Editing Social proof (section)

== Mechanisms ==

===Uncertainty about the correct conclusion===
Uncertainty is a major factor that encourages the use of social proof. One study found that when evaluating a product, consumers were more likely to incorporate the opinions of others through the use of social proof when their own experiences with the product were ambiguous, leaving uncertainty as to the correct conclusion that they should make.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Wooten|first=D|author2=Reed II, A |title=Informational Influence and the Ambiguity of Product Experience: Order Effects on the Weighting of Evidence|journal=Journal of Consumer Psychology|date=1 January 1998|volume=7|issue=1|pages=79–99|doi=10.1207/s15327663jcp0701_04}}</ref>

===Similarity to the surrounding group===
Similarity also motivates the use of social proof; when a person perceives themselves as similar to the people around them, they are more likely to adopt and perceive as correct the observed behavior of these people. This has been noted in areas such as the use of [[laugh tracks]], where participants will laugh longer and harder when they perceive the people laughing to be similar to themselves.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Platow|first=Michael J.|author2=Haslam, S. Alexander |author3=Both, Amanda |author4=Chew, Ivanne |author5=Cuddon, Michelle |author6=Goharpey, Nahal |author7=Maurer, Jacqui |author8=Rosini, Simone |author9=Tsekouras, Anna |author10=Grace, Diana M. |title='It's not funny if they're laughing': Self-categorization, social influence, and responses to canned laughter|journal=Journal of Experimental Social Psychology|date=1 September 2005|volume=41|issue=5|pages=542–550|doi=10.1016/j.jesp.2004.09.005|hdl=1885/36011|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

Social proof is also one of [[Robert Cialdini|Robert Cialdini's]]  six principles of persuasion, (along with reciprocity, commitment/consistency, authority, liking, and scarcity) which maintains that people are especially likely to perform certain actions if they can relate to the people who performed the same actions before them.<ref name="Cialdini 2001 72–79">{{cite journal|last=Cialdini|first=Robert B.|title=Harnessing the science of persuasion|journal=Harvard Business Review|date=October 2001|volume=79|issue=9|pages=72–79}}</ref> One experiment which exemplifies this claim was conducted by researchers who joined a door-to-door charity campaign, who found that if a list of prior donators was longer, the next person solicited was more likely to donate as well. This trend was even more pronounced when the names on the donor list were people that the prospective donor knew, such as friends and neighbors.<ref name="Cialdini 2001 72–79"/> Cialdini's principle also asserts that peer power is effective because people are more likely to respond to influence tactics applied horizontally rather than vertically, so people are more likely to be persuaded by a colleague than a superior.<ref name="Cialdini 2001 72–79"/>