A recent article by Chung & Duckett over at In the Library with the Lead Pipe has inspired me to try and expand on some thoughts on the importance of social proof. I especially like their third category of learning objects:

CATEGORY 3. Provide students with MORE CONTEXT to understand a process or concept — the BACK STORY for how information is created, vetted, stored, accessed, and used. Resources in this category address social issues surrounding information and other scholarly communication topics  …

With the kind of one-off teaching I do, I’m often tempted to get into the concept of social proof, but haven’t yet found the best way to go about it that justifies the time spent. Creating a learning object may be the best route, since it’s something a student can work through on their own time, and it wouldn’t take up valuable class time. If an instructor only has 50 minutes a semester to teach a subject, every minute counts. Here’s an outline for a potential learning object, if I were to do one that satisfies category 3 above:

Outline for an Academic Publishing / Social Proof Learning Object

In Cialdini’s book Influence: the psychology of persuasion (I’m referring to the second edition-1988), he describes the phenomena thusly:

The principle of social proof states that we use information about the way others have behaved to help us determine proper conduct for ourselves. As the dropped-wallet experiment showed, we are most influenced in this fashion by the actions of peoople who are like us. [p. 140]

As Cialdini demonstrates in his book, “the principle of social proof is so wide-ranging and powerful that its domain extends to the fundamental decision for life or death.” Where this effect really comes into play is in areas of uncertainty. Take for example this story from 2007 about the renowned violinist who played in the DC subway. The passersby were unknowingly thrust into a very uncertain situation:

Each passerby had a quick choice to make, one familiar to commuters in any urban area where the occasional street performer is part of the cityscape: Do you stop and listen? Do you hurry past with a blend of guilt and irritation, aware of your cupidity but annoyed by the unbidden demand on your time and your wallet? Do you throw in a buck, just to be polite? Does your decision change if he’s really bad? What if he’s really good? Do you have time for beauty? Shouldn’t you? What’s the moral mathematics of the moment? … No one knew it, but the fiddler standing against a bare wall outside the Metro in an indoor arcade at the top of the escalators was one of the finest classical musicians in the world, playing some of the most elegant music ever written on one of the most valuable violins ever made. … In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?

The answer, of course, was no. This led the Washington Post to shout the following question (emphasis is theirs):

IF A GREAT MUSICIAN PLAYS GREAT MUSIC BUT NO ONE HEARS . . . WAS HE REALLY ANY GOOD?

It’s a tree falling in the forest kind of question. But the answer has to be yes, he is good. The problem was that he had no social proof going for him at all. Cialdini suggests proving this to yourself by conducting the following experiment on your own on two subsequent days. The first day stand on a crowded corner and look up at a section of sky for one full minute. Chances are you’ll have no one else look up. The next day, at exactly the same time, bring along four of your friends to look with you. Chances are on the second day you’ll receive a great deal of interest. Your friends will be “similar others” to yourself. It will inspire other similar people to take a look as well. If the Washington Post had dressed up four or five people as commuters, and placed them in the subway listening, enraptured by the music, they would have probably created a pedestrian traffic jam.

I believe this is related to academic peer review in the following way. Take a look at this image from Cialdini’s book, pg. 114:

Let’s parse the cartoon one stage at a time, from left to right:

1. The lonely researcher, working in relative isolation on things only s/he is paying attention to.
2. An editor pays attention. (Who is the child? How should I know? Work with me here!) Note that in a non-academic setting, this could well be a marketer instead.
3. The arrival of “similar others”. In academic publishing these are peer reviewers. They would be colleagues with knowledge in the field, serious types. In the non-academic world, the marketer will have selected “others” similar to the ideal target market.
4. A crowd recognizes a group of “similar others”, and, possibly through some form of self preservation, will take a look for themselves since it’s obvious that it is important. Note that the woman in the ivory tower (okay, it’s just a window) has noticed the rabble as well. She looks up  for the same reasons.
5. The whole world is now looking, even the authorities notice (here represented by an angel.)

The phenomenon of social proof is everywhere on the web. In academics, peer reviewers are used to establish seriousness in the form of thoroughly-vetted “similar others”. On the open web, similar others are discovered by paying attention to certain social software systems and communities: Facebook, Twitter, Digg (or Digggraphr), HotStuff, and Memeorandum are a few examples among thousands.

- end of tutorial -

So that’s the learning object outlined, everything aside from the hard work of animating it. I believe Chung and Duckett are right that back stories are crucial for students to understand concepts such as academic publishing. Librarians need to dig deeper and create more objects that can be shared widely to promote this type of knowledge. I’ll be sharing this one as soon as I can get it peer-reviewed.

All My Internet Friends

This one is by internet friend Amanda French, inspired by Clay Shirky. Check out the lyrics at the link below.

http://allmyinternetfriends.com/

Reading Stephen Downes’ article today on Connective Knowledge I was struck by how strongly the following outline describing the distribution of knowledge across a network of connections reminded me of social proof:

Summary: Connective knowledge is both:
- knowledge OF networks in the world
- knowledge obtained BY networks

As I outlined earlier, Social Proof relies on the “awesome influence of the behavior of similar others” in a way that’s illustrated in this cartoon from Cialdini’s book Influence: the Psychology of Persuasion on page 120:

As shown above, knowledge is gained both of networks, and via networks, by way of the identification of the self as part of a group.

Here’s another example, by way of a conversation I overheard today at the campus coffee shop. In this shop the students choose the music which plays (loudly) over the stores PA. Today they were listening to Beirut with all of its horns, accordians, mandolins, etc. A girl behind the counter half-heartedly (but hopefully) remarked that it sounds like they are all getting ready to join the circus. The guy next to her says (a little breathlessly) “I know, isn’t it awesome!?”

There was a ton of information flowing in that little exchange. The girl was discovering a network of experience she wasn’t quite sure about, or at least was unfamiliar with. The social proof that appeared to be swaying her in the direction of acceptance was the existence of tacit and explicit endorsement by her peers around her. It was obvious that she was on the verge of endorsing the music herself, and therefore becoming privy to whatever knowledge was to be had by this new found connection. It was also obvious, from the detached standpoint I was in, that the music was instantly transformed by the endorsement of her peers. I could literally see the wheels click into place.

Jobs recently put up a position statement on his/Apple’s stance on DRM and the iTunes store.

The rub comes from the music Apple sells on its online iTunes Store. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices.

Today in the NYT, is an article titled “EMI May Sell Recordings Online with no Anti-Copying Software“:

It is far from clear that the company, which has tested the concept recently by selling a song from Norah Jones in unprotected form, will reach a deal.

But if it does, it would be the first of the four major music companies to distribute its catalog without software designed to limit copying. Because various online retailers use different forms of security software, known as digital-rights management, their services are not always compatible with all music-playing devices on the market.

Interesting developments …

**update** EMI bows out of talks to allow DRM free music:

According to reports, EMI had asked the online stores for large upfront payments to guarantee their revenue.