How much social proof counts for you?

Check out robert cialdini's influence for a good overview of social proof.

I think it depends. My boyfriend hinges every online decision on others' reviews, from where we eat to where we stay to Amazon purchases. He'll proudly tell others that something was highly rated on Amazon.

Me personally? I go on gut. Do I like this product/price/seller? I've pleasantly surprised him many a time with something I've purchased that had few to no reviews.

I think it's a personality thing. Some are uncomfortable spending money if they don't think there's proof they'll get a return. Some of us prefer to take in others' reviews but still make up our own minds.

For me, there isn't a threshold number, but if I'm reasonably satisfied as to the objectivity and spread of the reviews, there's probably a threshold proportion.

I put no confidence at all in individual reviews from people about whom I know nothing, but if I look on a site like TripAdvisor, I'm certainly adversely influenced by a prevalence of 1*/2* reviews over 4*/5* reviews, if there are hundreds of review comments. (Ok, they don't actually use "stars" there, per se, but you know what I mean?).

In the circumstances you're talking about, I basically agree with you, though (and might not be asking the person whose property it is for additional reviews, anyway.)

.

Marcia,

If I had a place in Maui with pics a great description (and if anything wasn't perfect I would point out the flaws) all fused with a sprinkling of good reviews.

And someone phoned me essentially saying "I need more prove that it's worth staying in"

I would explain all the key reasons why I bought it for my vacations. How wonderful it is and that I wouldn't dream of renting it out if it wasn't exactly as I described. And point out that it's only rented a few times a year which is why you don't see dozens of reviews.

If they still demanded more proof, I would get the strong feeling they could be nightmare "clients" and might tactfully suggest they may be happier staying somewhere else.


Steve

Interesting question. I think the answer is "more than you can know"

The mind has two defaults for numbers. One is: what you can see and know without counting.

For example: if I were to put three items in front of you now and then asked you how many there were, you would instantly say "Three!" same with four, same with five. Would you have to count them first, or would you just "know" how many there were?

It's a mental heuristic - a short cut - which lets you know how many of an item or thing there is without consciously having to count them.

That's your first default: the few.

The other default is "the many", that means (for most people) seven or over. Once seven is reached then you have to start consciously counting. Because the concepts are separate within the mind and the concept of "many" is ambiguous, then when it's applied to individuals they then become "the group" - as opposed to just "some people"- and the minimum requirement for social proof critical mass is achieved.

I can't find the link, but the original research was done by an online betting site here in the UK when they investigated the reason for sudden fluctuations in the market, just before the start of certain horse races.

The reason was: a lot of bettors were waiting to see what the "smart" money was on (which usually went on just before the off to prevent on course reps backing it with on course bookies to lower the odds). Seven mid level bets in the last minute was enough to trigger the "they're backing it" information cascade.