Hidden Brain - Snooki and the Handbag

Episode Date: July 10, 2018

Look down at what you're wearing. You picked out that blue shirt, right? And those sandals — you decided on those because they're comfortable, didn't you? Well, maybe not. Researcher Jonah Berger says we tend to be pretty good at recognizing how influences like product placement and peer pressure affect other people's choices...but we're not so good at recognizing those forces in our own decisions. We talked with him in December 2016.

This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedantam. Many of us like to think that we're not affected by pure pressure. Come on! It's your problem! Great. We believe we're independent thinkers, that our choices are our own, that our values and preferences are inherent to our personalities, not the whims or wishes of others.

It turns out, reality is a bit more complicated. Everywhere in life, at work, at school, in a big stadium with thousands of other people, at home in the privacy of our own bedrooms, it turns out our behavior is shaped by the judgment, norms and actions of other people. Sometimes we can feel these influences, but more often than not, they're so subtle, we don't even notice their existence. Today we bring you a favorite episode from 2016 that looks more closely at how these forces act on us. Jonah Berger is a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of the book, Invisible Influence, the hidden forces that shape behavior. Jonah, welcome to Hidden Brain.

Thanks so much for having me. Companies often pay celebrities to hawk their merchandise, so I often see athletes wearing clothes with a Nike swoosh. Tiffany apparently once paid Anne Hathaway $750,000 to wear its jewelry at the Oscars. But a few years ago, you tell the story of how Apacromy and Fitch made an unusual offer to the stars of Jersey Shore. What was that offer?

So you may remember the Jersey Shore, sort of a bunch of early 20s folks, lots of fake Tanner and big muscles. I was in the Jepuzzi and closed just started coming off. So we decided to have a little fun. And one of them was a guy named Mike, the situation's soar and tino. And he was called the situation for his famous abs.

I mean, you can hate on me all you want to, but what can you possibly say to somebody that looks like Rambo pretty much when he showed off? And Abercrobbing Fitch sent him a letter offering to pay him money. And that by itself is not unusual, right? As you mentioned, product placement is a major thing that companies often use. What was interesting about this letter, though, was they weren't offering to pay him money

to wear their clothes. They were actually paying him not to wear their clothes. And it turns out he wasn't the only Jersey Shore cast member who had a recent run-in with a brand. Another cast member, Snooki, she was the short one you may remember who's been termed as looking like a parking cone because she wore so much orange fake tanner. She got a free handbag in the mail. And obviously again, sending a free handbag makes sense. Brands may want to send it to her because she shows up in People Magazine or in touch and because she's wearing it. Other people might wear

the brand. Except she got a Gucci handbag, not from Gucci, but one of their competitors. And so why would a competitor send her a free handbag? Why would Abercrombie and Fitch offer to pay Mike the situation not to wear their clothes? And it turns out, influence is very much like a magnet. We often think about it attracting, doing the same thing as others. But just it often repels us and leads us to the opposite. And the idea here is, well, if Mike the situation is wearing Abercrombie and Fitch, maybe other people aren't going to want to wear it anymore.

Or if Snookies hanging on to a Gucci handbag, maybe that'll help their competitors because no one will want to wear Gucci anymore. So we need to understand how social it's attracts, but also how it repels. You and Chip Heath at Stanford University ran a similar experiment some years ago, and this one involved wrist bands.

Walk me through what you did and what you found. This is one of my first studies that I ran early on in graduate school. You may remember these yellow live strong wristbands. They were for Lance Armstrong's live strong foundation. And they came out. They were, people were quite interested in them at the beginning.

And we sold them to a group on campus. So we would knock down doors. We said, hey, we're raising money for cancer awareness. Will you buy one of these wristbands and wear it for a dollar? Most people said, yes, one of these wristbands and wear it for a dollar? Most people said, yes, they were more than happy to wear it. We followed up a week later to see if many people were wearing them. They were.

So indeed, people were wearing the wristband. And then we did something interesting. We sold them to a dorm next door. And we wanted to see similar to this example of Mike the situation wearing Abercrombie or a snooki-carrying Gucci handbag. How would people feel with other people they didn't want to be associated with

started wearing the bands? And so there's a dorm on Stanford campus, sort of known as the geeky dorm on campus. And basically we went next door and we sold these wristbands to the geeks. And so the question was, what would those original wristband wearers do? The people that like the wristband

that were wearing it all the time do once the geeks started wearing it? And sure enough, as soon as the geeks started wearing it, about a third of the people in that initial group stopped wearing it all the time, do once the geeks started wearing it. And sure enough, as soon as the geeks started wearing it, about a third of the people in that initial group stopped wearing it. And they stopped because they didn't want to be associated with the geeks, right? Once those geeky folks were doing it,

they didn't want to do it anymore. So what you're really saying is that one really effective way to get people to buy your brand or buy your product is make sure that the people they despise are buying other brands. Is that what you're saying? A little bit. Yeah, we often think about sort of aspirational identities.

So Abercrombie shows people that we might want to look like in their ads. But we think a lot less about, well, what might people want to avoid? Might people want to avoid doing something if other people are doing it? We did another study with health behavior showing people actually avoided binge drinking in college when we associated with an identity that was undesired for them. And so it's not just about associating things with desired behaviors to get people to do it. It's also about saying, well, how can we

associate undesired behaviors with undesired identities and use that to avoid people doing the wrong thing? One of the interesting things about the entire field of social psychology, and you talk about this at some length in the book, is the idea that people don't see themselves as clearly as they see other people, or they see themselves in their choices differently than the same choices made by other people. And part of that is is the access we have to the reasons that we bought things. When we look around, we see lots of people doing similar things.

At the end of the day, we're all pretty similar. Most of us are not like Lady Gaga walking around in a meat dress. Most of us are wearing shorts and T-shirts, jeans and a collared shirt. Dress pretty similarly. We drive similar cars. We buy similar things.

So indeed, when we look around, we see a lot of people acting similarly. And we see influence and assume it's happening. When we look to ourselves, though, we look to our introspection. We don't just say, well, what did I behave? What did I do? But we look for evidence that there's a reason

that we behave that way. And because when we think about it, well, I don't think I bought that card to fit in. I wasn't sitting there going, God, I really want to keep up with the Joneses. You thought you bought it because of price or you thought you bought it because you liked how it looked.

So you don't think it affected your own behavior. Even though at the end of the day, it actually did. You're trying to story in the book about a friend of yours who's a lawyer, and he has some strong views about younger lawyers, and there be MWs. Yeah, so I was writing this book, and I was talking to a good friend of mine who's from Washington, DC, and they happen to be a lawyer. And I was telling them about social influence and they were lamenting the impact of social influence on their peers.

They were saying, God, all DC lawyers are the same. They make it big. They become partner, whatever it is. And they go out and they buy a new BMW. And I said, well, that's interesting. But aren't you a DC lawyer? I said to my friend and you drive a BMW also and he said, oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

But they all drive gray ones and I drive a blue one. And I was sitting there going, okay, I guess. But what I love about that story is two things, right? One, again, we see influence, right? My friend could see all the other people driving very similar cars. It's that one that light shown on his own behavior, he couldn't see it.

Then it was invisible. There, the influence was invisible. But second, it wasn't just about doing the same thing. It wasn't just about buying the exact same car, and it wasn't about being completely different. It's about being similar and different at the same time. And so there are many flavors of influence that often invisibly affect our behavior.

One of the interesting ideas you explore is that social influence can have implications for innovation because it suggests that if we are shaped by those around us, then an idea that in some ways is too far ahead or too different from the norms that we see around us might have a difficult time getting adopted. Can you tell me the story of the 1899 invention known as horsey horseless?

This is an amazing story that I came across while doing for research for the book. It turns out that when automobiles came out, it's hard to remember that in today's day and age when we see automobiles all the time. But when they first came out, they were very scary. People had never seen a non-horse driven carriage. Imagine this thing, almost like a ghost, rolling down the street by itself. No horse pulling it, no person pulling it.

People in rural areas called it the Devil's Work and band it from from town. And so people were trying to figure, well, how do we get this thing adopted? It obviously saved costs in a certain way. There was a huge amount of manure on the street. So getting rid of horses was good in some ways. They could travel further.

How could they get people to adopt this new innovation? And what's interesting is the challenge wasn't a functional one. It wasn't that the product didn't work. It was a psychological one. The product was fine, but they had to overcome it feeling too different. And indeed, it's a little bit like Goldilocks

and the three bears, if you think about it. One end is too different. It's something's too different. It's and the three bears if you think about it. One end is two different. It's something's two different. It's scary. We don't want to adopt it. It's too far away. If at the same time something exactly the same as what people are doing, people don't want to adopt it. Why do I need to change my behavior for something that's exactly the same?

But in the middle is just right. It's what might be called optimally distinct, if you will. And so going back to the automobile, this inventor came up with a really interesting idea to solve this problem. He had come up with many innovations, including a desk for students in a sort of a leg cast to help people to recover after injuries. He said, God, if the problem is psychological, I have an idea.

So he came out with this innovation called the horsey horseless, which is essentially taking a fake horse head and putting it on the front of an automobile. You look at this thing and you say, why would a fake horse head be anywhere near useful in helping people adopt an automobile? What it did is it made the different feel more familiar, made it feel more similar. It was just a fake horse head, but it made it look like these vehicles that people were used to already. It made horses feel more comfortable and this thing pulled up next to them at the stop sign

or the stop light of the day, if it were. It made people feel more familiar with the difference. And so this idea of optimal distinctivism is really important, not so different. If it's so different, people are scared. They don't want to adopt it. It's scary, it's new, it's, you know, why do I want to do this thing?

Same if it's too similar, but in the middle, and it's just right. In the middle, it's optimally distinct and much more likely to catch on. So as I was reading this section of the book, I started thinking immediately about driverless cars and the concerns and trepidations that many people have about cars

that seem to drive themselves. I mean, talk about ghosts in the machine. And I was thinking about, people sometimes have these mannequins that sit in the car with them to give people the impression that they're someone in the car with them. So if you're a woman driving through a city street at night and you want to give people the illusion that you're not alone in the car

and you're maybe less vulnerable to crime, you have this mannequin sitting next to you. And I realized what we should do is take the mannequin and put the mannequin in the driver's seat. And if you did that, that's essentially going to be our version of horsey horse list It's almost like a taxi driver except it's a mannequin. I love that idea You should you should write to Google and Uber and suggest it I think but again, right you think and really correct about it

It's not a driver's car doesn't have to look like a car Right, I mean if all it's doing is getting us from point A to point B Why does it have to look like a car? Why does it have to have a steering wheel any of these things? But part of it is not just the function. to point B. Why does it have to look like a car? Why does it have to have steering wheel? Any of these things. But part of it is not just the function. It's the psychology. Does it feel safe? And having someone, even if it's a mannequin sitting in the driver's seat, might make us feel

more comfortable. Coming up, we're going to explore how invisible influence affects the way we think about politics. So the simple idea here is it's often party over policy. Even the same policy, even the same actual thing, we interpret that thing based on who's supporting it. Stay with us. This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vidantam. We're talking today with the University of Pennsylvania's Jonah Burger. Most of us believe we come to our political views after careful thought and consideration.

But there's been a lot of recent social science research that shows that our views are heavily shaped by social context. Even when it comes to our understanding of the facts, we're biased by the thoughts and opinions of those around us. I asked Jonah Berger if this was part of the world of invisible influence. A colleague of mine did a great study a few years ago looking at exactly this. So he gave both liberals and conservatives a number of different policy propositions. So one was about helping disadvantaged people, one was about taxes conservatives a number of different policy propositions. So one was about helping disadvantaged people, one was about taxes, a bunch of different

policies. And he told them that those policies were either supported by Democrats or Republicans. What he found very much along the lines of what you just mentioned is that when conservatives saw policy, the same policy, if they thought that policy was supported by conservatives, they loved the policy. They thought it was great they supported it you know well even if it was a welfare policy even if it's a generous welfare policy the fact that conservatives seem to like it the fact they were told that other conservatives leaders supported they thought it was great they thought it was

terrible though if that same policy that same liberal welfare policy was supported by by liberals all the liberals that are always doing this you know helpful stuff for welfare. I'm totally against it. Same policy, completely different reaction. Liberals did exactly the same thing. When liberals were told that policy was supported by liberals,

they loved it. When liberals were told conservatives like the policy, they hated it. And so the simple idea here is it's often party over policy. Even the same policy, even the same actual thing, we interpret that thing based on who's supporting it, right? Based on the identity it signals. And this actually happened to me just a few months ago. So, was doing a consulting project with messaging for

an organization that wanted to help clean energy catch on among conservatives. And clean energy is something that they thought conservatives would support. After all, it saves tax dollars, it reduces the size of government, all things that conservatives should like. Yet, when they surveyed conservatives, they found that conservatives weren't supporting clean energy. And so they dug a little deeper and they found that there was a clear reason why. When they asked conservatives, particularly conservative leaders, why conservative leaders weren't supporting the policy, they said, oh, yeah, clean energy, solar power, wind power, well, isn't that something that Al Gore

likes? And if Al Gore likes it, it's probably not for me. And what's so interesting there again is same policy, right? Yet the mere fact that was associated with a prominent liberal like Al Gore made them not want to do it. And so we really need to think about the politics, not just of actual politics, but the politics of identity. What does it mean to engage in a certain behavior? What does it signal about me to do something or not do something? And how can we use that to help people do better things? I mean, there are a lot of political scientists

who talk about our affiliation with political parties as being very analogous to our support for various sports teams. You know, so I'm a devout fan of a football team, and of course, every year the players on that team change, and it's completely rational to support the team when all the people playing for the team have changed. But there's a famous line from Jerry Seinfeld. What we're really doing is we're rooting for Laundry. And at some level, we're doing that with politics too.

I mean, what we're really doing is we're rooting for laundry. I love that phrase rooting for laundry. And certainly, you know, that's part of it, right? Part of it is it feels like a team identity. There's also some information there, right? There's this notion that God, if a lot of people that I feel similarly to in the past, it's like this and support this, I'm going to like it and support it too. Right? If I walk by a restaurant and there's a long line out in front,

I assume that restaurant must be better. Same thing with politics, right? If the party changes or the party views change, but everyone still thinks it's that same organization that they know and love, sometimes end up following the wrong thing. You know, a few months ago, we cited one of your other studies on Hidden Brain.

It had to do with the likelihood of winning basketball games and what the score was at halftime. I have to say, I absolutely love this study. Can you tell us how you came to do the study and what it found? I used to be a soccer coach, and this is where where it actually came from. So I went to a graduate school in undergrad

in California at Stanford, loved soccer growing up, and so I decided to become a coach. So I coached AYSO, sort of the little league of soccer. Coach is generous, by the way. I was basically sort of shepherding 15, 12-year-old boys, and trying to stop them from fighting for an hour and a half twice a week. But we'd run drills, and we'd try to get better,

and hopefully they learned one or two things along the way. But when it came time to games, I noticed something weird. We were a good team. We weren't the best team out there. We were a good team. But when we were behind it half time, we always seem to figure out a way to win. So if we were down by a goal, we'd win two-one. We'd down two goals even. Sometimes we'd win, you know, we're down two to zero. We'd win three to two. We always figured out a way to pull it out. And other times, if we were tied or we're ahead, we sometimes figured out out a way to lose and so I was just trying to figure out god

You know what am I doing wrong if we can come from behind shouldn't we win all all the time so with a friend of mine great Colleague my name Devin Pope. He's now at the University of Chicago We went out and got tens of thousands of professional basketball games We got a bunch of NCAA games a bunch of NBA games and essentially we looked and said okay How does the score at halftime relate to the score at the end of the game? So how does if a team is ahead or behind at halftime affect whether or not they win or lose?

Similar to my youth soccer team, it's hopefully a little more data. And interestingly, by the way, hopefully a little more motivated. If you're an NBA player, you're getting tens of millions of dollars based on your performance. So you might say, OK, if you're a 12-year-old kid, your coach, sort of, could joles you and encouraged you might say, okay, if you're a 12-year-old kid, your coach sort of controls you and encourages you

to play harder, you're more likely to win, but it shouldn't matter for NBA players, right? I mean, NBA players, real big stakes, whether they win or lose, they make more or less money. Of course, it doesn't matter there, right? So that's what we wanted to look at. And so we looked at the data, and similar to soccer, we saw something really interesting,

which is there was one place where being behind was actually a good thing. And that was being behind by just a little bit. Teams that were down by one at half time, they weren't more like it'll lose as everyone else would have been if they were behind. They were actually more like it'll win. Teams that were down by one were more like it'll win than teams that were up by one. Even though they were worst teams, down by two points, relative to teams that were up by one, they had to score more to win.

They came out, they played harder in the second half, and they were more likely to win the game. It turns out that competition can affect motivation, right? How we're doing relative to others matters. Being behind can be motivating, but only if you're behind by a little bit. If you're behind by too much, you give up and you're more likely to quit. I have to tell you, Jonah, that it's been a little more than a decade since I began learning about many of the studies and ideas.

And I was really taken aback by many of them when I first came by them, because I think of myself as being a very rational and deliberate and intentional person. And the idea that my own actions or beliefs or judgments were being shaped by these factors that lie. Many cases outside my conscious awareness were sort of a really disturbing idea to me. I have to say what's interesting is that at an intuitive level, it still feels to me that all my decisions and judgments are conscious and intentional and deliberate. I don't feel the effects of social pressure except that you look at the mountain of evidence

and you have to say, if it's affecting all these other people on the planet, it must be affecting me as well. And I feel like one of the great values of this body of research is it might prompt people to a certain degree of humility of saying, yes, I feel very strongly about the political party I support. I feel very strongly about the sports team I support. I feel very strongly about the sports day I support. I feel very strongly about my beliefs,

but it's just possible that maybe these beliefs are actually shaped by these other factors. And I might want to be a little humble about the things that I think I know. I'm wondering as you've looked at this body of work, what's been the effect on you personally? What's been the effect on your personal life as you look at all the ways in which human beings are shaped by other people? You know, you read this literature and you do some studies in this literature and you can almost

have an existential crisis. You can say, God, you know, I'm not making any of my own choices. Other people are making all these things for me. Is there no free will? Am I just a mindless or a tamathan? I mean, you know, a great example, and this is something that always struck me. Think about the person that we marry, or the person that we end up being our long-term partner, our relationship partner. We all have this sense that they're perfect for us. We all have this belief in true love, and that we're finding the right person out there that completes us, that the one person who shoe perfectly fits the one person who will make us whole.

And yet, is that right? Is that there's the one person out there and we just have to find them? Are we subtly being influenced by our environment? Did we like them because we saw them more often? And so we got exposed to them more. And so mere exposure leads to liking. Were we influenced by our environment or do we really make our own choice. And for a while, I think personally,

that was something I struggled with a lot. Think about, well, do we really make our choices? And if we don't make our choices, what does that mean about who we are? And I'm not sure I got to a perfect answer, honestly, but I think where I ended up is, you know, influenced by itself is neither good nor bad. It is just a way of life. It is a thing that helps us make our lives easier.

Imagine if we had to make every choice by ourselves. We couldn't use any information from others. We couldn't figure out what book to read or what movie to see. We moved to a new town. We couldn't figure out what car mechanic to go to without looking at an online review. We had to just figure it out by ourselves. Life would be extremely difficult. And so along the way, we've evolved to take advantage of social information, to use others as heuristic or a shortcut to judgment to make it easier to live faster and easier than it might be otherwise. Does that heuristic always lead us to the right answer? No. There are many cases, some of which we've talked about

where other people lead us to stray. Yet most of the time, influence is a valuable tool. And so I think the more we realize it's effect on us, the more we can spot it in the environment around us, the happier and healthier we can be. We can't fully control it. It's going to be there all the time but the more we understand it, the more we can take advantage of its upsides and avoid its downsides.

Jonna Berger, I want to thank you for talking with me today. It's been a pleasure having you on Hidden Brain. Thanks so much for having me. This week's episode was produced by Tara Boyer. Our team includes Jenny Schmidt, This week's episode was produced by Tara Boyle. Our team includes Jenny Schmidt, Parts Shah, Raina Cohen, Thomas Liu, Laura Quarelle and Adity Band LeMoodie. Our unsung hero this week is Dana Farrington. Dana's an editor at NPR and helped us a while back to interview candidates for a new position on our show.

Dana's thoughtful feedback and calm demeanor helped us pick the right person. Thanks Dana. For more hidden brain, you can find us on Facebook and Twitter. And if you haven't given us a review on your favorite podcasting app, please do so. It really helps others discover the podcast. I'm Shankar Vedantam, and this is NPR. you