Peer pressure’s effects are perhaps more powerful than we thought (2014)
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
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.
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.
C'mon son.
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.
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.
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.
The nature of social media, especially when it isn't (at least)pseudonymous is such that all statements are forever a part of the public record.
It's lead to a culture of going out of your way not to offend anyone(especially for facebook where your literal identity is tied to it).
The end result is a bunch of virtue signalling and oftentimes dis-honest but politically correct dialogue.
They aren't free to bullshit one another. Facebook, Google, and co. regularly censor their users.
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
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!
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... Apparently, if they have the same reservation #, it doubles.
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Power-of-Suggestion/136907/
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.
Even if drugs may help in the short term to act ‚more open’ — everything you do when you're drunk is because of you and not caused by the drug!
Be concious and open and people will be open to you. The world around you is a mirror of yourself!
Interestingly enough, I've definitely found myself in the same social state without alcohol on occasion, but alcohol is the only method I know of that can reliably induce it. It's definitely a crutch I would love to discard but at the moment there's no replacement.
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.
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.
Re-reading your original post, I can see why - absent the characteristics GP ascribed you - it would be really upsetting to be accused of it.
Your entire text can be read either as a genuine curiosity and attempt to get answered, or condescending humblebrag. And either one has the potential to be accurate.
Some subset of people tend to assume that it's the latter when they run into something that can be read like that. I often do too - I think it's that I sometimes find it hard to understand how someone could be writing in public forms (the internet no less) and not be aware of this.
And now that I've written it out, Ive become aware how ridiculous a basis that is. You can be aware that it's annoying when someone taps their foot on the floor, without quite being aware that you're doing it too. Someone points it out to you, you realize it, stop, and start again five minutes later.
All that said... I could still go either way. Though thinking this through has led me to the conclusion that in the future, I'll just ask.
So whichever it is in your case, I appreciate that the discussion prompted by your post gave me a chance to think about this...
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?
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.
> Only drank once at 20, proceeded to get blackout drunk.
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.
None of these are the reason most people drink. They would all be bad reasons to drink. You are saying we drink for bad reasons. You make a caricature of drinking (all the booze in the house) and say that's why you know better. The gist is that you missed the target on why others do something, and imply that you, scientifically, are wiser for it (you're drinks not only taste better than ours, they don't make you lose your inhibitions!).
Then what are the reasons for people wanting to drink? I am talking about that first time someone drinks.
Anyway, I used to not drink alcohol either. I would go to parties and everyone would drink but me and it would be pretty boring. I'd try to start intelligent conversation but it's pretty hard for that to happen in a large group environment. I would always have this feeling that I wasn't being productive or doing anything important.
Now I drink a bit, and it dulls me enough to just put on a happy face and enjoy random company. I become less goal-oriented, more harmless. People respond positively to it. It's like a form of self-handicapping, making everyone more harmless and approachable, which explains why people get so uncomfortable if you don't participate.
I don't even always have to drink, though, since I can just act like I've been drinking now. I still don't like the taste of hard alcohol, but some drinks taste good, like Bailey's Irish Cream or Mike's Hard Lemonade, or a Pina Colada or a White Russian or an Amaretto Sour.
The right procedure would be to get a glass of a good wine, or a good beer (not a mass-produced one) and sip it over dinner for about forty minutes, with friends. Depending on how big you are and how you personally metabolize alcohol, it would probably make you somewhat relaxed. And it would taste good. If it did not, you could find one that did.
In many cultures, alcohol is a food. It comes with side effects for sure, which are the sedation and decrease of inhibitions. The side effects are part of the enjoyment, but by no means are they the entire point of it.
I was interested in what being drunk felt like.
In another comment, I explain how I pursued further knowledge for "why people drink."
> In many cultures, alcohol is a food.
Completely agree. I live in East Africa when I am not in Chicago so I have first-hand experience on the role of alcohol in other cultures.
Moving to Toyko at 33 though introduced me to a different culture of drinking. AFAICT there's very little negative association with drinking in Japan Vs the USA. In the USA drinking, while socially acceptable is generally considered a vice. That doesn't seem true in Japan. As just one example the anime One Piece which is arguably targeted at young boys often has scenes of celebrating by drinking.
In any case, after many years here I do feel the peer pressure to socialize by drinking. People feel you aren't really participating if you don't. That doesn't mean I'll always drink. If I'm not feeling well or I drank too much the day before I might abstain but I'm consciously aware of the pressure / expectation. It helps no one drives so there's none of those issues.
But grocery stores on the other hand....
Setup areas with high cost brand name items, and purchasers to look at and prominently buy items.
It would work even better at fairs, carnivals, etc since you might eventually recognize the person at a grocery store if you visit often.
All you have to do is have people walking around nosily eating something that looks good.
That being said, I doubt the effect is caused by a single factor. For instance, there is a social stigma against drinking alone, at least in the United States. I'll feel more comfortable drinking if someone else is drinking as well, even if I'm travelling alone.
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.
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.
If you identified 20 passengers who've often bought tickets who are known drink buyers. Place them not together with random seat assignments. So they are by people unknown buyers and/or less frequent buyers
No ticket sales should be effected. Only the placement of individuals. This obviously doesn't effect those who choose there seat. Buy late. Or buy for groups adjacent seats.
Anecdotally, the people sat next to me on my last flight purchased wine, which resulted in me getting a mini-bottle too. Doh!
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?
They need to control for tickets bought together.
Sounds like a right wing conspiracy to me :)