Best3.qxd 11/29/05 3:58 PM Page iii Flavor of the Month Why Smart People Fall for Fads Joel Best UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley Los Angeles London Best3.qxd 11/29/05 3:58 PM Page iv University of California Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported bythe UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contribu- tions from individuals and institutions. For more informa- tion, visit www.ucpress.edu. University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 2006 by The Regents of the University of California “Demotivator” on page 88 appears courtesy of Despair, Inc. “Motivation” illustration by Kevin Sprouls. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Best, Joel. Flavor of the month : why smart people fall for fads / Joel Best. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN0-520-24626-8 (cloth : alk. paper). 1. Social institutions. 2. Fads—Social aspects. 3. Diffusion of innovations. I. Title. HM826b.B47 2006 306—dc22 2005022128 Manufactured in the United States of America 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 This book is printed on Natures Book, which contains 50% post-consumer waste and meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISOZ39.48–1992 (R1997) (Permanence of Paper). 8 Best3.qxd 11/29/05 3:58 PM Page vii Contents Acknowledgments ix 1 The Illusion of Diffusion 1 2 Why We Embrace Novelties: Conditions That Foster Institutional Fads 23 3 The Fad Cycle: Emerging 45 4 The Fad Cycle: Surging 80 5 The Fad Cycle: Purging 106 6 Fad Dynamics 129 7 Becoming Fad-Proof 153 Notes 163 References 179 Index 199 Best3.qxd 11/29/05 3:58 PM Page ix Acknowledgments I could not have—and would not have—written this book with- out the inspiration provided by various administrators at the three universities where I’ve spent nearly twenty-five years chair- ing academic departments. Department chairs attend many meetings at which the future is unveiled, priorities are articu- lated, and innovations are announced. Over the years, I have been assured that our university—if not all of higher educa- tion—was about to be transformed by affirmative action, the Pacific Rim, assessment, active learning, cooperative learning, distance learning, service learning, problem-based learning, responsibility-based management, zero-based budgeting, broad- ening the general education requirements, narrowing the general education requirements, capstone courses, writing across the cur- riculum, multicultural education, computer networking, the Internet, water (don’t ask), critical thinking, quantitative reason- ing, and I don’t know what else. I have gone on retreats; partici- pated in program reviews; served on task forces; puzzled over mission statements; written five-year plans, three-year plans, and niche reports; and listened to proclamations from provosts, assis- ix Best3.qxd 11/29/05 3:58 PM Page x x / Acknowledgments tant provosts, deans, associate deans, and wannabe deans. I have been assured with tight-lipped seriousness: “This is not a fad.” Still, after all these amazing transformations, today’s universities do not seem all that different than they were when I was a stu- dent. When I decided to write this book, I promised myself that I would not focus on fads in higher education because I suspected readers would consider the subject trivial, but I have to confess: that was where I discovered my topic. If I bear the scars of cyni- cism, I’ve earned them. And I’m not alone. Sprinkled throughout this book are exam- ples of anonymous “office folklore”—humorous works that cir- culate via photocopies and e-mail messages, and wind up dis- played where we work. Folklorists have collected hundreds of examples of these works, many of which reveal at least skepti- cism, if not cynicism, about how our institutions operate. I’d like to thank those who created and improved these works, as well as those who only kept them in circulation until these bits of wis- dom came to my attention; of course, the very nature of their contributions makes it impossible to credit these folks by name. But there are others I can—and should—name. I want to thank the undergraduate and graduate students who helped me work through some of these ideas, particularly Theresa Appleby, Heather Smith Feldhaus, Karen McCready, and Tadashi Suzuki. The late Loy Bilderback, Sally Gergen, Rob Jensen, Milo Schield, and Richard Weiss all made helpful suggestions. Various drafts have also benefited greatly from comments by Benigno Aguirre, Joan Best, Katie Bogle, Gerald Bracey, Russell Dynes, Erich Goode, Carol Gregory, Chip Heath, Kath Lowney, E.L. Quarantelli, Eric Rise, David Schweingruber, and Richard Wilsnack. Once again, Victoria Becker helped transform my Best3.qxd 11/29/05 3:58 PM Page xi Acknowledgments / xi crude drawings into computer files. And, as always, Naomi Schneider, Sierra Filucci, Dore Brown, copyeditor Alice Falk, and the other people at the University of California Press im- proved the book and made the publishing process a good experi- ence. These folks should be credited for trying to help me do bet- ter; the book’s shortcomings are my own. Best3.qxd 11/29/05 3:58 PM Page 1 1 The Illusion of Diffusion I n the summer of 1958, our parents bought hula hoops, one for my younger brother and one for me. We weren’t the first kids in our neighborhood to have them (I vaguely remember Dad hav- ing waited until the price dropped—hula hoops originally cost about $3, a lot of money in those days for some plastic tubing, a wooden plug, and two staples), but most of the kids I knew got one that summer. I don’t think we played all that much with our hula hoops. What I remember most were the photos that the newspapers and maga- zines ran that summer, pictures of other people having fun with the new toy. The first ones showed a young boy or girl spinning a hula hoop; but as the weeks passed, the photos displayed ever odder folks—a toddler with a hula hoop, a grandmother, a nun, someone spinning several hula hoops at the same time, groups of hula hoop- ers, and on and on. It seemed as though everyone had hula hoops. And that was almost true. Sales were estimated at 25 million— one for every seven Americans, a hula hoop for every kid age 5 to 11 in 1958.1Then, almost as quickly as they appeared on the scene, hula hoops fell out of popularity. I remember ours, leaning for- gotten against the garage wall, coated with dust. 1 Best3.qxd 11/29/05 3:58 PM Page 2 2 / The Illusion of Diffusion FADS Nearly half a century later, the hula hoop still is recalled as the prototypical fad—wildly popular, but short-lived. A graph*of its career might look something like this: ] ereH thgi R 1 –1 erugiF[ The Hula Hoop’s Popularity–– A Typical Fad y arit ul p o P Spring Summer Fall 1958 This graph shows that there was initially little interest in hula hoops; then their popularity rose quickly until it peaked, before rapidly dropping off again. We could draw essentially the same graph for any fad, because these contours define the fad: a fad is a short-lived enthusiasm.2 What makes something a fad is its rapid loss of popularity. This is an important point. People sometimes assume that fads share some quality, that they are by nature strange or silly or trivial. But * The graphs in this chapter should be understood as approximations, much like the supply and demand curves drawn by economists. No one kept precise records of how the numbers of people who owned and used hula hoops—or wristwatches— shifted over time, so it is impossible to precisely reconstruct these changes. How- ever, when sociologists are able to measure the popularity of novelties, their data generally display patterns similar to those shown in this chapter’s graphs. Best3.qxd 11/29/05 3:58 PM Page 3 The Illusion of Diffusion / 3 lots of things that seem strange at first catch on—tattoos and piercings are contemporary examples. A substantial and growing proportion of young, college-educated adults sport body decora- tions that would have seemed bizarre twenty years ago. What makes something a fad is not that it is peculiar but that it achieves short-lived popularity, only to fade away. By and large, serious people don’t feel they need to pay much attention to fads. We tend to dismiss fads as trivial, silly, inconse- quential. When asked to name a fad, people tend to pick exam- ples of young people playing—fad toys (hula hoops, Cabbage Patch Kids), dance fads (the twist, the Macarena), college stu- dents acting up (streaking, trying to set the record for the most people crammed into a phone booth), and the like.3We assume that fads aren’t important because they seem so silly. Yet we’re also familiar with fads that aren’t so frivolous, that people adopt with more serious intent. The most obvious exam- ples are diet fads (new ways to eat and lose weight) and exercise fads (new ways to enhance health and fitness).4 Often, they are promoted by people who seem to be experts—doctors, trainers, and the like. These promoters promise that this diet or exercise program will make a real difference, that we can shed those pounds, become fitter, and dramatically improve our lives. Of course, their solutions almost always turn out to be fads; our enthusiasm for these new sugar-busting, abs-crunching regimens tends to be short-lived. Many diet books and exercise machines wind up gathering dust—just like my old hula hoop. Even serious professionals get caught up in what turn out to be short-term enthusiasms—that is, fads. Physicians go through periods when they favor particular diagnoses (disease fads) or therapies (treatment fads); managers adopt and then reject meth- Best3.qxd 11/29/05 3:58 PM Page 4 4 / The Illusion of Diffusion COULD THIS BE JUST A FAD? Recent Article Titles in Professional Journals Reveal Doubts From journals aimed at educators “Career Academies: Cutting-Edge Reform or Passing Fad?” (2003) “Online Learning: Fad or Fate?” (2001) From medical journals “Evidence-Based Medicine: A New Science or an Epidemiologic Fad?” (1999) “Narrative-Based Medicine: A Passing Fad or a Giant Leap for General Practice?” (2003) From management journals “Is Empowerment Just a Fad?” (1997) “Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking?” (2002) Sources:Mittelsteadt and Reeves (2003), Rourke (2001); Bauchner (1999), Launer (2003); Malone (1997), Holbrook (2002). ods for improving business practices (management fads); edu- cators devise and then drop teaching techniques (educational fads); and so on. Within particular institutions, commentators acknowledge that fads occur; they even write articles with titles that ask whether some hot new development will prove to be just a fad (see box above). What these commentators don’t seem to notice is that the fads in their particular institution resemble the short-lived enthusi- asms that occur elsewhere. In our society, most serious institu- tions—medicine, science, business, education, criminal justice, and so on—experience what we can call institutional fads.5These