What do you think?
Rate this book
Social Butterflies
Traditionally, social influence has been something to be studied and guarded against, and this has become even more of a concern recently with the acceleration of modern social media. From Russian trolls posting fake news to sophisticated, artificial-intelligence-led campaigns by Cambridge Analytica, it has become clear that the Trump election and the Brexit referendum were both swayed by deliberate campaigns to manipulate our social selves and change the course of history. But what about the flip side of these powers that influence social behaviour? Can we use these same effective techniques to make us happier and healthier? Behavioural scientists understand the value of the social world, not just as an object of study, or as the driver for our fears and insecurities. In fact, social influence impacts all of our lives in a variety of positive ways and can be harnessed for even greater good. In this groundbreaking book, the Nudge Unit's Chief Scientist, Michael Sanders, and his deputy Susannah Hume, examine the dark side of social influence, the astonishing reach of social networks and why we need to reclaim their power to effect positive change in our professional and private lives.
- GenresPsychology
288 pages, Hardcover
Published April 4, 2019
14 people are currently reading
92 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
February 19, 2022
- We see the world as 'us vs them' - easy simplification
- The gradual rise of wedge politics (ie picking on particular groups to separate them from their traditional allies) + strengthening of divergent identities paints Trumpism as a culmination of gradual partisan polarisation rather than the 'hostile takeover' event.
- Important to remind the group that the project is more important than the individual disagreements: hence the 'peaceful transfer of power' ritual after US election, but this agreement is unravelling...
- Identity threats = group attacks: 1) threats to the group (pedestrians vs cyclists), 2) threats to the individual's place within the group (do you even lift bro), 3) threats of being categorised into the group (Clinton's 'basket of deplorables').
- Six responses: 1) attacking/discrediting the attacker, 2) concealing our affiliation to the identity, 3) arguing in favour of the identity, 4) ceasing to relate to the identity, 5) changing our perception of the identity, 6) reducing how important that identity is to us.
- People react to deviant members of a group they are strongly affiliated with; they may perceive either that their own membership might be threatened if the deviant member's behaviour becomes the new normal', or that the deviant member's behaviour reduces the esteem or value people derive from the group.
- Researchers find that it's the people who think their own position in the group is weakest and most vulnerable that are both the most keen to conform - to strengthen their position - and to actively and aggressively police the norms of the group when others break the rules.
- Our desire to conform means that our behaviour when we're acting as a member of a group is sometimes different from how it would be when we act as an individual. We might adhere more closely to a group decision, even if our own judgement suggests it's not a good idea; and we can do things - from lying to cheating or even committing murder - because we're following others in the group or protecting the group's interests.
- This 'licence' to behave in particular ways, when others like us are doing it and we perceive no consequences, can help to explain why 'bad' people appear to be much more common in times of crisis than they are when things are going smoothly. It may also help us to understand the seeming disconnect between the kind and normal people we meet every day, and the actions of large groups.
- Each of these social media platforms is successful because it taps into some aspect of our social instincts. And it is the insatiability of the same instincts that Louis XIV played upon to control his courtiers centuries earlier that can hook us in. For example, we can't control our instinct to look for comparison, and research by Harvard Business School professor Ashley Whillans suggests that we consistently assume that other people are more socially connected than us,29 leaving us scrabbling for more friends, more likes, more connections, to keep up with the pack - which is itself suffering the same worries.
----
Indeed, social identity theorists argue that sense of a shared social group is the basis for social influence and organization. When people perceive themselves to share group membership with another person in a given context they not only expect to agree with that person on issues relevant to their shared identity but are also motivated to strive actively to reach agreement and to co-ordinate their behaviour in relation to those issues on which they disagree. For instance, at work, if we strongly identify with our team, or with the company, then that motivation to reach agreement can make people go the extra mile.
Social identity starts with us identifying with particular social groups, and associating with the groups that we've put ourselves in, often at a pretty deep level. Doing this helps us create and define our place in the social environment, understand ourselves and others in terms of these groups and act according to our group membership.
The process of group identification is broadly as follows:
1. We self-categorize into a particular group (social identity theory requires this categorization to be consensual: it's not enough that others might categorize Michael as an eccentric based on his collection of bow ties; he must also categorize himself as an eccentric - which he does);
2. We start to see ourselves as being closer to and having more in common with other members of this group; and
3. We seek to 'positively differentiate' the group we have affiliated with - by highlighting the things that make our group special, better or more desirable than other groups
because this positive differentiation increases our self-esteem and positive self-concept.
So, seeing the world through our social groups means that we self-categorize into a group, move closer psychologically to other members of the group and seek to positively differentiate the group from others. For instance, we might self-categorize as woman or man, cyclist, cat or dog person, Star Wars fan, alumnus of our university,
and so on. These groups can be small and interactive - like families and friendship groups - or large and general, associated with our characteristics. This instinct to self-categorize is a fundamental part of how we organize our experience of the world: we want to feel good about ourselves, and a positive image of ourselves based on our group membership is a profound motivator - to work harder, to collaborate more or to be more creative. When we encounter others in the same category we discover a kindred spirit.
Identity salience = which identity is front-of-mind in a particular situation (and how close) depending on the people and cues around us.
Optimal distinctiveness = we don't so much want to stand out from the crowd as we want our crowd to stand out from other crowds. Ie Balancing our need for belonging & validation (within the group) with distinctiveness and individuality (comparing ourselves with other groups).
Reduce intergroup conflict by: 1) assume the best of others, 2) seek to take others' perspectives and 3) seek out opposing viewpoints to our own
----
Boost intrinsic motivation by reducing social distance between professionals and the people they are serving (eg by giving radiographers photos of the *outside* of the patient too improved diagnostic accuracy by 47%).
Within teams, social distance comes at a cost (fewer ideas and innovations). Solution: hire a diverse group but ask them to discuss their similarities (eg a 'higher group' like Mets fans) + create rituals.
----
Conforming to a social norm is just so natural that we follow scant evidence of one, even when we have no reason to believe it's a good idea.
If the norm is lower than people expect, or the norm is actually a negative behaviour, then drawing attention to it can backfire.
----
Whenever communicating/working with/delivering feedback to colleagues and those you manage, approaching it with positive expectations ('how can we solve this together?') vs negative (''how is this person going to let me down again?') can improve outcomes.
----
When implementing role models, pick those who are relatable (ie from a similar background / just a few steps further along) rather than the mozart / CEO.
If there's a culture of office gossip, or secrecy, even the most taciturn of us might indulge just to blend in.
If you've got people joining an established group from the outside, use a buddy scheme to build a link to the team before they join.
- The gradual rise of wedge politics (ie picking on particular groups to separate them from their traditional allies) + strengthening of divergent identities paints Trumpism as a culmination of gradual partisan polarisation rather than the 'hostile takeover' event.
- Important to remind the group that the project is more important than the individual disagreements: hence the 'peaceful transfer of power' ritual after US election, but this agreement is unravelling...
- Identity threats = group attacks: 1) threats to the group (pedestrians vs cyclists), 2) threats to the individual's place within the group (do you even lift bro), 3) threats of being categorised into the group (Clinton's 'basket of deplorables').
- Six responses: 1) attacking/discrediting the attacker, 2) concealing our affiliation to the identity, 3) arguing in favour of the identity, 4) ceasing to relate to the identity, 5) changing our perception of the identity, 6) reducing how important that identity is to us.
- People react to deviant members of a group they are strongly affiliated with; they may perceive either that their own membership might be threatened if the deviant member's behaviour becomes the new normal', or that the deviant member's behaviour reduces the esteem or value people derive from the group.
- Researchers find that it's the people who think their own position in the group is weakest and most vulnerable that are both the most keen to conform - to strengthen their position - and to actively and aggressively police the norms of the group when others break the rules.
- Our desire to conform means that our behaviour when we're acting as a member of a group is sometimes different from how it would be when we act as an individual. We might adhere more closely to a group decision, even if our own judgement suggests it's not a good idea; and we can do things - from lying to cheating or even committing murder - because we're following others in the group or protecting the group's interests.
- This 'licence' to behave in particular ways, when others like us are doing it and we perceive no consequences, can help to explain why 'bad' people appear to be much more common in times of crisis than they are when things are going smoothly. It may also help us to understand the seeming disconnect between the kind and normal people we meet every day, and the actions of large groups.
- Each of these social media platforms is successful because it taps into some aspect of our social instincts. And it is the insatiability of the same instincts that Louis XIV played upon to control his courtiers centuries earlier that can hook us in. For example, we can't control our instinct to look for comparison, and research by Harvard Business School professor Ashley Whillans suggests that we consistently assume that other people are more socially connected than us,29 leaving us scrabbling for more friends, more likes, more connections, to keep up with the pack - which is itself suffering the same worries.
----
Indeed, social identity theorists argue that sense of a shared social group is the basis for social influence and organization. When people perceive themselves to share group membership with another person in a given context they not only expect to agree with that person on issues relevant to their shared identity but are also motivated to strive actively to reach agreement and to co-ordinate their behaviour in relation to those issues on which they disagree. For instance, at work, if we strongly identify with our team, or with the company, then that motivation to reach agreement can make people go the extra mile.
Social identity starts with us identifying with particular social groups, and associating with the groups that we've put ourselves in, often at a pretty deep level. Doing this helps us create and define our place in the social environment, understand ourselves and others in terms of these groups and act according to our group membership.
The process of group identification is broadly as follows:
1. We self-categorize into a particular group (social identity theory requires this categorization to be consensual: it's not enough that others might categorize Michael as an eccentric based on his collection of bow ties; he must also categorize himself as an eccentric - which he does);
2. We start to see ourselves as being closer to and having more in common with other members of this group; and
3. We seek to 'positively differentiate' the group we have affiliated with - by highlighting the things that make our group special, better or more desirable than other groups
because this positive differentiation increases our self-esteem and positive self-concept.
So, seeing the world through our social groups means that we self-categorize into a group, move closer psychologically to other members of the group and seek to positively differentiate the group from others. For instance, we might self-categorize as woman or man, cyclist, cat or dog person, Star Wars fan, alumnus of our university,
and so on. These groups can be small and interactive - like families and friendship groups - or large and general, associated with our characteristics. This instinct to self-categorize is a fundamental part of how we organize our experience of the world: we want to feel good about ourselves, and a positive image of ourselves based on our group membership is a profound motivator - to work harder, to collaborate more or to be more creative. When we encounter others in the same category we discover a kindred spirit.
Identity salience = which identity is front-of-mind in a particular situation (and how close) depending on the people and cues around us.
Optimal distinctiveness = we don't so much want to stand out from the crowd as we want our crowd to stand out from other crowds. Ie Balancing our need for belonging & validation (within the group) with distinctiveness and individuality (comparing ourselves with other groups).
Reduce intergroup conflict by: 1) assume the best of others, 2) seek to take others' perspectives and 3) seek out opposing viewpoints to our own
----
Boost intrinsic motivation by reducing social distance between professionals and the people they are serving (eg by giving radiographers photos of the *outside* of the patient too improved diagnostic accuracy by 47%).
Within teams, social distance comes at a cost (fewer ideas and innovations). Solution: hire a diverse group but ask them to discuss their similarities (eg a 'higher group' like Mets fans) + create rituals.
----
Conforming to a social norm is just so natural that we follow scant evidence of one, even when we have no reason to believe it's a good idea.
If the norm is lower than people expect, or the norm is actually a negative behaviour, then drawing attention to it can backfire.
----
Whenever communicating/working with/delivering feedback to colleagues and those you manage, approaching it with positive expectations ('how can we solve this together?') vs negative (''how is this person going to let me down again?') can improve outcomes.
----
When implementing role models, pick those who are relatable (ie from a similar background / just a few steps further along) rather than the mozart / CEO.
If there's a culture of office gossip, or secrecy, even the most taciturn of us might indulge just to blend in.
If you've got people joining an established group from the outside, use a buddy scheme to build a link to the team before they join.
October 23, 2023
This was okay. Essentially an introduction to social psychology and behaviour change with a focus on networks and social capital. I was expecting it to be focused on something more specific within the realm of social networks/social butterflies but actually it was just an overview of the concept. I didn’t feel it had all that strong a “reclaiming the positive power” as the title suggested. Also I didn’t enjoy the way they summarised psychology research which is surprising given the occupations of the authors. I guess this book was not meant for me - perhaps I would have enjoyed at the beginning of my degree or at A-Level. Need to stop reading psychology books aimed at a general audience - they are accessible in a way that irritates me. Glad they exist but I’m not the target audience.
September 29, 2024
I needed 5 months to finish this book (indeed while reading others in paralel) because it was hard to motivate myself to pick it up. Despite the very interesting amount of data,t he writing style is very heavy. All the way, I had the feeling that I’m fighting to stay connected to very long phrases, where the authors introduced 3 or more thoughts and it was on me to put the puzzle together and connect all of them to the red wire of the story.
May 19, 2019
This book made a lot of fascinating data on social influence even more entertaining and immediately applicable to readers' lives. The illustrations and pop culture references make the solid research tangible and fun to read. Recommend this for any good person who wants to make the world a little better. Not for bad people though; they should not read it.
April 25, 2024
I feel like many popular behavioral science books cover similar ground, but this one is certainly better than most! Overall it’s definitely worth your time - though it perhaps could use a revised version given the speed of evolution in things like misinformation, social media, etc.
July 1, 2019
Interesting but their writing Style is quite boring and did not keep me gripped
January 2, 2020
The key message seems to be that social networks are advantageous.
February 27, 2023
Great outline of evidence-based ideas around group formation and power of social connections, presented with emphasis on practical ways that this evidence can support positive change
June 25, 2023
Me gusta que su análisis de redes sociales no abarque sólo lo malo sino también lo positivo y que sus aseveraciones sean sustentadas.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews