The tipping point

Ch 1: The Three Rules of Epidemics

Main idea: Some trends become major epidemics because of a relatively minor and fleeting event that causes a “tipping point.”

Characteristics of epidemics

• Contagious

• Little causes have big effects

• Change does not happen gradually, but in one dramatic moment

Ch 2: The Law of the Few

Main idea: The people who carry a particular idea help to determine whether it will tip.

Connectors

• People specialists; they know many different people and many different kinds of people. Not aggressive about it; more instinctual. They are not best friends with these contacts – they are “weak ties” (p. 46).

• If information gets to a connector, it will spread quickly

• EX: Paul Revere, Lois Weisberg (Chicago; 8 different worlds, p. 51), Roger Horchow (businessman, Broadway producer, restaurant recommendation)

There is more than one way to tip an epidemic. Epidemics are functions of three things

• The people who transmit infectious agents (Law of the Few)

• The infectious agent itself (Stickiness Factor)

• The environment in which the infectious agent is operating (Power of Context)

Mavens

• Information specialists

• Socially motivated to share information with others; pathologically helpful

• EX: Paul Revere, Mark Alpert (businessman, knows about car pricing and hotels on Wilshire

Salesmen

• Persuasion specialists; People who persuade others to listen to information. Energetic, enthusiastic, charming, likeable.

• Persuasion can work in subtle ways – mimicry

• EX: Tom Gau (businessman), Peter Jennings (vote for Reagan)

Ch 3: The Stickiness Factor

Main idea: In order for a social epidemic to occur, the message itself must be something worth passing on. It must be “sticky.” For example, Wunderman vs. McCann ads (“treasure hunt” and prizes)

What makes an idea “stick”?

• Format: Memorable, practical, personal

• Structure: Attention-grabbing, age-appropriate (Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues)

• These are more important than actual content! (p. 131)

Ch 4: The Power of Context (part one)

Main idea: We are heavily influenced by our situation, even if we do not know it. The kind of situation we are in can affect the social epidemics we start and participate in. Key is situation, not broader environment. (p. 154)

Diffusion of Responsibility (“bystander effect;” pp. 27-28)

• Kitty Genovese was brutally murdered in front of 38 witnesses, but no one helped

• When people are in a group, they feel that they have less personal responsibility because someone else will help.

“Broken Windows” theory (pp. 141-151)

• Goetz and murder of 4 seemingly “dangerous” Black men on NYC subway

• Crime can be a result of physical disorder

• Simply cleaning up the NYC subway system reduced crime!

Latane & Darley (1968) – Bystander Problem (pp. 28-29)

• What they did: (1) Participants interacting with confederate via walkie-talkie when they had an epileptic fit. (2) Participants see smoke coming under doorway.

• What they found: (1) When one other person was listening, 85% helped. When four others, 31% helped. (2) Alone, 75% reported smoke. In a group, 38% reported smoke.

• Take-home: Diffusion of responsibility! We are less likely to take action when in a group. CONTEXT

Milgram (1969) – Letters from Nebraska to Massachusetts (pp. 34-37)

• What they did: Randomly sampled 160 people in Nebraska and mailed them instructions to get a letter to a stockbroker working in Boston but living in Sharon, Mass. by sending it to friends, family, and acquaintances.

• What they found: Most letters reached the stockbroker in 5-6 steps, but through specific people (Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Brown, Mr. Jones).

• Take-home: Six degrees separation, but not all equal. (Considered an awful study.) CONNECTORS.

Granovetter (1974) – Getting a Job Study (pp. 53-54)

• What they did: Asked many workers from Boston suburb how they got their job.

• What they found: 56% through personal connection (unsurprising), but of that 56%, the vast majority (84%) were from people they saw only “occasionally” or “rarely.”

• Take-home: Weak ties more important than strong ties; they have info we don’t already have. CONNECTORS

Mullen (1984) – Reagan/Mondale Election Bias (pp. 74-76)

• What they did: Showed silent video clips of Jennings (ABC), Brokaw (NBC), and Rather (CBS) and asked participants to rate emotional expressions. Also tracked votes based on networks voters watched most often.

• What they found: Jennings was much more positive towards Reagan (and not just more positive overall). ABC viewers voted for Reagan at much higher rates than viewers of other networks.

• Take-home: Low-level cues can be persuasive, dictating behavior in dramatic ways. PERSUADERS.

Condon (1972) – Cultural Microrhythms (pp. 81-83)

• What they did: Carefully decoded 4.5 s film clip of family dinner scene.

• What they found: Family members had a nonverbal rhythm – they engaged in “interactional synchrony,” moving their faces and bodies in concert with one another. They performed a nonverbal social dance.

• Take-home: We can be persuaded based upon our social reflex to be in rhythm with another person. CONTEXT and PERSUADERS

Leventhal (1965) – Fear Experiments: Tetanus Vaccine (pp. 96-98)

• What they did: Tried to persuade students to get a tetanus vaccine. 2 (Fear: low, high) x 2 (Relevance: map, no map) design.

• What they found: Participants who saw fearful images were more convinced of vaccine importance, but not more likely to get vaccinated. Participants who received a map more likely to get vaccinated.

• Take-home: Students who know how to fit vaccine into their lives more likely to get it. STICKINESS

Zimbardo (1971) – Stanford Prison Experiment (pp. 152-154)

• What they did: Randomly assigned volunteers to be police or prisoners in a mock prison.

• What they found: Participants very much played their roles, and very quickly escalated out of control. Participants suggested that they were “out of control” of their own behavior.

• Take-home: Situation plays a large role in behavior. (Zimbardo himself was warden!) POWER OF CONTEXT.

Darley & Batson (1973) – Good Samaritan (pp. 164-165)

• What they did: Asked seminary students to prepare a talk and then walk to a nearby building to give the talk. Along the way, ran into a sick man who needed help. 2 (Talk: Good Samaritan, Relevance of Professional Clergy) x 2 (Rationale for joining seminary: Spiritual Fulfillment, Practicality) x 2 (Rush: Late, On Time)

• What they found: Only rush made a difference! People in a hurry ignored sick man; people with time helped.

• Take-home: Situations affect us in powerful ways, often over and above any intrinsic personality factors. FAE and POWER OF CONTEXT