Man make decisions: good decisions for progress, or less good decisions consequent in stagnation and squanders. At a spare of moment, anyone could make a bad decision in fragility, attributed by psychological and physical exhaustion.
Important decisions on issues affecting masses are therefore wisely made democratically. Like any statistical method, more opinions counted there are, less deviated decisions are to be made, provided that a substantial numbers of experienced experts are analysing and assessing likely outcomes in a long-term; a foresighted decision, fair and appropriate to the circumstances, could then be reached. Such a collective intelligence works for the whole group to benefit.
Such successes at a large scale emerges as a combined efforts of smaller groups, each consisting of individuals capable of synthesising highly imaginative complex ideas. Mutual aspirations glue groups sharing aspirations, resulting in synergistic productivity in rapid succession.
In contrast, old ideas are habitually reinforced in groups of less imaginative narrow minded individuals whose emotional intelligence frequently surpasses systematic reasoning and analytical insights; the in-group individuals tend to favour the members to be at an even level, plausibly to avoid feeling inadequate in any sense. An ultimate goal of such accustomed herds are to maintain a near equilibrium among the players at comfort, with few endeavour to step forward adventurously.
Following is a summary description of relevant observations documented regarding group formation, cooperative actions among individuals and collective effects, from biologists’, psychologists’, sociologists’ and economist’ perspectives.
Herd Behaviour in Evolutionary Sense
Evidently observed in the animal kingdom, from herrings, gulls, sheep to humans, a common strategic solution for vulnerable individuals is to form flock or herd, so to increase their likelihood of survival and reproduction. An evolutionary model for group formation has demonstrated that herd formation is likely driven by predator avoidance by a confusion effect to destruct a predator through complex manoeuvres, or by a selfish herd effect driven by vulnerable individuals attempting to hide within the crowd (Wood & Ackland 2007). The latter effect was initially proposed by Hamilton (1971). Several mechanisms of predator avoidance have been described, additionally including collective vigilance and dilution of risks (reviewed by Krause & Ruxon 2002).
Herding with Mirroring
Herding in primates heavily values interrelation between individuals. Monitoring the others and imitating is a standard procedure in communicating and learning among groups of monkeys and humans (Horner et al. 2006; Palagi et al. 2009; Prinz 2005; Shepherd et al. 2009). Such mirroring actions involve activation of so-called “mirror neurones” in motor-visual and auditory-visual systems between the two communicators (reviewed by Fabbri-Destro & Rizzolatti 2008; Hari & Kujala 2009). Mirror neurones are not unique properties of primates, as these have also been found in the forebrain of songbirds (Prather et al. 2008). In primates, non-verbal vocalisation endorsed with positive emotions cause mirror neurones firing, facilitating social bonding thereby (Warren et al. 2006). Mirror neurones in Brodmann area 44 of inferior frontal gyrus cortices have been shown to be critically involved in emotional empathy (Shamay-Tsoory, Aharon-Peretz & Perry 2009). By the mirroring effect humans learn signals between individuals and increase awareness to certain stimuli from observing how others respond to it; such observation based social cognition skill is applied extensively in human communication (reviewed by Frith 2008).
Cooperative Behaviours in Social Networks
Several studies on social networks have investigated structures in human interactions and evolution of cooperative behaviours. Although in large unstructured populations individuals are less likely to cooperate (Enquist & Limar 1993), frequent interactions in a fixed social network allow cooperation to evolve without motivating factors such as reputation effect and strategic complexity (Nowak 2006; Ohtsuki et al. 2006).
Certain human conditions influenced by affective status are known to be socially contagious. The conditions including obesity, positive mood status, ideations, attitudes, altruism etc can spread among people at least with three degrees of separation through direct or indirect interactions; such phenomena are observable excluding the possibility of the effects arising solely due to selection bias in a “birds of feathers flock together” fashion (Fowler & Christakis 2009; Hill et al. 2010).
Social Influence Online
Since humans have developed a mean of remotely communicating through digital media, most notably via the world-wide-web thanks to Berners-Lee’s project in CERN in 1989-1990, the internet has offered a way to express opinions, all in equal opportunities with freedom of speech in this global public domain, where to learn and share knowledge; with the information readily be available with frequent updates, online cultures have flourished and still evolving.
Through social network sites such as Facebook, users can view and share connections with selected others in the system. In the online environment, a form of social influence emerges as individuals’ interpersonal communications merges with global mass media, consequentially influencing consumption behaviour of cultural products (e.g. books, music, DVDs etc) or choices of lifestyles (Onnela & Reed-Tsochas 2009).
Social Influences On Human Acts
Socio-psychologists have observed that decisions made by individuals are influenced by others’ decisions already made, or anticipated to be made (Cialdini 2001).
Human action could be affected by awareness of being subjected, as seen in Hawthorne effect which describes an observed increase in short-term productivity by workers was due to elevated motivation by the experimental settings, wherein the workers were allowed to work in a small group of selected co-workers, receiving attentions and communications by cooperative supervisors; hence the increased productivity observed was not by each specified condition purposefully measured in the study; evidently, the productivity of the workers declined after the study ended. Participating in a study for something novel might have also contributed to elevate their motivation to work, for an additional sense of purpose in contrast to the usual dullness of the work.
A disturbing finding on how social setting could affect human behaviour was that authority figures can enforce acts on individuals against their innate wishes and moral standards through their obedience (Milgram 1969). In line with the Milgram’s study, Stanford prison experiment have demonstrated that placing individuals in a specific situation with a given role influences how they act and behave, even to an atrocity (Zimbardo 1971).
On the other hand, interdependent decision making between individuals in crowd could influence collective behaviours of an orderly crowd in such a way to ignite a riot (Granovetter 1978).
In contrast, expectations on others’ behaviours and individuals’ shyness in crowd can produce bystander effect: people are less likely to offer help to the one who needs it when there are others around (Milgram 1970).
Behavioural Effects On Economy
Herd behaviour has notably been observed among economists: stock market bubbles are formed by excess buying driven by a chain of greed, of those making profits and copying behaviour by others jumping on the bandwagon; then market clashes by panic selling in fears of bubble bursting, accompanied with loss aversion followed by risk aversion.
Major challenge currently faced globally is a food security. Immediate concerns have been existing particularly in developing nations, due to growing populations, and climate changes causing drafts and flooding. Such concerns cause instability in food prices due to speculations made by market traders in herd, displaying hoarding behaviour. Unlike other commodity, such behaviours which cause price elevation of staple food impose much bigger effects on populations, because food insecurity is a matter of life-threat among individuals with low-income. Driven by increased anxiety, fears, and dissatisfaction, individuals aggregate purposefully for demonstrations and riots as there have been in recent years. The issue on food security has been reviewed and discussed by Timmer (2010).
Concluding Remarks
In every circumstance, humans constantly make decisions for next own actions, and actions to be taken by others with an authority to do so, for short-term and long-term benefits. Each decision made, and how every one behaves often affects the behaviours of others.
References
Cialdini RB. 2001. Influence: Science and Practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Enquist M & Leimar O. 1993. The evolution of cooperation in mobile organisms. Anim
Behav 45: 747–757. doi:10.1006/anbe.1993.1089
Fabbri-Destro M & Rizzolatti G. 2008. Mirror Neurons and Mirror Systems in Monkeys and Humans. Physiology. 23: 171–179.
Fowler JH & Christakis NA. 2009. Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks. PNAS. 107: 5334–5338.
Frith C. 2008. Social cognition. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 363: 2033–2039
Granovetter, M. S. 1978. ‘Threshold Models of Collective Behavior.’ American Journal of Sociology 83: 1420–43.
Hamilton WD. 1971. Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol. 31:295–311.
Hari R & Kujala MV. 2009. Brain Basis of Human Social Interaction: From Concepts to Brain
Imaging. Physiol Rev 89: 453–479.
Hill AL et al. 2010. Infectious Disease Modeling of Social Contagion in Networks. PLoS Computational Biol. 6: e1000968.
Horner V et al. 2006. Faithful replication of foraging techniques along cultural transmission chains by chimpanzees and children. PNAS. 103: 13878–13883.
Krause J & Ruxton GD. 2002. Living in groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Milgram, S. 1969. Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper and Row.
Milgram, S. 1970. The Experience of Living in Cities. Science. 167: 1461-1468.
Nowak MA. 2006. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314: 1560–1563.
Onnela JP & Reed-Tsochas F. 2009. Spontaneous emergence of social influence in online systems. PNAS. 107: 18375–18380.
Ohtsuki H et al. 2006. A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature 441:502–505.
Palagi et al. 2009. Contagious yawning in gelada baboons as a possible expression of empathy. PNAS. 106: 19262-19267.
Prather JF et al. 2008. Precise auditory-vocal mirroring in neurons for learned vocal communication. Nature 451: 305–310.
Prinz JJ. 2005 Imitation and moral development. In Perspectives on imitation—from neuroscience to social science, vol. 2: imitation, human development, and culture (eds S. Hurley & N. Chater), pp. 267–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shamay-Tsoory SG, Aharon-Peretz J & Perry D. 2009. Two systems for empathy: a double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain. 132: 617–627.
Shepherd SV et al. 2009. Mirroring of attention by neurons in macaque parietal cortex. PNAS. 106: 9489–9494.
Timmer CP. 2010. Agriculture Development and Nutrition Security Special Feature: Behavioral dimensions of food security. PNAS. Early edition.
Warren JE et al. 2006. Positive Emotions Preferentially Engage an Auditory–Motor “Mirror” System. J Neurosci. 26: 13067–13075.
Wood AJ & Ackland GJ. 2007. Evolving the selfish herd: emergence of distinct aggregating strategies in an individual-based model. Proc. R. Soc. B 274: 1637–1642.
Zimbardo PG. 1971. The power and pathology of imprisonment. Congressional Record. (Serial No. 15, 1971-10-25). Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3, of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session on Corrections, Part II, Prisons, Prison Reform and Prisoner's Rights: California. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
