Introduction
In ‘Social Conversation – Six Key Areas of Influence‘ I talked about the six areas which work to influence others through that content that we provide. These influences were originally discussed by Dr Robert Cialdini in his popular book on persuasion in marketing ‘Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion’. I’ve already discussed ‘Reciprocity in the Societal Web’, ‘Influencing others through scarcity on the Societal Web‘, ‘Do you have to be liked to be social?‘, ‘Authority as a means of influence in the Societal Web‘, and ‘Social Consistency, an influencing minefield‘
Consensus
Consensus, or Social proof (sometimes known as peer pressure) arises when we change our behaviour based on the behaviour that we see elicited by others whom we respect and trust. On the Societal Web that influence is most usually expressed in the form of comments made on blog postings or similar content. One thing that has become apparent is that the first response on any blog often sets the tone for all of the responses that follow it.
Why would this be?
We all recognise that it is hard to introduce tone of voice into writing on the Societal Web. English, particular English written online, is often abbreviated or short-hand phrases used such as ‘IMHO’ meaning ‘in my humble opinion’. But often more obscure phrases are used in business related to a particular market, for example I might refer to the ‘FSA’ which for those who know me would probably interpret as the Financial Services Authority because of my financial services background, but many readers may not know me, may not even be in the UK, and so the FSA might be interpreted in a number of other ways. In the UK even for those working with government agencies it can create confusion as it also references the Food Services Agency, another branch of the UK Government.
So, articles and knowledge can easily be misinterpreted if context is not clear.
The first response on any blog posting or article usually provides a new version of the context the author intended. That new version being the context that the first responder read. Of course, what can then happen is that subsequent readers, reading both the original posting and the subsequent comment, draw conclusions about the context based on the interpretation of the first respondent. That’s particularly true if the subject is not a specialism of the reader.
That can create difficulties if a blog posting is written in a language which may be interpreted as aggressive but was intended to be informative, if the first blog poster reacts in the context of the aggressive posting.
Consensus also creates the risk of ‘group think’. When groups of individuals who like each other and have known and trusted each other for a long period of time interact online their views can become aligned in particular contexts, when those contexts are set by an individual writing about his specialist area, that ‘group think’ can create an interpretation of the posting before even any other comments are written. That too can create an issue.
In the United Kingdom on matters of internal national importance there is often a consensus expressed, the need for Welsh to be protected as a language for example, where Social Proof binds the nations and ensures they retain their identity and purpose even though there is a central overarching UK wide constitutional framework. In the USA and increasingly throughout Europe the importance of local consensus and (inter)national constitutions provides a framework for influence and operational design.
So what does that all mean?
When we read articles and blogs online from people that we do not know and we see a particular style of response we should bear in mind that that may be created as a result of social proofing rather than as an absolute response to the points made in the original article.
Sometimes we need to step back and ask ourselves what the context really is rather than what the context appears to be, particularly if we’re basing our conclusions on the initial response, or responses to that initial response.
Many experiments have been conducted where individuals change their opinion based on the arguments created around them by their (apparent) peers. For example, in one experiment somebody with a green t-shirt walked across a stage and a group of people were asked what colour the t-shirt is. If the first 20 ‘stooges’ say that the t-shirt is blue, the test subject in 85-90% of cases also responds ‘the t-shirt is blue’. Social proofing means their opinion is changed, yet when asked if they gave their answer freely of their own will they believe that they have.
Online, in the Societal Web, we need to be really certain of our own position if we are to remain truly independent of the views of others, in reality it’s unlikely that any of us ever actually succeed in doing that when we’re engaged on busy sites, such as Ecademy, reading the words of those people whom we know and don’t know, and people whom we trust and those we don’t trust.
Turning this around, it also means that we can influence discussions by setting context in our responses and in our writings. Those who follow and trust us may change their opinion based on ours and therefore we carry a personal responsibility to ensure that the context that we do set, inadvertently or otherwise, is a fair representation of our beliefs rather than being done in order to create a particular context for our own vested interest or agenda.
