Social experiments of the non-sinister kind

A great thing about having an interest in the science of human behaviour is that you can conduct little social experiments as you go about day to day life.

Here are two I have been doing recently, both at tube stations. When coming up from the train in a station with a non-moving staircase between the up and down escalator, I usually find that no one is walking up. But I find that if I walk up by the time I reach the top I can turn and see four or five people have followed in my wake. I undertake the second experiment at the RSA’s local station, Embankment.

There are two cash point machines side by side. Although both cash points accept all major cards, usually two separate queues have formed. This can be inequitable in that if you happen to be in a queue behind someone who is very slow or undertaking a complex transaction, you reach the machine after someone who arrived later then you in the parallel queue. So, whenever I queue I stand between the two existing queues, forming a new single line in which the front person goes to the next available cash point. Interestingly, although my intervention changes the previous queuing pattern, on every occasion so far new queue joiners have joined my new more equitable single line rather than by-passing me to reassert the single queue pattern.

The experiments show how small interventions can encourage behaviour which is on the one hand, good for public health and, on the other, more equitable and rational.

The conclusion some readers might reach from this is that I am simply a very sad person. But for those who find any of this interesting, my invitation is to develop and report on your own mini social experiments (preferably ones which seek socially benign outcomes; we don’t want hundreds of little Stanford Prisons out there!).

Imagine if tens or hundreds of thousands of us were everyday pursuing our own experiments into how to encourage pro-social behaviour; so much learning, so much positive social reinforcement - a revolution of tiny and clever kindnesses.

• Laura Bunt - 05 Jun 2008 1:46pm

  What a bright, energising post Tessy (and Matthew), your words are like rocket fuel. I am so often stunned by the commitment Fellows dedicate to the RSA, both with their passion and more pragmatically their time. It is clear that this organisation means a great deal to its Fellows, in both the personal and the collective sense. I think it's within this space that our potential as a society lies, harnessing individual generousity and talent and combining it with others across regional, disciplinary and social boundaries. I absolutely agree with you - the long term success of this work relies upon the commitment and enthusiasm of Fellows to see this through. I must say, despite having only been here a few months, I have met so many brilliant people with so many innovative ideas that I am convinced that your optimism will be rewarded.

• Alice - 05 Jun 2008 1:46pm

  I do a couple of things which I hope the receivers will also do to others... In locations I know, I offer directions to lost people. I do this because I like to personalise cities - to help people to feel that they have connected to the place they visited. I pay compliments more often than I criticise. Compliments seem to cheer me up as well as the receiver. I don't find it at all hard professionally or socially, and sometimes to complete strangers. I'm also interested in motivation... what makes us helpful to strangers or interested in the greater good? Is there an element of self-satisfaction that we thought of a way to make the world better, of pride that our idea has been taken up by others? Is it the way to create the just and supportive soceity we want? Is is simply the only way to behave if we are to look at ourselves in the mirror?

• Laura Billings - 05 Jun 2008 1:45pm

  It felt particularly worthwhile for me to see that some of the Fellows I had spent time finding and inviting to join the Fellowship, came along and got involved in a practical project. Very inspiring stuff.

• John Guttridge - 05 Jun 2008 1:45pm

  If only the Games could be left to the athletes. There's no need for Gordon Brown or any other politicians (Britsh or otherwise) to go to the Opening or Closing ceremonies as the games are supposed to be non political. If they really want to go then let them go as private individuals and pay their own way.

• Robert Muetzelfeldt - 05 Jun 2008 1:45pm

  We seem to think of happiness as something instantaneous: yesterday I was happy, today I'm sad. Draw the curtains, and the room is dark. I feel distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of writing off past happiness the moment something bad happens. I prefer to think in terms of a rainwater tank: it fills up with happy rain, and draws down with the sad tap. This is what my head says, but the odd thing is that it really does colour my feelings. Maybe inculcating this view in our kids might raise the general level of 'happiness' in our materialist society?

• ReHeated - 05 Jun 2008 1:45pm

  @ John: The British have not always been addicted to queuing. Joe Moran says (http://www.profilebooks.com/title.php?titleissue_id=430), that the myth of the British as enthusiastic queuers only emerged during WWII. I highly recommend his book as a guide to these "infra-ordinary" habits. His work demonstrates the fragility of social norms - and also their plasticity. We will always be lamenting their disappearance; but we can also create new ones, more amenable to modern times. ps. @ Robert: "Laura", I think, is actually Peter. Who, I would guess, has got this one right.

• Matthew Cain - 05 Jun 2008 1:45pm

  I can usually make sure that a group of people stand aside at the door of a tube. Though such action doesn't always have to be good: if I'm waiting at a crossing but decide to cross the road dangerously, at least 1 person opposite will step into the road, watching me rather than the traffic. I usually thank bus drivers as I get off - but have no evidence if it encourages others to follow. I always thought it was just my amazing power of persuasion - perhaps it's biased in favour of people called Matthew.

• Laura Haynes - 05 Jun 2008 1:45pm

  I think Ian's comment about talking to the person beside you on a train, in a doctor's waiting room is spot on. Being a native new yorker, I speak to everyone I meet, want to hear their life story, views on the world, their meaning of life, and of course am bursting to share mine. I invariably find that if you offer people an opening to meet, they will fill it and enrich your day (or waiting room experience). I am trying it in the lift in my office building and now have many new friends. I have also discovered real connections with the two Algerian servers in my local Starbucks! Try it - people want to talk and they want to be heard

• Matt Cain - 05 Jun 2008 1:45pm

  I think your comments on R4 were largely fair. It's not that any part of the speech was objectionable, just that together they don't throw any light on what the government is for. Its continued use of unintelligible language to explain its actions doesn't help and leads many to assume it's being dishonest. Together, this suggests that in the longer term that it will struggle to build an electoral coalition.

• John Jackson - 05 Jun 2008 1:45pm

  I've seen the single queue system for two cashpoints develop at South Kensington from time to time. Seems to be more equitable in sharing risk among those in the queue but the reality will depend on how long the queues are and the frequency of slow people. If queues are short and slow people are infrequent the benefit might just be that it feels fairer? You can model this However, a single queue does have a negative impact on others - the queue is longer and tends to block the area, slowing down flow of pedestrians. Queues tend to be longer when there are more pedestrians passing - causing more congestion. And longer queues are more likely to really share the risks within the queue.

• David Straker - 05 Jun 2008 1:45pm

  Social change is so interesting. At changingminds.org I'm building a resource on this. Something I do when walking to and from Waterloo is to help tourists who are taking photos. I either stop when they are photographing one another, rather than walking through the shot, (and guess what - others stop too) or offer to photograph them together. It invariably creates a surprised thanks and I like to think it helps build the brand of London as a friendly city.

• Peter Mansfield - 05 Jun 2008 1:42pm

  I have thought for some time that financial services companies, particularly those offering private medical insurance, ought to offer their clients the sort of health advice that makes them more confident and competent in managing their own needs. These qualities soon spread from medical to other matters in life, more infectiously than disease ever could. The benefit of fewer and cheaper claims on the company is obvious, and would easily fund the service. But the companies I approached proved very nervous of stepping out of line with the rest of the sector.

• Becca Pyne - 05 Jun 2008 1:40pm

  Sometimes I think the we've gone too far. Do we really have to create books in order to remind ourselves to be kind to eachother - shouldn't we do it just because we believe its the right thing to do.

• Karl Hallam - 05 Jun 2008 1:39pm

  Your comments on R4 did not come across as churlish, though they did suggest some frustration at the way that the Brown Government is failing to get across what it is for. As usual there are good ideas that have a progressive aspect to them, but Brown is caught in a self-made trap that allows the opposition to be the ones shouting up for the poorest families, whether they mean it or not.

• Ian Gilmour - 05 Jun 2008 1:38pm

  I heard Tim Smit talk once and he said that he was not one for traditional staff rules - for example, one he had put in place at the Eden Centre was that each member of staff was not able to start work until they had said hello to 20 people (strangers) before they got into the office

• Matthew Taylor - 05 Jun 2008 1:38pm

  Thanks Fenton, really interesting. I won't respond in detail to the content as I find myself broadly in agreeemnt. But please accept that I am not a reductionist. I am not advocating anything merely suggesting that we are moving into a time when how we think is given as much weight as what we think. This future contains possibilities but also perils. Neurological reductionism is one of the perils

Please sign in below if you already have an account (your username will be your email address).

Don't have an account?

If you are a Fellow, please sign up for an account now to gain access to Fellows-only areas of our website.

Problems logging in? Forgot your password?

If you cannot login, or have forgotten your password, please go to our Password Reset page to change your password.

If this doesn't work, or you have any other queries regarding your account, just give us a call on +44 (0)20 7451 6927. Alternatively you can also email the Fellowship team.