Rationality is sooo yesterday – fashion and the herd mentality

A-

A+

May 14, 2007 We are a curious bunch, us human beings. Obsessed with our individuality and identity, and our ability to make well informed and rational decisions, it seems that most of us subconsciously follow the lead of innovators. Value segmentation models such as VALS2 for marketers have recognized the leadership value of the statistical minority generically known as innovators and now university researchers are beginning to unravel human behaviours and how they fuel trends in fashion. Durham University has examined the phenomenon of trends, and put forward an explanation as to why fads like crazy frog and soul patch goatees become so popular instead of dying in the hellfire they so richly deserve. According to the study, fashions are arbitrarily adopted by a reactive population who base their decisions not on the quality of a product, but rather on the actions of their peer group. The paper, published in the academic journal Evolution and Human Behaviour, claims that trends gain popularity because populations are constantly seeking change; but when it comes to adopting a new fashion they will look to their neighbours rather than to reason.

Dr. Alan Bentley, a lecturer at Durham, states that the rate of change in trends follows a specific pattern. As people get bored with the current fad they will transfer attention to a replacement, regardless of what the replacement actually is. And instead of making a rational choice between possible new trends, the majority of consumers will simply follow the actions of the “innovators” – a statistical minority constituted of peer leaders, role models and celebrities. The research is in harmony with prevailing sociological trend theories, like Richard Dawkins’ idea of memetics, which applies an evolutionary structure to fashion. Memetics holds that ideas, trends, catch phrases and fashions thrive in society not because of their superiority over other fashions but because of their ability to “reproduce” by efficiently spreading from person to person. The Durham University researchers say innovation is what actually drives fashion change – the more innovators per capita, the faster the turnover. Because the copying is random, however, it cannot be predicted exactly which new fashions will replace the old ones.

The Durham University study examined the Billboard Top 200 chart and found that it turned over at a constant average rate for 30 years, from the 1950s to the 1980s. The number of albums entering and exiting the chart varied from day to day and month to month, but overall the average turnover was 5.6% per month for the full 30-year period. They discovered a similar consistency in turnover for the top baby names and dog breeds. Popularity of baby names, music and dog breeds changes at a steady rate, regardless of population size.

This real-world data was matched by computer simulations of a random copying model, in which with hundreds or thousands of individuals copy each other from one instant to the next, with a small proportion of innovators (2% or less). During the simulation, they kept track of the Top 40, Top 100 most popular ‘fashions’ and monitored their turnover. The model predicted continuous and regular turnover, consistent with the real-world data from the charts of baby names, music and dog breeds.

How quickly a list will change depends on the size of the list – a Top 100 changes proportionally faster than a Top 40 – but, surprisingly, the size of the population does not have an impact, the research found. Although a larger population means more new ideas, it also means more competition to reach the top, and the two balance each other out.

While irrational random copying in fashion doesn’t lead to anything more damaging than a proliferation of silly looking haircuts, the researchers say the pattern is undesirable for public policy. In most situations, such as voting or investing, it is best for society if people make their own rational informed choices. “When political agendas are constantly changing, it’s a sign that politicians are copying each other rather than thinking for themselves,” Dr Bentley said. There’s not much hope for a democratic system if the average voter doesn’t bother thinking for themselves. And, to end on an even more depressing note, as J.R. Dobbs said: “You know how dumb the average person is? Well, by definition, half of 'em are even dumber than THAT.”