, conservatives supported the policy if they thought Republicans favored it and opposed it if they thought Democrats favored it. And liberals did the same, albeit following what they thought Democrats supported (and opposing what Republicans liked).

  When it came to political views, party was stronger than policy.

  WHERE DO SIGNALS COME FROM?

  When Honda launched a new compact crossover called the Element, the company tried to appeal to twenty-somethings. The SUV was designed to cater to the adventuresome, with fold-down seats and a back that could fit a kayak or mountain bike. Their ads took a similar approach. They were filled with hip, loud music and cool twenty- and thirty-somethings surfing, snowboarding, and doing other extreme sports.

  Clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch also projects a certain image. Their ads show highly sexualized, grey-scale photos of toned adolescents hanging out on the beach or just having fun. Abercrombie stores convey a similar aura. Dim lights, attractive salespeople, and the smell of youthful privilege emanating from the walls.

  The message from both companies is clear. Want to be like these people? Buy from us. You’re not purchasing a product, you’re buying a ticket to a certain lifestyle and everything that comes with it. If you like outdoor sports, the Element is the right car for you. If you want to have a hot bod, or date someone who does, wear Abercrombie.

  But do companies have full control over what their brands signal?

  Honda pitched the Element as a dorm room on wheels for college-age folks and twenty-somethings looking to haul bikes and surfboards, but it also ended up appealing to other demographics. The Element was just as popular with thirty- and forty-somethings who found it perfect for hauling around children and groceries. And senior citizens loved its easy entry, spacious interior, and relatively low price tag.

  Soon the Element stopped signaling hip and started communicating something else.

  Something similar happened with Abercrombie. But before returning to their story, we first need to learn about small green frogs.

  * * *

  It’s tough being a small male green frog. Life starts as part of a huge floating egg mass with thousands of your brothers and sisters. Hatching happens less than a week later. If you su
rvive being eaten by dragonfly larvae and fish, you soon grow to become a tadpole, competing for algae and whatever else you can get your little amphibian lips on. But as you bulk up, you become more appealing to herons, mallards, and other ducks looking for a snack. Fewer than one of every 250 of your peers survive to become frogs.

  Being a full-fledged frog isn’t any easier. Now you have to find a mate. And it’s a tough market. Ladies aren’t looking for love, they’re looking for someone with a nice, safe place to lay their eggs. Guys with the best spots might even get to mate multiple times during the season. So, in late spring to early summer, you leave the comforts of your primary wetland habitat and migrate to a breeding site, looking for the best corner of pond you can find.

  After much hopping about, you finally see it. There, in the fading light of the afternoon, you find the perfect spot. Shady, nicely vegetated, and not too deep. Time to use your vocal cords and let the ladies know you’re single and ready to mingle.

  But before you can find Ms. Right Now, you hear a noise. A throaty boink (like the plucking of a loose banjo string) that sounds just like yours, only a bit lower and deeper.

  Not good.

  Someone has come to steal your territory.

  The sounds green frogs make tend to be associated with size. Bigger frogs make deeper noises. And bigger frogs almost always beat smaller frogs in a fight.

  So what’s a small frog to do? How can you hold on to your spot?

  Turns out that small green frogs do something clever. They fib. Just a little bit.

  Rather than sending their regular call in response to a large male call, small green frogs switch to something else.4 Something a little richer and deeper than usual. When faced with a rival that might steal their spot, small green frogs produce a lower-frequency call that makes them sound bigger and tougher than they actually are.

  It’s like renting a Mercedes for your high school reunion or using a ten-year-old photo as your dating website profile. To help them get what they want, the little frogs bluff.

  Now bluffing, in itself, isn’t bad. Everyone does it sometimes. Who wouldn’t mind being a little hipper, smarter, or wealthier than they actually are? So people buy things that send these desired signals.

  But when too many people start bluffing, or enough outsiders do something even for more functional reasons (like senior citizens and the Element), something interesting happens. It starts to change the meaning of that signal.

  If lots of non-outdoorsy people start wearing North Face, either because they want to seem adventurous or just because they like the way the clothes fit, the brand may lose its value as a signal of rugged outdoorsmanship. Even worse, people may start to associate the brand with wannabes. Something that signaled one thing may start to signal something else.

  And that is what Abercrombie & Fitch was worried about when it saw “The Situation” wearing their clothes on Jersey Shore. Their press release stated:

  We are deeply concerned that Mr. Sorrentino’s association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image. We understand that the show is for entertainment purposes, but believe this association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans. We have therefore offered a substantial payment to Michael “The Situation” Sorrentino and the producers of MTV’s The Jersey Shore to have the character wear an alternate brand. We have also extended this offer to other members of the cast, and are urgently awaiting a response.

  Companies are usually overjoyed when celebrities wear their clothes. But Abercrombie was worried about what would happen if the wrong celebrities started wearing the brand.

  Because if lots of Jersey Shore wannabes started wearing Abercrombie, then the clothes might stop signaling preppy WASP and start signaling something else. And if that happened, people who wanted to look like preppy WASPs might abandon the brand.

  People don’t just care about whether others are doing something, or how many others are doing it, they also care about who those others are.

  GEEKS WEARING WRISTBANDS

  The knock on the door was a welcome distraction. Karen had spent the last two hours struggling through her computer science homework and was looking for any excuse for a break. She hoped that Catherine was coming by with a late-night snack, but when she opened the door to her Stanford dorm room, it ended up being two students in yellow shirts.

  “We’re from the Stanford Cancer Awareness Group,” the girl said, before giving Karen a yellow pamphlet. “To educate the community, November is Wear Yellow month at Stanford. We’re going door-to-door to remind people of this important disease and to sell these wristbands to raise money.” The girl handed Karen a little yellow wristband in a plastic bag. “We’re asking for a donation of one dollar or more, in exchange for a wristband, all of which will go to cancer research. If you don’t have a dollar, we’ll even take a quarter. Every little bit helps. It’s a chance to contribute to cancer awareness and show your dorm pride.”

  “Okay,” Karen said, “I’ll donate. Just hold the door while I go find a dollar.” She went over to her desk, rummaged through the top drawer, and found a crumpled single. “Actually, let me get one for my roommate too,” she said. She brought back two dollars and exchanged them for two yellow wristbands.

  “Thanks!” the guy said. “We’re hoping to sell as many as possible to get the word out about the cause. Please wear the band over the next couple weeks and encourage the other people in your dorm to do the same. It will really help.”

  “Will do,” said Karen, before closing the door and going back to her problem set. “Hope you sell a bunch!”

  * * *

  The following week, Karen was coming back from a sociology review session when she smelled something delicious coming from the lounge. She ducked her head in to see half her dorm mates rifling through different boxes of pizza and the other half frantically circling numbers on sheets of paper.

  “What’s going on?” she asked one of her neighbors.

  “Shh,” Lisa said, “they said we’re supposed to write our answers down independently. Some sort of survey a couple of business students are doing. Do it and you’ll get a free slice of pizza.” That sounded like a fair trade, so Karen took a survey from one of the students in charge and started filling it out.

  In addition to general questions like how late she went to bed, the survey asked whether she owned and was wearing various cause-related items like a 5k T-shirt or a yellow Livestrong wristband. Karen wasn’t wearing a 5k T-shirt, but she was wearing the yellow wristband she had gotten earlier in the week, so she circled “yes” to that one. She filled out a couple more questions, dumped the survey in a pile, and grabbed a slice of pizza.

  * * *

  When asked to describe your average Stanford student, “cool” is not the first word most people would use. “Techie,” sure. “Smart,” maybe. But “cool” would not be the first adjective. Yet, even among a sea of people studying to be biochemists or playing in the laptop orchestra, there is a hierarchy. And close to the bottom on the coolness totem pole would be SLE.

  Structured Liberal Education, or SLE, is Stanford’s academic focus dorm. The regular Stanford course load not enough for you? Incoming freshman who love to learn can apply to this special dorm and the extra academics that come with it. SLE students do additional readings, and attend extra lectures on topics such as Indian mythology and Christianity in the Middle Ages. Each fall the dorm performs Greek playwright Aristophanes’s Lysistrata.

  Not surprisingly, students who live in SLE are seen as the geeks on campus. People don’t dislike the SLE students, they just don’t think they’re particularly cool.

  How would people react if these “geeks” started doing what they were doing? If the geeks started wearing yellow wristbands, for example, would people like Karen keep wearing one or abandon it to avoid looking like a geek?

  To find out, Stanford professor Chip Heath and I got into the wristband business.


  First, we went door-to-door in Karen’s dorm selling the wristbands.5 Then, different research assistants returned to the dorm to collect a seemingly unrelated survey that let us measure how many students were wearing the wristbands. (Students will do almost anything for pizza.)

  Next, came the geeks. We sold the same wristbands to the geeky academic focus dorm next door, SLE.

  Finally, the research assistants returned to Karen’s dorm after we sold the wristbands to the geeks to see whether Karen and her dorm mates were still wearing them.

  There are many reasons students should have kept wearing the wristbands. The bands were relatively novel and signaled support for a prosocial cause. And it’s not like the band was something Karen and company knew nothing about. They were already wearing it. So, learning that the geeks were wearing it provided no new information about whether Karen and her dorm mates would like it themselves. Further, it’s one thing to avoid something others are doing, but to give up something you already like? The motivation must be strong.

  And it was. Even though the wristband signaled support for a prosocial cause, and even though people already liked and were wearing it, adoption by the geeks led them to abandon the band. Almost a third of Karen’s dorm stopped wearing the wristband once the geeks adopted it.

  One might wonder whether students abandoned the band simply because they got bored of them, but that wasn’t the case. We also sold wristbands to another dorm on the opposite side of campus. These students owned the wristband for the same length of time, but didn’t live anywhere near the geeks, so there was less chance that someone who saw them wearing it would confuse them with one of the geeks. And, sure enough, these students kept wearing the wristbands.

  Students didn’t get rid of the bands because they were old, or because they didn’t work anymore, the students abandoned the wristband because they wanted to avoid looking like a geek.