Wikipedia is making a big mistake
Last week I gave a presentation about social proof. Social proof is the concept that if other people are doing something, then it must be OK. Therefore, if you can show people that others are embracing your cause, you may convince them to embrace it too. It’s a very powerful concept, but it can backfire as well.
One of my colleagues, who attended, sent me an email pointing out that Wikipedia is making a big social proof mistake with their mobile fundraising message.
And she’s right. I’ll explain why based on some examples.
The first example comes from “Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive”.
At the petrified Forest National Park in Arizona visitors gathered wood to take home. As an experiment a graduate student placed two different signs on a trail and observed how the signs changed the amount of wood taken.
One sign read, “Many past visitors have removed the petrified wood from the park, changing the natural state of the Petrified Forest” and showed several people picking up petrified wood. The other sign read “Please don’t remove the petrified wood from the park, in order to preserve the natural state of the Petrified Forest” and showed only one person picking up petrified wood.
When there was no sign, visitors took 2.92 percent of the marked petrified wood that experimenters had planted on the trail. When the sign depicted multiple visitors picking up wood, visitors took 7.92 percent of the marked wood. In other words, more stealing occurred with the sign. When the sign showed only one person picking up wood, visitors took only 1.67 percent of the marked wood.
The implication is that people may infer that doing something wrong is OK if others are doing it too. If many past visitors took wood, it must be OK. Showing them that few people are doing something wrong, however, has the desired effect.
The second example is more personal.
At Bluegrass Consulting it’s always a challenge to let everybody fill in their timesheets on time. This often leads to Carine, our accountant, having to chase everybody (I have to admit, I am often guilty myself). A “timely timesheet booster” could be sending a message to the people who are late. It could look as follows:
Showing that almost all the colleagues are filling in time sheets on time boosts the late people to join. Showing that a lot of people are doing something good, has the desired effect.
Compare this with the following message:
Only 19% of the colleagues are on time. That means 81% of them didn’t fill in their timesheet. Showing that a lot of people (81%) are doing something wrong has the reverse effect. Translated: Not filling in time sheets on time must be OK.
Back to the Wikipedia message. “Less than 1% of our readers donates”. That’s giving the proof that a lot of people (99%) are doing something wrong (=not donating). Translated: not donating is OK.
Conclusion: social proof is a very powerful concept that can help when you’re trying to change people’s behaviour. But beware, because it can backfire.
If you liked this story I would appreciate if you recommend it on Medium or share it on your other social media channels.
