Social Influence

1
Social Influence
2
Social Influence A change in a persons behavior
in response to the intentional or unintentional
influence of others. The change in behavior need
not be accompanied by attitude change.
3
Three Major Kinds of Social Influence Conformity
Change in response to social
norms Compliance Change in response to
a direct request Obedience Change in
response to a command
4
Research on social influence has concentrated on
yielding, with relatively less known about
resisting.
5
Conformity The Influence of Social Norms
6

• Why Have Social Norms? What Purpose Do They
  Serve?
• Regulate social interaction
• Prevent social chaos
• Provide automatic guides for behavior

7
Early work on conformity was conducted by Solomon
Asch and Muzafer Sherif, who developed quite
different paradigms. Sherif used the autokinetic
effect to determine if norms would develop in a
group and then persist as group membership
changed. Asch used line judgments to determine if
characteristics of the group would affect
conformity to an emerging norm.
8
Sherif found that diverse judgments converged in
a group and that the group norm persisted when
new members joined.
9
In the Asch (1955) paradigm, a single subject
confronted an emerging majority who gave a
clearly incorrect answer to a line judgment task.
10
The unsuspecting subject (second from right) must
decide whether to go along with the incorrect
group, or, to trust his senses and
break the majority.
11
Most participants conformed to an incorrect
majority at least once . . .
12
After Aschs initial work, other researchers
began to investigate the moderators of
conformity--under what circumstances are people
especially likely or unlikely to conform?
13

• Moderators of Conformity
• Group size

14

• Moderators of Conformity
• Group size
• Group cohesiveness
• Task importance and uncertainty

15
(No Transcript)
16

• Moderators of Conformity
• Group size
• Group cohesiveness
• Task importance and uncertainty
• Presence of an ally

17
The presence of just one dissenter in the Asch
paradigm reduces conformity considerably . . .
18

• Why Conform?
• The need to be right

19

• Why Conform?
• The need to be right
• The need to be liked

20
(No Transcript)
21
Sometimes we resist group pressure . . .
22
One reason that a minority may be influential is
that their opinion draws attention and may induce
careful processing. What else would be necessary?
23
There are also individual differences in
susceptibility to social pressure. Some people
seem relatively immune . . .
24
Other people are generally more susceptible . . .
One important individual difference is need for
control. Cultures too can vary in their overall
susceptibility to conformity (individualist vs.
collectivist).
25
Some social influence can be unintentional--social
contagion.
26
What we commonly refer to as hysteria might just
be the emergence of a powerful norm that people
respond to without much thought.
27
Chartland and Bargh (1999) provided evidence for
these simple unintentional forms of social
influence . . .
28
Two Basic Kinds of Norms Descriptive norms
indicate what people ordinarily do. Injunctive
norms indicate what people ought to do.
29
Injunctive norms exert a stronger influence on
behavior . . .
30
Want to do some conformity research yourself? Try
this procedure used by Milgram. Stand on a street
corner and look up . . .
31
Compliance The Influenceof a Direct
Request Most research on compliance has taken
tactics used by salespeople, scam artists, and
other influence peddlers and studied if they
are as effective as claimed. Research has also
explored why such tactics seem to work so well.
32
The Foot-In-The-Door Technique In this tactic, a
small request (that is designed to gain 100
compliance) is followed by a large request (the
target request).
33
In one early study, Freedman and Fraser (1966)
called housewives and asked if they would answer
a few questions about the kinds of soap they
used. All agreed. Several weeks later a second
request was made Would they allow a 5-6 man team
to come out and inventory their household
products, with the freedom to go through all
closets and drawers (requiring two hours)?
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
What psychological process can best explain the
foot-in-the-door technique?
38
The Door-In-The-Face Technique A second
multiple-request tactic uses the opposite
approach. The initial request is so large that no
one agrees to it. The second (target) request is
smaller by comparison.
39
Cialdini et al. (1975) asked college students if
they would serve as unpaid juvenile delinquency
counselors for 2 hours a week, for 2 years. Not
surprisingly, no one agreed to this request. The
second request was to ask if they would be
willing to take a group of juvenile delinquents
on a 2-hour trip to the zoo.
40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
What might explain the effectiveness of the
door-in-the-face technique?
44
Both work, but for different reasons.
45
Of course, the tactics sometimes dont work at
all . . .
The initial request cannot be outrageous.
46
Low Balling When a salesman throws the low
ball, an attractive offer is made, that offer is
accepted, but then the attractiveness of the
offer is reduced by additional costs or a
reduction of positive features. Nonetheless,
people tend to persist in their original decision
to accept the offer.
47
Cialdini et al. (1978) asked college students if
they would be willing to display a United Way
poster in their dorm windows. All students had to
get the posters from the front desk at the dorm,
but some students were not told about this cost
until after they had accepted the offer.
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
(No Transcript)
51
Why might this tactic be successful?
52
Legitimizing Small Favors In this technique, the
excuse for not donating money (I only have a
little and it would look cheap to donate it) is
taken away Even a penny will help Cialdini et
al. collected money for a charity using either
the standard request (Will you donate?) or the
standard request plus the claim that even a
penny will help.
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
Taking away the excuse doesnt take away the
concern about looking cheap. Those in the Even a
penny will help condition gave nearly as much
money on average (1.44) as those in the control
condition (1.55). For every 100 requests, that
will produce 72 for the Even a penny will help
condition compared to 44 for the control
condition.
57
The Thats Not All Technique In this technique,
a basic deal is made sweeter as if in a personal
way. Burger (1986) used a cookie sale to
investigate this approach. Control subjects were
simply told each cookie was a dollar. Others were
also told the cookies were a dollar, but had been
1.25 (a bargain). Finally, some subjects were
told the cookies were 1.25, but they would get
them for 1.00 (a special deal).
58
(No Transcript)
59
(No Transcript)
60
(No Transcript)
61
(No Transcript)
62
Mindful Compliance The Pique Technique In this
technique, an unusual request is asked, designed
to disrupt an automatic denial. Santos et al.
(1994) had a panhandler ask for spare change,
a quarter, 17, or 37. The two latter
requests should make people think more carefully,
and perhaps be more likely to comply.
63

64

65

66

67

68
Mindless Compliance Sometimes We Comply
Automatically Langer et al. (1978) approached
students using a copy machine and made either a
small (5 copies) or large (20 copies) request to
cut in. Sometimes no reason was given. Sometimes
a superficial (placebic) reason was given (I
have to make copies). And, sometimes, a good
reason was given (Im in a hurry).
69
(No Transcript)
70
(No Transcript)
71
(No Transcript)
72
A variety of other tactics have been studied
(e.g., guilt, ingratiation, deadlines). Cialdini
argues that most can be classified into one of
six categories according to the underlying
mechanism Friendship/Liking Social
Validation Scarcity Authority Reciprocity Commi
tment/Consistency
73
Obedience The Influence of a Direct Command
74
The power of social influence is perhaps most
apparent in acts carried out on the order of
authority figures. This was quite
apparent in the horrors of World War II and the
subsequent claims by those who carried out the
Holocaust that they were just following orders.
75
Stanley Milgram wanted to know if these acts were
the product of deranged individuals, or, if under
the right circumstances just about anyone might
act with aggression when ordered to do so.
76
(No Transcript)
77
(No Transcript)
78
(No Transcript)
79
(No Transcript)
80
What determines the level of obedience? In the
original Milgram study, the learner was in
another room and could be heard but not seen.
What if he were closer? What if the teacher had
to force his hand onto the shock plate?
Fully 30 of participants in such a condition
obeyed the order to shock to the highest level.
81
Quite a number of other moderators have been
studied . . .
82
(No Transcript)
83
Fortunately some conditions will reduce obedience
considerably . . .
84
Why is obedience so easy to produce? What
processes are being engaged?
85
Couldnt happen again?
Jonestown
My Lai
86
Couldnt happen again?
Abu Ghraib