Invisible Influence (8 page)

Interestingly, the other minority voice doesn't even have to
have the
same
opinion. Even a dissenter giving the other incorrect answer (line A rather than line B) was enough to free people up to give the correct answer (line C) themselves. Just having another dissenting voice, even if it didn't agree, made people feel more comfortable in expressing their own personal opinion.

That dissenting voice changed the nature of the discussion. No longer was it right versus wrong, or with the group versus against it. Now the answer was a matter of opinion. And if it's clear that there are different opinions, everyone feels much more comfortable sharing theirs.

To encourage dissenting views, some managers explicitly give one person the job of constantly voicing an opposing perspective. Not only does it encourage people who hold that particular perspective to speak up, it encourages other alternative viewpoints as well.

Privacy also has a powerful effect. “Monkey see, monkey do” nicely describes imitation, but the “Monkey see” part is more important than we often realize. If people can't see, or observe what others are doing, there is no way for those others to influence them. If one monkey never saw whether other monkeys ate the red or blue corn, there'd be no way for the other monkeys' choices to influence theirs. Social influence only works when other people's opinions or behaviors are observable.
^V

Consequently, one way to break the influence of influence is
to make choices or opinions private. Using written ballots rather than a show of hands at meetings encourages independence and helps avoid groupthink. Using anonymous ballots makes people feel even freer to speak their mind. Even asking people to write down their preliminary opinion before the meeting can help. It's a small action, but having a written record before interacting with others makes it harder to stray from one's convictions, and increases the chance that diverse viewpoints will be heard.

These same general principles can be used to influence others. One opinion sometimes gets lost in a jumble of voices, but shrink the size of the group and that one voice carries more weight. Rather than trying to sway a whole room, it's much easier to build consensus by going around to each person individually beforehand. By starting with others who agree, it's possible to build a small coalition that can later help win over those who are on the fence.

Going first is also an easy way to shape the discussion. While not everyone may agree, it provides a gravitational attraction, encouraging neutral others to glom on.

These ideas also suggest that the huge lines for Cronuts, Japanese cheesecakes, or whatever else happens to be the food du jour probably aren't worth it. There are almost certainly nearby places that are equally good but don't require a fifty-minute wait.

When searching for cheesesteaks in Philadelphia, tourists are always told to go to Pat's or Geno's. These famous South Philly spots serve thinly sliced rib eye steak on long rolls with provolone, American cheese, or even Cheez Wiz for those so inclined. Late at night or on the weekend, queues out front of these institutions can reach epic proportions.

But are these places really that much better than anything else?
Unlikely. In fact, it's not even clear they are the best.

What they are, though, is prominent. Some number of years ago, through whatever combination of quality and luck, they edged out their peers in being recommended to out-of-towners. And because people who went told their friends, who told their friends, and so on, a small initial difference quickly became magnified, just like in the music experiment.

Nothing draws a crowd like a crowd.

So before spending half the day at Disney World waiting in line for Space Mountain, or camping out overnight to get a new product, we'd be wise to consider the available alternatives. Vacations can sometimes feel like attempting to re-create a highlight reel. Waiting in line at famous site after famous site, fighting the clamoring throng to get that quintessential photo of a bridge or palace. If that's enjoyable, great, but if not, maybe take a peek around the corner. There's probably an equally good place that's not as crowded.

Finally, these findings illustrate the range of things, from trivial to profound, that are shaped by others. We tend to think that we are at the locus of our choices. Our preferences, our predilections, our internal likes and dislikes. But from the food we pick to the language we use to the products that become popular, others have a surprising impact. Ask someone whether their negotiation succeeded because their counterpart mimicked them, and they'd laugh at you like you're crazy. But that influence still shaped success.

It's clear that other people influence our behavior, often without our awareness. But does that influence always lead us to do the same thing? Or might it sometimes lead us to do something different?

I
. Or imagine you're at the office, chatting with some coworkers. You're about to grab lunch, but the rest of your office mates are on deadline and can't go with you. Being the polite person you are, you ask the group whether you can get them something. How would you address the group—that is, what word(s) would you use to address a group of two or more people? How would you fill in the blank: Would _________ like me to get you anything? The answer seems even easier. But again, it depends on the people around you. People from the West or Northeast tend to say “you guys.” People from the South tend to say “y'all.” People from Kentucky tend to say “you all.” Some people from Philadelphia or Boston might even say “youse,” as in “Youse guys want something from the store?”

II
. Couples who look more alike over time also report having better marriages. Sharing worries and concerns and repeatedly empathizing with each other boosts satisfaction. But years of subtly mimicking each other has not only made them happier, it's made them look more similar as well.

III
. Mirror neurons may have evolved to facilitate knowledge acquisition. Infants are faced with the daunting task of learning hundreds of new things. From smiling and moving limbs to eventually walking and talking. It's as if you've been plopped down at the controls of a spacecraft and suddenly been asked to pilot the thing. Everything is unknown.

Mirror neurons help accelerate learning. Rather than having to figure out how to produce a smile by yourself, watching someone else do it should encourage that action. It should ready the region of the brain that controls an infant's facial muscles to take the necessary steps to produce a smile. And in so doing, make it easier for the infant to do the same.

Learning may also generate mirror neurons in the first place. Before learning, there may be little connection between different sensory neurons coding various actions and the motor neurons responsible for those actions. But through self-observation, or situations in which an adult makes the same expression as an infant, the activation of sensory neurons that observe a behavior and the motor neurons that produce it may become correlated. The simultaneous activation then increases the connection and eventually leads a mirror neuron to form. Neurons that fire together, wire together.

IV
. Mimicry is such a standard part of how people interact that lack of imitation makes people feel rejected. When people are told to avoid doing the same thing as their interaction partner, that partner feels a greater need to belong and their hormones spike.

V
. This also holds with our own choices. If we want to avoid people influencing our decisions, keeping them private helps. This is why expecting parents often keep their baby's name a secret until the child is born. It avoids the hassle of some uncle linking the name to a little known fungal disease and having to start all over again.

It wasn't there. Sitting in front of the computer at her friend's house, legs dangling off the chair, twelve-year-old Morgan Brian's eyes darted across the computer screen. Frantically she looked up and down the rows of names. First the A team. Then the B team. And finally even the C team.

All of her club teammates were there. Every last one. All ten of them had made one Olympic Development Program team or another. Except for her.

Brian was devastated. She had poured her life into soccer and wanted nothing more than a spot on that team. Even worse, that summer the rest of her teammates went to Montevallo, Alabama, for the regional Olympic Development Program camp, leaving her behind.

It was a tough summer, but it proved a valuable one. Failure became her motivation. Brian worked harder than she ever had before.

She had always been small. So much shorter and skinnier than the older girls she often played with, her teammates nicknamed her “Plankton.”

But her size, and skills, soon grew. She played before and after practice, drilling fundamentals with whomever she could find. Chest traps and volleys. Touches with each side of each foot. Repeating the same simple movements again and again until they became second nature.

A year after her failure, Brian made the state team. Then the regional team. And eventually the youth national team. A decade later, she stepped on the field as the youngest member of the U.S. national team. At twenty-two years old, she was one of the linchpins that helped the team win the 2015 Women's World Cup.

A prolific scoring midfielder, Brian has been called the glue that connects the defense to the offense. Some consider her the future of U.S. soccer. America's next big star. A new Mia Hamm in the waiting.

But the first opponent Brian faced wasn't a crafty Brazilian forward or a hardy German defender, it was her older sister, Jennifer. Together they would kick the ball around their parents' front yard until it was time to come in for dinner. Jennifer was five years older, so Morgan didn't win many one-on-one games, but it fueled her interest in the sport.

It turns out that Brian's not the only one. Elite women's soccer players tend not to be firstborn children. Of the twenty-three players on America's 2015 Women's World Cup team, for example, seventeen have older siblings.

Coincidence?

Like any organization, the U.S. national team is interested in predicting which players will do well. What makes some perform better than others? Do certain factors tend to be associated with success?

From the national team itself to the feeder groups that start as young as middle school, slots are limited. There are only so many players that make the cut. But it's tough to pick and choose. How should they pick who to invite and what predicts whether someone will be a national team player someday?

To find out, researchers studied players of all ages.
¹
Girls that participated in at least one U.S. women's national team training camp, from the under-fourteen level all the way up to age twenty-three. They measured a variety of factors, from physical capabilities and psychological profile to geography and aspirations.

There were all sorts of intriguing relationships. Successful players tended to live with both parents, their mothers or fathers often volunteered to help the team in some capacity, and their parents often had received post-secondary education.

But beyond all these aspects, one factor stuck out: birth order. Three-fourths of the best players in the country have at least one older brother or sister.

And it's not just soccer. Examination of more than thirty sports across the world found the same pattern. Top athletes tended to be later-born children.
²

There are many reasons that having an older sibling might make someone better at sports. Watching an older brother or sister provides an early introduction. Older siblings can teach their younger counterparts how to play and serve as inspiration.

Older siblings can also serve as training partners or competitors. It's not called sibling rivalry for nothing. Competing against older, often bigger family members forces younger siblings to develop quickly. They have to cope with being smaller, lighter, and often slower. To keep up with, or even beat, their older siblings, younger siblings have no choice but to learn fast. This
natural “playing-up” environment motivates them to take more risks and build their skills.

Interestingly, though, while elite athletes tend to have older siblings, those siblings didn't necessarily play the same sport. These older brothers and sisters were generally active and involved in some sport, just not necessarily the sport at which their younger siblings ended up being successful. Elite soccer players, for example, had older brothers and sisters, but they may have played basketball or volleyball instead of soccer.

So if younger siblings aren't simply learning from, or competing against, their older brother or sister, why are they more successful?

Firstborn children tend to do better academically.
³
They have higher GPAs, score higher on the SAT, and have higher national merit scores. They are more likely to go to college and attend more selective schools.

While some attribute this increased academic achievement to differential parental investment, or the additional resources available to firstborn children, another explanation is more social in nature.

Not surprisingly, firstborn children are almost always the first to attend school. And while not all of them excel in education, many of them at least try to do well. Indeed, firstborns tend to be seen as the studious and conscientious sibling.
⁴
Not surprisingly then, firstborns tend to be overrepresented in Who's Who lists and among award-winning scientists, including those who have won the Nobel Prize. Firstborns are also overrepresented among world political leaders, including U.S. presidents.
⁵

Born into this environment, younger siblings are faced with a choice: They can try to do well in school, like their older brother
or sister, or they can seek a different niche. They can follow the trodden path or they can break out and blaze a new one.