Editing Social proof (section)

== Research ==

=== Early research ===
The most famous study of social proof is [[Muzafer Sherif|Muzafer Sherif's]] 1935 experiment.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Sherif | first1 = M | year = 1935 | title = A study of some social factors in perception | journal = Archives of Psychology | volume = 27 | page = 187 }}</ref>  In this experiment subjects were placed in a dark room and asked to look at a dot of light about 15 feet away.  They were then asked how much, in inches, the dot of light was moving.  In reality it was not moving at all, but due to the [[autokinetic effect]] it appeared to move.  How much the light appears to move varies from person to person but is generally consistent over time for each individual.  A few days later a second part of the experiment was conducted. Each subject was paired with two other subjects and asked to give out loud their estimate of how much the light was moving. Even though the subjects had previously given different estimates, the groups would come to a common estimate.  To rule out the possibility that the subjects were simply giving the group answer to avoid looking foolish while still believing their original estimate was correct, Sherif had the subjects judge the lights again by themselves after doing so in the group.  They maintained the group's judgment.  Because the movement of the light is ambiguous the participants were relying on each other to define reality.

Another study looked at informational social influence in [[eyewitness identification]].  Subjects were shown a slide of the "perpetrator".  They were then shown a slide of a line-up of four men, one of whom was the perpetrator they had seen, and were asked to pick him out.  The task was made difficult to the point of ambiguity by presenting the slides very quickly. The task was done in a group that consisted of one actual subject and three confederates (a person acting as a subject but actually working for the experimenter).  The confederates answered first and all three gave the same wrong answer.  In a high-importance condition of the experiment, subjects were told that they were participating in a real test of eyewitness identification ability that would be used by police departments and courts, and that their scores would establish the norm for performance.  In a low-importance condition, subjects were told that the slide task was still being developed and that the experimenters had no idea what the norm for performance was—they were just looking for useful hints to improve the task. It was found that when subjects thought the task was of high importance, they were more likely to conform, giving the confederate's wrong answer 51% of the time, as opposed to 35% of the time in the low-importance condition.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Baron|first=Robert S.|author2=Vandello, Joseph A. |author3=Brunsman, Bethany |title=The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence.|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|date=1 January 1996|volume=71|issue=5|pages=915–927|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.915}}</ref>

===Cultural effects on social proof===
The strength of social proof also varies across different cultures. For instance, studies have shown that subjects in collectivist cultures conform to others' social proof more often than those in individualist cultures.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Bond|first=Rod|author2=Peter B. Smith |title=Culture and Conformity: A Meta-analysis of Studies Using Asch's (1952, 1956) Line Judgment Task|journal=Psychological Bulletin|year=1996|volume=119|pages=111–137|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111}}</ref> Although this trend seems reoccurring, there is evidence which suggests that these results are a simplification, and that an independent subject's personal individualistic-collectivist tendency also makes an impact upon their decisions.<ref name="Cialdini 1999 1242–1253">{{cite journal|last=Cialdini|first=Robert B.|author2=Wosinska, W. |author3=Barett, D. W. |author4=Gornik-Durose, M. |title=Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists|journal=Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin|date=October 1999|volume=25|issue=10|pages=1242–1253|doi=10.1177/0146167299258006|s2cid=143225569}}</ref> Additional variables, such as the subject's sense of social responsibility, need to be taken into account to better understand the mechanisms of social proof across cultures; for example, more collectivist individuals will often have an increased compulsion to help others because of their prominent awareness of social responsibility, and this in turn will increase the likelihood they will comply to requests, regardless of their peers' previous decisions.<ref name="Cialdini 1999 1242–1253"/>

=== Copycat suicides ===
{{further|Copycat suicide#Social proof model}}
Social proof has been proposed as an explanation for [[copycat suicide]], where suicide rates increase following media publication about suicides.<ref name="influence" /> One study using [[agent-based modeling]] showed that copycat suicides are more likely when there are similarities between the person involved in the publicized suicide and the potential copycats.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Mesoudi|first=Alex|author2=Jones, James Holland |title=The Cultural Dynamics of Copycat Suicide|journal=PLOS ONE|volume=4|issue=9|pages=e7252|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0007252|editor1-last=Jones|editor1-first=James Holland|pmid=19789643|pmc=2748702|year=2009|bibcode=2009PLoSO...4.7252M|doi-access=free}}</ref> In addition, research performed by David Phillips between 1947 and 1968 further supports the existence of copycat suicides.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hoffmann-Richter|first1=Ulrike|title=The Werther Effect and Assisted Suicide|journal=Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior|date=Summer 2003|volume=33|issue=2|pages=192–200|doi=10.1521/suli.33.2.192.22768|last2=Schenker|first2=Tanja|last3=Finzen|first3=Asmus|last4=Dittmann|first4=Volker|last5=Kraeuchi|first5=Kurt|last6=Hoffmann-Richter|first6=Ulrike|pmid=12882420}}</ref>