Human herd behavior is instinctual

Following the crowd originates at the unconscious, neurological level

Humans are one of many animal species where herd behavior is hard-wired. We all, to varying extents and in various circumstances, tend to follow the crowd and act differently in groups. We have evolved to want to fit in, be liked and supported, and fear ostracization. Groups offer safety and are crucial for the survival of the species, enabling collective actions beyond individual capabilities. 

In navigating uncertainties and complexities, humans often use crowd behavior and opinion as a heuristic for decision-making. People frequently defer to popular opinion, advertising and media influence when buying a product or choosing a movie or restaurant. In public spaces, we instinctively follow people, forming queues and assuming others know the way.  

Below is a clip from an old Candid Camera episode comically showing herd behavior in an elevator 

Herd behavior and the standardization of group conduct can be positive and negative. Every group requires a level of conformity, regulations, and norms. Positive conduct, like respectful treatment of others and the suppression of discriminatory behavior, can be culturally normalized. Herd behavior and cultural norms can also negatively produce groupthink, tribalism, mobs, and culturally sanctioned prejudice and superstition. Every society and group has a blend of commendable, detrimental, and flawed behaviors and norms. 

The following are some interesting examples of heard behaviors, including how they can go wrong. 

.

Robert Cialdini, a professor of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University, researched environmental theft at Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park. Upon arrival, visitors would encounter prominent signs detailing the ongoing theft of petrified wood, telling them that 14 tons are stolen annually, often in small increments by individual visitors.

When these signs were removed, theft rates decreased. The signs inadvertently encouraged theft by informing visitors that such actions were normal and socially acceptable. 

.

Emory University psychiatrist Gregory Berns studied how people voice wrong answers to quiz questions to fit in with the crowd.  

Volunteers in a group privately wrote down their answers to 10 questions. One member was given the 10 correct answers, and everyone else, but one person, was secretly told to follow her lead. The one not informed what was happening was observed to see whether he would follow the group. 

When the group gave the right answer, he agreed. When everyone else gave the wrong answer, he still agreed with the crowd. When he gave his answers privately, he scored 90 percent. When he followed the lead of others, his score fell to 10 percent. 

This was done with different people with similar results. In another group, a woman who was not in on what was happening had her test scores fall from 70 percent to 30 percent. She afterward said, "I think I tend to do that, doubt myself when everyone else has their own opinion." 

. 

The bystander effect is a similar situation. The bystander effect is when the presence of bystanders dissuades an individual from intervening in emergencies, confronting bullies, or preventing assaults or crimes. The more bystanders there are, the lower the likelihood that one will offer assistance to someone in need. People tend to act more decisively in crises when there are fewer or no other witnesses around. 

.

There are neurological reasons behind this 

Why do individuals conform to the group to the extent of providing false answers and neglecting to aid those in distress?

One reason is the fear of social repercussions when acting alone. For those who act alone, either stopping in to help someone in aid or defying the crowd by giving correct answers, MRI scans reveal heightened activity in brain regions associated with fear and anxiety. There is a psychological price to pay for acting alone.

Additionally, encountering differing responses or behaviors often leads people to doubt their judgment, prompting thoughts such as "Perhaps my answer is incorrect" or "There must be a valid explanation for the lack of intervention by others." In fact, at the neurological level, the brain sends conflicting signals.

Using MRI scans, Berns showed that exposure to divergent opinions can alter our perceptions. During moments of indecision, subjects' brains exhibited activity not in the regions associated with logical reasoning, but rather in the regions responsible for visual interpretation. Their brains became muddled, as they began to believe what others told them they were seeing, rather than trusting their own eyes. 

Berns showed that, when plentiful, others’ opinions can become intertwined with a person’s sensory input.