Informational Social Influence

Behavior change results from being persuaded by information provided by others

Goal of behavior change is to be accurate

Behavior change reflects a true change in one's underlying beliefs

Attitude and behavior change tend to be strong and stable, and resistant to change

Normative Social Influence

Behavior change results from movement toward a social norm

Goal is to be socially accepted and to avoid appearing different to others

Behavior change does not reflect true beliefs

Attitude change (if any) and behavior change are weak and unstable; more open to change

The power of normative influence was shown in a classic experiment by Sherif (1936)

Social norms are at the heart of conformity

Conformity Effects I

The Research of Solomon Asch (1951)

Asch conducted a program of research on conformity using the "Asch Paradigm"

During a line judgment task confederates make an obvious wrong choice (critical trials)

The subject is placed into a dilemma: Trust one's senses or go along with the majority

In a control group there were virtually no errors made on the task

Asch found that 70% of subjects conformed with the incorrect majority at least once

On 33% of the critical trials subjects went along with the incorrect majority

Conformity Effects II

Reasons for Conforming or Remaining Independent

Based on postexperimental interviews, Asch classified subjects as either independent or yielding

There was no single pathway to being independent or yielding

Independent subjects fell into three categories

Those who trusted their senses and were best able to cope with the majority pressure

Had confidence in own judgements, but still showed conflict which they were able to cope with

Independent and withdrawn: Responded as individuals because they felt a great need to do so

Subjects whose primary motivation was to do well on the task

Felt tension and doubt about own judgments

Conformity Effects III

Yielding Subjects fell into three categories as well

Distortions of perception:

Unaware that their judgments had been distorted

Yielded completely

Fewest subjects fell into this category

Distortions of judgment

Most yielding subjects

Little confidence in their own judgements

Accepted that their own judgements were wrong

Distortions of action

Knew majority was wrong, but conformed anyway

Did not want to appear different or defective

Supressed own judgments and were aware they were doing it

Conformity Effects IV

Some Factors Affecting Conformity

The true partner effect: If a member of the majority supports the real subject's judgment, conformity drops to 5.5% on critical trials (down from 32%)

If the true partner withdraws support, conformity goes back up to its original level

Majority size: Conformity increases up to a group size of four, and then levels off

Members of the majority need not be physically present to obtain the conformity effect

As the ambiguity of the stimulus increases, so does conformity

Conformity Effects V

Some Factors Affecting Conformity

Majority competence: Greater conformity when the majority is perceived as having high competence, compared to low competence

Competence of the minority: Less conformity when the minority is high in competence, compared to low

Gender: Small gender difference, with women conforming more under certain circumstances (e.g., a male experimenter and group pressure)

Culture: Conformity is see across cultures, but some cultural groups conform more than others.

The sociopolitical climate affects conformity rates

Conformity Effects VI

Minority Influence

American social psychology focused on how a majority can affect a minority in a group

In Europe attention was focused on how minority groups can affect the majority (Moscovici, et al., 1969)

A minority can influence majority opinion

This is especially true if the minority is:

Strong and self-confident

Consistent (but not rigid)

Adopting a negotiating style, showing a willingness to compromise

Flexible (i.e., willing to consider opposing arguments)

Conformity Effects VII

Explanations for Minority and Majority Influence

Moscovici proposed a two-process model of influence

Different processes operate in majority to minority influence and in minority to majority influence

Majority influence occurs on a public level and results from normative social influence

A person conforming to a majority does not necessarily accept the majority's position

Minority influence occurs on a private level and comes about because the minority convinces majority members to change opinion (informational social influence)

Minority influence brings about both public compliance and private acceptance

Conformity Effects VIII

Explanations for Minority and Majority Influence

Latane'(1981) proposed a single process model of majority and minority influence called social impact theory

According to social impact theory influence is a function of three factors

The strength of the source of influence

The immediacy of the source of influence

The number of sources of influence

Majority influence comes about because of greater numbers in the majority

Minority influence comes about via the strength and number of influence sources

Another model, the social influence model, provides a stronger description and explanation for social influence than social impact theory

Obedience: A Definition and Types

Obedience occurs when a person alters his/her behavior in response to a command from a person in authority

Authority figure has the power to bring about the change

Obedience is a necessary and desirable phenomenon

Without obedience to authority society could not function

Hobbes suggested that humans were basically out for self interest and only through "social compacts" could we live together

Most obedience benefits society (Constructive obedience)

Destructive obedience is obedience that harms individuals and society as a whole

History provides many examples of destructive obedience:

The final solution of the "Jewish problem" by the Nazis

The My Lai massacre during the Viet Nam war

People's temple mass suicide

The slaughter of 1 million Armenians in Turkey in the early 1900s

Recurring Themes in Destructive Obedience

Milgram (1974)

People carrying out a job are dominated by an administrative, rather than a moral, outlook

Distinction is made between destroying others and expression of personal feelings (explicit v. implicit attitudes)

Values like loyalty, duty, and discipline are adopted as high moral imperatives

Modification of language (euphemisms) so that destructive acts don't conflict with moral concepts (e.g., murder becomes "neutralizing" or a "final solution")

Looking for authorization from above for acts of destructive obedience

Destructive acts are justified by some higher goal (e.g., racial purity)

Destructive acts are not talked about

No philosophical dilemmas about destructive acts. Career aspirations take precedence

When the relationship between authority and subordinates remains intact, psychological adjustments are made to ease the strain of carrying out destructive acts

Milgram's Model of Obedience

Subjects who obey are acting as agents of authority.

The enter the agentic state

Attention is drawn away from the victim and toward the authority figure

Two factors contribute to the agentic state:

Binding factors

Initial acts of obedience bind the agent to the authority figure

Obedience acts reinforce each other. Each time the agent obeys he/she must justify the act

Becoming an agent of authority allows the agent to externalize responsibility for the act

Antecedent conditions

Personality characteristics that predispose on to obedience

Authoritarian submission: Personality trait that involves a submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the in-group

Agents of authority carefully screened (e.g., SS and torturers)

Socialization into the role of obeyer

Three Processes Underlying Obedience

(Kelman & Hamilton (1990)

Authorization

Normal moral guidelines are abandoned in favor of those of the authority figure

Once authority figure sanctions acts of obedience they are automatically justified

Routinization

Obedience becomes a habit or a routine part of everyday life

Example: Franz Stangl (Commandant of Treblinka)

Dehumanization

Portraying and thinking of victims of destructive obedience as being subhuman

Disobedience I

Milgram's Model

Disobedience will occur when role strain arises

Role strain occurs when a person becomes uncomfortable with obedience behavior

Sources of role strain:

Cries of pain from the victim

Violation of personal moral values

Potential retaliation from the victim

Conflict between needs of victim and needs of the victim and authority

Harming others may be inconsistent with self-image

If role strain is not successfully handled, disobedience is likely

Disobedience II

(Kelman & Hamilton, 1990)

Two preconditions for disobedience:

Cognitive precondition

While obeying a person may not think of disobedience as an option

For disobedience to occur, one must think of disobedience as a viable option

Motivational precondition

Individual in obedience situation must be willing to go against existing norms and accept the consequences of disobedience

The Foot-in-the-Door Technique (FITD) I

A person is more likely to agree to a larger request after agreeing to perform a smaller request than if the larger request is made by itself

A study by Freedman and Fraser (1966) was one of the first demonstrations of the foot-in-the-door technique (FITD)

Reasons why the FIDT technique works:

Self-perception hypothesis

Agreeing to the small request leads to subtle shifts in self perception: you come to see yourself as the type of person who helps

Agree to second, larger request, to be consistent with new self-image

The Foot-in-the-Door Technique II

The first request must be large enough to elicit a commitment and lead a person to make an internal attribution for agreeing to the first request

Some support for this hypothesis

Attitude toward helping

Agreeing to first request leads to a positive attitude toward helping

The cognitions and attitudes about helping change

The perceptual contrast hypothesis

The smaller request serves as an anchor against which the larger request is judged

The second request is assimilated to the first, and compliance results

Limits to the FITD technique:

Doesn't work well for costly or dangerous behaviors

Can increse compliance by using a graded series of requests

Doesn't work well for negative behaviors

The Door-in-the-Face Technique (DITF) I

Opposite of the FITD: A large request is followed by a smaller request

You are more likely to get a person to agree to the smaller request after the larger request than if the smaller request was made by itself

Explanations for the DITF effect

Reciprocal concessions

The person making the request backs off from the large request and makes available the smaller alternative

This energizes the norm of reciprocity and the subject feels compelled to make a concession to the person making the request

The Door-in-the-Face Technique II

The self-presentation explanation

Refusing the second, smaller request, may make one look bad to the person making the request and perhaps others

Most individuals want to present a positive image to others, so agreement to the second request is more likely

Relates to the 'even a penny will help' ploy

Perceptual contrast

After the larger request, the smaller request, by contrast, looks more appealing

The worthy person hypothesis

Because compliance techniques are usually used for good causes, refusing the request would make a person feel guilty for turning down a worthy cause

The Low Ball Technique I

An initial offer is made to a customer that is 'too good to be true' (e.g., a great price on a car)

The sales person leaves (ostensibly, to talk to the manager) leaving the customer to think about the product (during this time you will probably develop positive cognitions about the product)

The salesman comes back and says that he/she can't sell the product at such a low price and comes up with a higher price

The customer is likely to still buy the product at the higher price

Explanations for the success of the low ball technique

The technique works through a two-step process

The Low Ball Technique II

The initial commitment to purchase

Revealing the higher price

Two important psychological processes underlie low balling

Commitment: Taking some significant step toward a course of action

Making a commitment to a person (e.g., the salesperson) is stronger than commitment to a behavior (e.g., purchasing a product) Continued contact with sales person elicits commitment

Once a commitment is made we look for a way to justify it

Consistency: Desire to maintain consistency between thoughts and actions

If you don't buy the product, all of the positive cognitions will be dissonant with that decision.

Purchasing the product maintains consistency

The 'That's-Not-All' and 'Short Supply' Techniques

That's-not-all technique

Make an initial offer then throw something in for 'free' increases compliance

Probably works through a two stage process

Throwing in an additional item arouses the norm of reciprocity

Original price (for one item) serves as an anchor, the new deal looks better compared to the anchor

Short supply technique

Suggest that a product is in short supply or available for a limited time increases sales

Scarcity effect: if you think something is in short supply it becomes more attractive

Scarcity may energize psychological reactance, your freedom to purchase the product is restricted when time expires or it sells out

The Effectiveness of Compliance Techniques

The DITF is a more powerful technique than the FITD

Using a combined FITD and DITF strategy yields more compliance than either technique by itself

Low balling is a very effective technique

Low balling may even be more powerful than either the FITD or DITF techniques