Why Do You Follow People Everyone Else Follows? Your Brain Has an Answer

Scroll through Instagram and the same pattern emerges every time. A handful of accounts have millions of followers. Everyone else is shouting into the void. Many chalk this up to algorithms or platform design, and those certainly play a role. But scientists have discovered that human psychology makes this kind of inequality remarkably easy to create once social proof becomes visible.

Researchers from Arizona State University and the University of Exeter wanted to understand why certain people end up dominating groups, whether those groups are hunter-gatherers around a fire or office workers in a Slack channel. Their findings, published in Nature Communications, reveal that humans are hardwired through “prestige psychology” to create hierarchies where a few voices matter most. The modern influencer is just the latest version of an ancient pattern. Perhaps most interesting, nobody’s forcing this arrangement. We hand over influence voluntarily, and evolution built us to do it for good reason.

The research team ran computer simulations, tested 800 real people in online experiments, and modeled how these behaviors would evolve over thousands of generations. What they found challenges the popular notion that early humans lived in egalitarian societies where everyone had equal say. Inequality in influence appears to be baked into human psychology itself.

The Experiment That Revealed How Hierarchy Forms

The researchers wanted to see this process unfold in real time, so they recruited people online and split them into groups of 10. Each person faced a simple but tricky task: glance at a screen filled with blue and yellow dots for one second, then guess which color appeared more often. The task was designed to be challenging enough that people’s accuracy varied, creating meaningful differences in skill.

After making their own guess, participants could look at information about their groupmates and then choose someone to copy. They saw two details: how accurate each person had been on recent trials, and how many times others had chosen to copy them. That second number (how popular someone was as a choice) is what psychologists call prestige.

Participants were free to copy anyone, including themselves. Nobody forced them toward any particular strategy. The experiment was conducted entirely online, so participants never saw each other or interacted beyond the information displayed on screen. Yet within 40 rounds, steep hierarchies emerged in nearly every group. A few people became go-to choices while others were largely ignored. The groups created their own influencers.

When the researchers measured the inequality in these groups, they found levels that economists would consider high for human populations. And remember, this happened in 40 rounds of a simple dot-counting task with complete strangers. Nobody had time to develop complex reputations or social bonds. The hierarchy emerged purely from watching who others chose to follow.

Why Following the Crowd Actually Makes Sense

You might think people would just copy whoever was most accurate, but that’s not quite what happened. When participants had good information about accuracy (seeing how someone performed over the last 10 rounds) they weighted that heavily. But when they only knew someone’s accuracy on one or two recent trials, they leaned more on prestige instead.

This makes evolutionary sense. Imagine trying to figure out which plants are safe to eat or which hunting technique works best. Direct observation helps, but it’s limited. You might see someone succeed once due to luck. But if you notice a lot of people seek out a particular person’s advice? That collective judgment is probably telling you something real about their knowledge.

Prestige works as a crowd-sourced signal of quality. It’s not perfect, but when direct information is limited, it’s often better than what any individual can gather alone. The researchers confirmed this in their experiments. Prestigious people generally were more accurate at the task. The crowd’s judgment tended to track real skill, though this relationship weakened when participants had very little performance information to work with.

This explains behaviors that seem irrational at first glance. Why does a restaurant with a line out the door attract even more customers while an empty place stays empty? Why do people hire lawyers or doctors based on reputation when they can’t personally evaluate legal or medical expertise? Why do podcast hosts with huge audiences keep growing while equally talented creators struggle?

Your brain is using social proof as an information shortcut, and in many cases it works.

Evolution Shaped This Behavior Deep in Our Past

The research team didn’t stop at showing that modern humans behave this way. They wanted to know if natural selection would actually favor this psychology. So they built an evolutionary simulation where digital organisms with different levels of prestige sensitivity competed over thousands of generations.

The organisms that survived and reproduced most successfully were the ones who paid close attention to prestige, almost exactly as much attention as the real human participants did. Evolution arrived at the same answer the researchers found in their experiments.

This suggests prestige psychology isn’t a cultural invention or a quirk of modern life. It’s likely an evolved adaptation, shaped deep in our evolutionary past. Your ancestors who ignored social proof probably made worse decisions than those who followed skilled, respected individuals.

But Human Hierarchies Work Differently Than Animal Dominance

Here’s what makes human prestige hierarchies different from the pecking orders in other species. When chimpanzees establish rank, it’s through aggression and intimidation. The strongest animals coerce weaker ones into submission. Lower-ranking chimps tolerate this because challenging dominants means risking injury or death.

Human prestige works through attraction rather than coercion. People follow prestigious individuals because they often benefit from the association: they gain access to better information and decisions. Leaders usually have to provide genuine value to maintain their position. Stop being useful and people will drift toward someone else.

Some traditional societies have even developed customs to keep prestige from concentrating too much. Anthropologists report that in certain hunter-gatherer groups, successful hunters faced ritualized teasing designed to prevent them from getting too full of themselves. These practices suggest people recognized prestige’s tendency to create inequality and built cultural tools to manage it.

The Modern World Amplifies Ancient Psychology

The same psychological mechanisms that helped your ancestors identify skilled toolmakers or knowledgeable elders now operate in an environment they weren’t designed for. Social media platforms make prestige visible in real-time through follower counts, likes, and shares. This creates feedback loops where small initial advantages compound rapidly.

Someone gets featured on a platform’s discovery page and gains a thousand followers. Now they have more prestige, so more people notice and follow them, which increases their prestige further. The dynamic feeds on itself. Worse, prestige in these environments can become disconnected from actual skill. Physical attractiveness, wealth, or just being early to a platform can inflate someone’s prestige beyond what their knowledge or abilities would justify.

The research doesn’t suggest this is good or bad, it simply is. Any system that makes social proof visible will naturally amplify inequality through prestige psychology. The question becomes whether prestigious individuals actually deserve the influence they’ve accumulated.

What This Means for How We Live Now

This research reframes how we should think about social hierarchies. The old story suggested humans lived in egalitarian groups until agriculture created property and wealth, which then corrupted us into accepting inequality. The new picture is more complicated. Inequality in influence appears to be part of human nature, but so is the requirement that influential people provide genuine value.

The inequality you see everywhere from social media to corporate hierarchies to professional networks can emerge naturally from millions of individual decisions by people trying to make good choices with limited information, even without anyone imposing it from above. You’re not a passive victim of these hierarchies. You’re actively creating them every time you decide whose judgment to trust.

People will always follow a select few. Our brains evolved to do exactly that. The key is being thoughtful about which ones. When you’re trying to learn something new, is the person everyone’s following actually demonstrating expertise, or have they just accumulated prestige through other means? When direct information is available, use it. When it’s not, prestige is a reasonable signal, but stay alert to whether it’s tracking something real.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on peer-reviewed research. While the findings are scientifically sound, the study used controlled experimental conditions that simplified real-world social dynamics. The research examined prestige as one mechanism among many that shape human social hierarchies and does not claim to explain all forms of social inequality. The connection to modern social media “influencers” is an illustrative analogy, not the direct subject of the study.

---