mob mentality psychology experiments

The Science Behind Why People Follow the Crowd

Why do other people influence us so much.

Posted May 24, 2017 | Reviewed by Matt Huston

It may seem that we are in control of our thoughts and behavior. But social psychology tells a different story.

Social psychology is defined as “the scientific study of how we think about, influence, and relate to one another." We are social beings. Most of us communicate with others every day, spending large portions of our waking hours in some form of communication.

One lesson from social psychology is the influence others have on us. Research shows we do not have as much control over our thoughts and behavior as we think. We take cues from our environment, especially other people , on how to act.

How groups influence us

Consider the concept of group polarization. The idea is that likeminded people in a group reinforce one another’s viewpoints. Group polarization strengthens the opinions of each person in the group.

In a study by French psychologists Serge Moscovici and Marisa Zavalloni, researchers asked participants some questions. First, researchers asked about their opinion of the French president. Second, they asked about their attitude toward Americans. The researchers then asked the participants to discuss each topic as a group.

After a discussion, groups who held a tentative consensus became more extreme in their opinions. For example, participants held slightly favorable attitudes toward the French president. But their attitudes magnified as group members spoke with one another. They held slightly negative attitudes toward Americans. But their attitudes intensified as each member learned others shared their views about their allies abroad. The researchers concluded, “Group consensus seems to induce a change of attitudes in which subjects are likely to adopt more extreme positions." When we see our uncertain opinions reflected back to us, our beliefs strengthen.

Many of us also enjoy being with others who share similar beliefs. In one experiment, researchers invited people to discuss issues including same-sex marriage , affirmative action, and climate change . People in one group came from predominantly liberal Boulder, Colorado. People in another group came from mostly conservative Colorado Springs. The discussions on controversial topics led to increased agreement within the groups. Beliefs we hold are strengthened when we are around others who hold similar views.

If other people do it, that means it’s right. Right?

There is a heuristic most of us use to determine what to do, think, say, and buy: the principle of social proof. To learn what is correct, we look at what other people are doing. In his bestselling book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion , psychologist Robert Cialdini writes, “Whether the question is what to do with an empty popcorn box in a movie theater, how fast to drive on a certain stretch of highway, or how to eat the chicken at a dinner party, the actions of those around us will be important in defining the answer.” Social proof is a shortcut to decide how to act.

Cialdini has used the principle of social proof to prevent environmental theft. Consider the case of Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park. Visitors would arrive at the park and learn of past thievery from prominent signs: “Your heritage is being vandalized every day by theft losses of petrified wood of 14 tons a year, mostly a small piece at a time.”

In one experiment , Cialdini removed the sign from a specific path in the park to measure any differences it might make. The path with no sign had one-third less theft than the path with the sign. Visitors interpreted the sign’s message as permission. Put differently, visitors thought it was “normal” to take small pieces of wood, because so much was stolen every year.

Researchers have also used the principle of social proof to help people overcome their fears. In one study, Albert Bandura and his colleagues worked with a group of young children frightened of dogs. The children watched a four-year-old boy happily play with a dog for 20 minutes a day for four days. After the four day period, 67 percent of the children who watched the boy play with the dog were willing to enter a playpen with a dog. When the researchers conducted a follow-up study one month later, they found the same children were willing to play with a dog. Watching a little boy have fun with a dog reduced fear in children. They used the behavior of a boy playing with a dog as a model to change their own behavior.

Why do others influence us so much?

Clearly, others affect our behavior. One reason for this is that we live in a complex world. We use the decisions of others as a heuristic, or mental shortcut, to navigate our lives. English philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead once said , “Civilization advances by extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking about them."

In his book Influence , Cialdini uses the example of advertisers informing us that a product is the “fastest-growing” or “best-selling.” Advertisers don’t have to persuade us that a product is good, they only need to say others think so .

Cialdini notes that consumers often use a simple heuristic: Popular is good . Following the crowd allows us to function in a complicated environment. Most of us do not have time to increase our knowledge of all merchandise and research every advertised item to measure its usefulness.

Instead, we rely on signals like popularity . If everyone else is buying something, the reasoning goes, there is a good chance the item is worth our attention .

A second reason others influence us is that humans are social. We have survived because of our ability to band together. Early humans who formed groups were more likely to survive. This affected our psychology .

As Julia Coultas, a researcher at the University of Essex, puts it, “For an individual joining a group, copying the behaviour of the majority would then be a sensible, adaptive behaviour. A conformist tendency would facilitate acceptance into the group and would probably lead to survival if it involved the decision, for instance, to choose between a nutritious or poisonous food, based on copying the behaviour of the majority.”

In our evolutionary past, our ancestors were under constant threat. Keen awareness of others helped our ancestors survive in a dangerous and uncertain world. Modern humans have inherited such adaptive behaviors.

These behaviors include banding together and promoting social harmony. This includes not dissenting from the group. In a hunter-gatherer group, being ostracized or banished could have been a death sentence.

Thoughtful reflection on social influence may lead us to a greater awareness of ourselves and our relationships with others.

Bandura, A., Grusec, J. E., & Menlove, F. L. (1967). Vicarious Extinction of Avoidance Behavior. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 5(1), 16-23. doi:10.1037/h0024182

Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current directions in psychological science, 12(4), 105-109.

Cialdini, R. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (Rev. ed. ; 1st Collins business essentials ed.). New York: Collins.

Coultas, J. C. (2004). When in Rome .... An Evolutionary Perspective on Conformity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(4), 317-331. doi:10.1177/1368430204046141

Lee, D., & Hatesohl, D. (n.d.). Listening: Our Most Used Communication Skill. Retrieved September 8, 2014.

Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 12(2), 125-135. doi:10.1037/h0027568

Schkade, D., Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2007). What Happened on Deliberation Day?. California Law Review, 95(3), 915-940.

Rob Henderson received a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Cambridge (St. Catharine's College). He obtained a B.S. in Psychology from Yale University and is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Supported by

Making Sense of the ‘Mob’ Mentality

Why do some mass gatherings turn violent? Experts in crowd behavior say there’s still much to learn.

Share full article

By Benedict Carey

The reign of King Louis Philippe, the last king of France, came to an abrupt and ignominious end on Feb. 24, 1848, after days of increasingly violent demonstrations in Paris and months of mounting agitation with the government’s policies.

The protesters surging through the city at first were fairly orderly: students chanting, well-dressed men and women strolling, troublemakers breaking windows and looting. But late in the evening of Feb. 23, the tide turned dark. Soldiers had fired on the crowd near the Hôtel des Capucines, leaving scores of men and women gravely wounded. Some blocks away, a journalist was “startled by the aspect of a gentleman who, without his hat, ran madly into the middle of the street, and began to harangue the passers-by. ‘To arms!’ he cried. ‘We are betrayed.’”

“The effect was electric,” the journalist wrote later . “Each man shook his neighbor by the hand, and far and wide the word was given that the whole system must fall.”

Several decades later, in 1895, those events became grist for one of the first concerted scholarly efforts to understand the mob mentality, Gustave Le Bon’s “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind.” Ever since, social scientists have sought to describe the dynamics of humans en masse. What, independent of police provocation, causes a seemingly peaceful group of people to turn violent? How coherent in their purpose are crowds? Why and how does a crowd become a mob?

Last week’s march and deadly assault on the Capitol has raised these questions again, and many more besides. News media reports have openly struggled to find the right language. Was this an angry throng, a chaotic demonstration, a protest turned ugly or a deliberate insurrection — or some combination of them all?

A full account of the episode — the inside story, from those who know — may never emerge, given the lack of neutral chroniclers. But ample video footage is available, perhaps more than from any other such crowd action; experts have already begun viewing and analyzing the imagery in the context of a vast scholarship on crowd dynamics, and the events of Jan. 6 are likely to be studied and referenced for years to come.

If the scenes from the Capitol grounds reveal one thing, it is variety. There were people in military gear, carrying guns, zip-ties and maps of the corridors; individuals in Uncle Sam hats and animal-skin costumes ; others carrying nooses, planting explosive devices, breaking windows, attacking journalists; and hundreds just milling around outside, carrying pro-Trump signs, socializing as if at a backyard barbecue. Perhaps for brevity, headline writers have gravitated toward using the term “mob,” but the word hardly captures the totality of the events, much less what researchers have learned about crowd behavior in the last century and a half.

“Crowds do not act with one irrational mind,” James Jasper, a sociologist at the City University of New York and author of “The Emotions of Protest,” said. “There are many groups, doing different things, for different reasons. That is crucial to understanding how they ultimately behave.”

‘A crowd is not us’

Le Bon, a French intellectual and writer, was not yet 7 during the 1848 rebellion in Paris and most likely was not a witness to its bloodiest days. But accounts of the rebellion clearly moved him, and he was repulsed by the entity at its center — the “howling, swarming, ragged crowd,” he wrote in 1895. From there he built a theory of crowd behavior that has never quite gone away.

“An agglomeration of men presents new characteristics very different from those of the individuals composing it,” Le Bon concluded. “The sentiments and ideas of all the persons in the gathering take one and the same direction, and their conscious personality vanishes. A collective mind is formed.”

(A similar sentiment appears in an eyewitness account of the “common mob” rebelling against a Byzantine emperor in the 11th century : “It was as if the whole multitude were sharing in some superhuman inspiration. They seemed different from their former selves. There was more madness in their running, more strength in their hands, the flash in their eyes was fiery and inspired, the muscles of their bodies more powerful.”)

The notion of a group mind held sway among social scientists for decades afterward, and it still has great public appeal. But it began to fall apart during the protest movements in the middle of the 20th century, both in Europe and the United States.

For one thing, many budding social scientists were no longer watching those demonstrations at a remove, on television or in literature; they were active participants. Were they truly mindless sheep, drunk on a crowd mentality that overwhelmed their individual judgment, as Le Bon and an elite establishment would have it? It didn’t feel that way to an observer in the crowd.

“A crowd is like a patient to a doctor, the hypnotized to the hypnotist,” wrote Bill Buford, parodying these presumptions in his 1990 book “Among the Thugs,” an account of his time spent in the company of English soccer hooligans. “A crowd is rabble — to be manipulated, controlled, roused. A crowd is not us.”

A major shift in thinking about crowd behavior occurred in the middle of last century, and it integrated two competing principles. One is that, under specific conditions, peacefully minded protesters may indeed act out — for instance, when a barricade is broken by others, when the police strike down someone nearby. “Very often these incidents are initiated by the police,” Dr. Jasper said. “But of course it can come from crowd dynamics too.”

At the same time, as a rule, impulsive violence is less likely to occur in crowds that have some social structure and internal organization. The protests of the civil rights movement were tactical and organized, as far back as the 1950s. So were many sit-ins in the 1960s and ’70s, against nuclear power and the Vietnam War. Windows were broken, there were clashes with police, but spontaneous mayhem was not the rule.

“During this era, you now have Kent State, urban riots, civil rights marches,” said Calvin Morrill, a professor of law and sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. “And the idea of the group mind does not give social scientists any room to explain the different levels of organization behind all those protests and what they meant. Ever since then, protests, whether nonviolent or not, have included tactics, strategy — and training — precisely to make sure the crowd does not lose its focus.”

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. personally trained many groups of Freedom Riders, detailing how best to respond to police provocation and what to say (and what not) if arrested. Those lessons carried forward. Many protesters at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant site in New Hampshire, in 1977, and at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California, in the late 1970s and early ’80s, had learned to go limp to avoid blows from police officers, and to wear boots rather than sneakers. (Sneakers slip off when you’re being dragged.)

Such training is not reserved to groups pledged to nonviolence, of course, and it includes specific roles for individuals with special skills, and a kind of middle-management layer. Protest groups bent on provocation, whether left-leaning or right, often include so-called violence experts — young men willing to take some swings to get things started.

“Absolutely they are trained, trained to go right up to the line and mix it up, then fall back,” Dr. Morrill said. “There’s a long, long tradition of these tactics.”

Depending on the protest, and the mission, organized protests may also include marshals, or guides, helping shuttle people around, and so-called affinity groups — squads that take some leadership responsibility as the protest evolves. In its Tampa, Fla., demonstration last summer, Black Lives Matter reportedly had almost 100 marshals in fluorescent vests patrolling the crowd, as well as medics, all communicating with walkie-talkies and trained in de-escalation tactics.

“You’re talking groups of four to 10 people, protest participants, often friends who come in from another city or town to look after people who are injured or freaking out,” said Alex Vitale, a professor of sociology at Brooklyn College, of affinity groups. “And these groups will coordinate with each other, and if the crowd is assaulted or scattered, they’re capable of deciding, ‘What should we do next?’”

Controlling the critical masses

Mass actions do not take place in a vacuum, of course; they are extended interactions with the police and other security officers.

Just as the understanding of crowd dynamics has shifted significantly in the past half-century, so too have police tactics and threat assessment. During the antiwar and civil rights protests that ended in violence in the 1960s and ’70s — the march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965; the Kent State student protest; the 1971 antiwar protest in Washington, D.C. — the approach was to show overwhelming force, followed by mass arrests. Now the initial strategy is often containment. The police or security officials typically issue protest permits, blocking out areas where protesters are allowed and, by extension, prohibited.

Security forces are trained to ignore yelled insults and small acts of hostility, like pushes and thrown water bottles. And they receive training in absorbing surges in a crowd, moving people as gently as possible, and quickly responding to pockets of violence and isolating agitators, said Ed Maguire, a criminologist at Arizona State University. If a crowd is a potential bomb, the job of security is to continuously defuse it.

“They set up what are called skirmish lines and try to keep demonstrators away from those,” Dr. Maguire said. The mentality is one of negotiation more than confrontation, he said.

For all of these advances in thinking, the surge on the Capitol last week was a reminder of how much is left to learn. The footage from the siege, Dr. Maguire and other experts said, reveals little about the strategies of either the crowd or the police, if any were at work. For the Capitol Police, that has resulted in some embarrassment, at least one resignation, and questions about political influence and double standards based on the race of protesters.

“It just felt like a mishmash of tactics and confusion, as one journalist put it after the Ferguson demonstration,” Dr. Maguire said. “No clear structure in the crowd and absolute chaos on the police side: no clear sense of credible incident command, of wearing the right gear, carrying the right weapons. All of that seemed to be missing.”

If there are patterns to be discerned, scholars have an array of new tools to explore them. For instance, computer scientists can now model crowd behavior by digitally “populating” a street or park with a crowd, programming the likely number of provocateurs, and simulating the whole affair based on different police tactics.

But there will always be surprises, human ones, and the only way to glean those is to hear what the participants have to say, to a trusted interviewer. The video footage from Wednesday shows that, when the crowd actually breached the Capitol, many of the invaders weren’t sure exactly what to do next.

“People seemed surprised they had gotten in,” Dr. Jasper said. “There are great shots from the hall of statues, where protesters stayed inside the velvet ropes, like tourists, looking around sort of in awe.”

With no apparent structure or strategy, the crowd had no shared goal or common plan. The same haphazard quality that had allowed pockets of violence to open was

probably part of what ultimately defused it.

“It looked like, in the end, it was just a matter of attrition,” Dr. Jasper said. “People wanted to go find a bathroom, or a pub, or somewhere to sleep.”

[ Like the Science Times page on Facebook. | Sign up for the Science Times newsletter. ]

A picture caption in an earlier version of this article misstated where a photograph was taken. It was at the Capitol steps, not the Lincoln Memorial.

When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know at [email protected] . Learn more

Benedict Carey has been a science reporter for The Times since 2004. He has also written three books, “How We Learn” about the cognitive science of learning; “Poison Most Vial” and “Island of the Unknowns,” science mysteries for middle schoolers. More about Benedict Carey

….@ the intersection of learning & performance

Thoughts on people and the workplace, the monkey experiment and edgar schein.

April 2, 2014. A reader brought to my attention that the research cited in this post is suspect. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/what-monkeys-can-teach-us-about-human-behavior-facts-fiction ). After a little digging, it appears that the story originated in a credible business book, “ Competing for the Future ” by Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad. One writer went so far as to contact Hamel’s office to obtain the actual research cited in the book, and apparently received a brush off. So while this makes a good story to support theories on organizational culture, perhaps it should merely be taken as that – a good story. But…I have seen the behavior in 30-some years of corporate work and the message is sound.

One of many “funny” emails floating around the internet contained the story of the monkey, banana and water spray experiment. I was pretty sure it was true ( because I’ve seen it happen – but not with monkeys ), but I wanted to source it anyway.

But let’s take it to the topic of organizational culture. Edgar Schein talks about the “ unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts and feelings. The ultimate source of values and action.” (Schein, 2004) This is the part that you see but it is difficult to understand “the why”. Often, these assumptions conflict with the “artifacts” and “values” that are talked about and written on posters and intranets.

A practical example. A healthcare organization is exceedingly proud of their strong culture of caring for patients. Everything from their new employee orientation to their performance management program focus on caring, quality and speaking up when they saw something wrong.

But several years ago, a new nurse just out of orientation publicly corrected a physician and was publicly “flogged”. That nurse became a mentor to several other nurses, and quickly explained that what they learned in orientation about speaking up was erroneous, and they would actually be subject to discipline if they challenged a physician or a more senior nurse.

Year after year, the unspoken rule is handed down, and the energy and excitement of hearing the values at orientation gives way to cynicism and silence.

Does this really happen? You betcha!

What do to? The answer isn’t really difficult, but it takes courage to execute. The answer lies in asking good questions, observing behavior and understanding what those underlying assumptions are. And here’s the key….once that is known, leadership has to make change to bring the artifacts and values in line with the assumptions. Sounds easy, doesn’t it. So why don’t more organizations do this?

“Did the monkey banana and water spray experiment ever take place? Answer:

The Monkey Banana and Water Spray Experiment The experiment is real (scientific study cited below). This experiment involved 5 monkeys (10 altogether, including replacements), a cage, a banana, a ladder and, an ice cold water hose. The Experiment- Part 1 5 monkeys are locked in a cage, a banana was hung from the ceiling and a ladder was placed right underneath it. As predicted, immediately, one of the monkeys would race towards the ladder, to grab the banana. However, as soon as he would start to climb, the researcher would spray the monkey with ice-cold water. but here’s the kicker- In addition, he would also spray the other four monkeys… When a second monkey tried to climb the ladder, the researcher would, again, spray the monkey with ice-cold water, As well as the other four watching monkeys; This was repeated again and again until they learned their lesson Climbing equals scary cold water for EVERYONE so No One Climbs the ladder. The Experiment- Part 2 Once the 5 monkeys knew the drill, the researcher replaced one of the monkeys with a new inexperienced one. As predicted, the new monkey spots the banana, and goes for the ladder. BUT, the other four monkeys, knowing the drill, jumped on the new monkey and beat him up. The beat up new guy thus Learns- NO going for the ladder and No Banana Period- without even knowing why! and also without ever being sprayed with water! These actions get repeated with 3 more times, with a new monkey each time and ASTONISHINGLY each new monkey- who had never received the cold-water Spray himself (and didn’t even know anything about it), would Join the beating up of the New guy. This is a classic example of Mob Mentality- bystanders and outsiders uninvolved with the fight- join in ‘just because’. When the researcher replaced a third monkey, the same thing happened; likewise for the fourth until, eventually, all the monkeys had been replaced and none of the original ones are left in the cage (that had been sprayed by water). The Experiment- Part 3 Again, a new monkey was introduced into the cage. It ran toward the ladder only to get beaten up by the others. The monkey turns with a curious face asking “why do you beat me up when I try to get the banana?” The other four monkeys stopped and looked at each other puzzled (None of them had been sprayed and so they really had no clue why the new guy can’t get the banana) but it didn’t matter, it was too late, the rules had been set. And So, although they didn’t know WHY, they beat up the monkey just because ” that’s the way we do things around here”… Well, it seems to be true; not in the exact shape that it took here, but close enough, Below is a quotation from the experiment, in scientific Jargon: (sources cited below) “Stephenson (1967) trained adult male and female rhesus monkeys to avoid manipulating an object and then placed individual naïve animals in a cage with a trained individual of the same age and sex and the object in question. In one case, a trained male actually pulled his naïve partner away from the previously punished manipulandum during their period of interaction, whereas the other two trained males exhibited what were described as “threat facial expressions while in a fear posture” when a naïve animal approached the manipulandum. When placed alone in the cage with the novel object, naïve males that had been paired with trained males showed greatly reduced manipulation of the training object in comparison with controls. Unfortunately, training and testing were not carried out using a discrimination procedure so the nature of the transmitted information cannot be determined, but the data are of considerable interest.” Sources: Stephenson, G. R. (1967). Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys. In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288. Mentioned in: Galef, B. G., Jr. (1976). Social Transmission of Acquired Behavior: A Discussion of Tradition and Social Learning in Vertebrates. In: Rosenblatt, J.S., Hinde, R.A., Shaw, E. and Beer, C. (eds.), Advances in the study of behavior, Vol. 6, New York: Academic Press, pp. 87-88:”

______________________________________________________

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership . San Francisco, Jossey Bass, pp. 26.

Animated monkey from http://www.animationfactory.com

13 thoughts on “ The Monkey Experiment and Edgar Schein ”

Carol, what a great illustration of how a “culture” gets built, for better or worse. As you have, I’ve seen it all too many times – the actions don’t match the words on the wall. Then leaders wonder ‘why aren’t people doing what we want them to do?’ It really is because they have literally learned not to. You recently used the word authenticity and I think that is what so much of it comes down to. Culture is all about what we do, not what we say. If we act inauthentically, it becomes like a parasitic vine, eventually weaving throughout the entire organization and hard to get rid of.

Thanks for your response, Peggy. I like the analogy of a parasitic vine….it grows fast and the host doesn’t even know it’s there!

With the new job, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about espoused values and the actual experience. I’m treated as a regular employee (and I will be one in June), but when it comes down to some cultural items, I’m absolutely a contractor and should stay quiet and out of the way.

Thanks for stopping by Erica. You know, the whole thing seems so simple, but the hidden and/or unspoken things can so quickly become habit.

Does the fact that Answers.com appears to be perpetuating a myth pose any difficulties for you? (Cf. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/what-monkeys-can-teach-us-about-human-behavior-facts-fiction )

Thanks for the correction, David. Your sarcasm is obvious, but I do appreciate the information.

David, I looked further, and it appears that this experiment may have been originated in “Competing for the Future” by Hamel and Prahalad. This link ( http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-experiment-with-five-monkeys-a-ladder-a-banana-and-a-water-spray-condu )indicates an attempt to trace back the origins of the experiment without success.

Your point is a good one – to verify the sources of internet research. While it appears that this may have been urban legend perpetuated by “business writers,” the premise of learned culture is valid and has been researched by theoreticians in the world of business, such as Edgar Schein. The “follower” mentality that evolves from cultural norms is exhibited every day in the modern business world, making culture change extremely difficult.

Any chance you could provide some references for the research that has been conducted by theoreticians in the world of business as you note? I think “world of business” is key, not just freshmen Psy/Soc students or rhesus monkeys. Thanks.

I don’t have a copy of Hamel & Prahalad’s book, so I can’t look it up right now. Not sure what you are asking, but sometimes “research” and “world of business” are oxymorons. I did provide reference for Schein….

I commend you for a magnanimous & thoughtful response to a snarky comment, for which I must apologize. The Skeptics link you provided is as informative as any I’ve come across. At this point it would be helpful to view the 1967 paper from G. R. Stephenson to see more details of the original experiment. Because those details have not yet been brought to light, it seems apparent that subsequent authors have elaborated details to fit their rhetorical purposes.

There are many others transmitting this meme, I among them before I actually looked into it and discovered the lack of substantiation for it. I agree that the story is compelling & rings true; I think most of us have seen this type of behavior not only in corporate culture but in any social system maintained by fear. As a middle school teacher & erstwhile authority figure, I find abundant opportunities to question my decisions – was it the right thing to do, or was I simply playing the sixth monkey? – as I have questioned the use of sarcasm in commenting on your original blog entry.

The takeaway consideration for me is this: To what extent do I undermine my own credibility when using misinformation to support my argument? I think the answers go back to the author’s original intent and to the manner of the author’s response when confronted with more accurate information. Unlike some writers’ treatment of the anecdote, I feel that you have acquitted your position on both fronts.

Among the discrepancies between source and elaboration were air blasts instead of showers and novel objects instead of bananas. The experiment from Stephenson’s 1967 paper bears little resemblance to that described in the meme: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106891948/Stephenson-G-R-1967-Cultural-Acquisition-of-a-Specific-Learned-Response-Among-Rhesus-Monkeys-in-Starek-D-Schneider-R-And-Kuhn-H-J-Eds

Makes one wonder how many other authors try to dress their fiction up in the guise of science.

David, thanks for your recent comments. I also found the original Stephenson article, and skimmed it. One of my most fervid beliefs is that business practitioners of today are being bombarded with “research” and falling prey to trying this, and then that when this didn’t work. The confusion this presents to the workforce can literally tank an organization. I saw that with my own eyes.

Good lesson learned from all. Trust, but verify. With the wealth of information available in today’s internet, comes responsibility for verifying the content.