years after the birth of claquing, a reader of the London
For applause on entrance, if a gentleman 25 lire
For applause on entrance, if a lady 15 lire
Ordinary applause during performance, each 10 lire
Insistent applause during performance, each 15 lire
Still more insistent applause 17 lire
For interruptions with 'Bene!' or 'Bravo!' 5 lire
For a 'Bis'
Wild enthusiasm—A special sum to be arranged
FIGURE 4-5 Advertised Rates of the Italian Claque
What Sauton and Porcher realized about the mechanical way that we abide by the principle of social proof is understood as well by a variety of today's exploiters. They see no need to hide the manufactured nature of the social evidence they provide—witness the amateurish quality of the average TV laugh track. They seem almost smug in the recognition of our predicament: Either we must allow them to fool us or we must abandon the precious automatic pilots that make us so vulnerable to their tricks. But in their certainty that they have us trapped, such exploiters have made a crucial mistake. The laxity with which they construct phony social evidence gives us a way to fight back.
Because automatic pilots can be engaged and disengaged at will, we can cruise along trusting in the course steered by the principle of social proof
Let's take an example. A bit earlier, we noted the proliferation of av-erage-person-on-the-street ads, in which a number of ordinary people speak glowingly of a product, often without knowing that their words are being recorded. As would be expected according to the principle of social proof, these testimonials from 'average people like you and me' make for quite effective advertising campaigns. They have always included one relatively subtle kind of distortion: We hear only from those who like the product; as a result, we get an understandably biased picture of the amount of social support for it. More recently, though, a cruder and more unethical sort of falsification has been introduced. Commercial producers often don't bother to get genuine testimonials. They merely hire actors to play the roles of average people testifying in an unrehearsed fashion to an interviewer. It is amazing how baldfaced these 'unrehearsed interview' commercials can be. The situations are obviously staged, the participants are clearly actors, and the dialogue is unmistakably prewritten.
Dave Barry
Knight Ridder News Service
Recently I was watching TV, and a commercial came on, and the announcer, in a tone of voice usually reserved for major developments in the Persian Gulf, said, 'Now consumers can ask Angela Lansbury their questions about Bufferin!'
As a normal human, the natural reaction to this announcement is: 'Huh?' Meaning: 'What does Angela Lansbury have to do with Bufferin?' But this commercial featured several consumers who had apparently been stopped at random on the street, and
These consumers seemed very earnest. It was as if they had been going around for months wringing their hands and saying, 'I have a question about Bufferin! If only I could ask Angela Lansbury!'
What we are seeing here is yet another example of a worsening problem that has been swept under the rug for too long in this nation: The invasion of Consumers From Mars. The
FIGURE 4-6 Just Your Average Martian on the Street
I know that whenever I encounter an influence attempt of this sort, it sets off in me a kind of alarm with a clear directive:
And we should pounce with a vengeance. I am speaking here of more than simply ignoring the misinformation, although this defensive tactic is certainly called for. I am speaking of aggressive counterattack. Whenever possible we ought to sting those responsible for the rigging of social evidence. We should purchase no products featured in phony 'unrehearsed interview' commercials. Moreover, each manufacturer of the items should receive a letter explaining our response and recommending that they discontinue use of the advertising agency that produced so deceptive a presentation of their product.
Of course, we don't always want to trust the actions of others to direct our conduct—especially in a situation important enough to warrant our personal investigation of the pros and cons, or in which we are ex-perts—but we do want to be able to count on others' behavior as a source of valid information in a large array of settings. If, in such settings, we find that we cannot trust the information to be valid because someone has tampered with the evidence, we ought to be ready to strike back. In such instances, I personally feel driven by more than the aversion to being duped. I bristle at the thought of being pushed into an unacceptable corner by those who would undermine one of my hedges against the decisional overload of modern life. And I get a genuine sense of righteousness by lashing out when they try. If you are like me, so should you.
In addition to the times when social evidence is deliberately faked, there is another time when the principle of social proof will regularly steer us wrong. In such an instance, an innocent, natural error will produce snowballing social proof that pushes us to the incorrect decision. The pluralist ignorance phenomenon, in which everyone at an emergency sees no cause for alarm, is one example of this process. The best illustration I know, however, comes from a story of one of my students, who was a highway patrolman.
After a class session in which the subject of discussion was the principle of social proof, he stayed to talk