Continuum of Social Pressure and Influence (Yielding/Resisting)
WEAKEST: social norms (change behavior to be consistent with norms OR resist them)
MODERATE: requests (behavior change elicited by direct requests/suggestions OR resist them)
STRONGER: commands (behavior changes produced by commands of authority figure or
ABCs of Social Influence
COGNITION: what are your thoughts, knowledge, or beliefs about the person(s) or situation involved?
AFFECT: what is your attitude toward the person(s) or situation? What emotional or motivational reactions arise in the situation?
BEHAVIOR: What action do
Conformity
A change in one's behavior due to the real or imagined influence of other people, consistent with group norms.
Compliance/Norms of Compliance
Changes in behavior that are elicited by direct requests/suggestions. RECIPROCITY: treat others as we've been treated
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: do what is right
SOCIAL COMMITMENT: keep promises
DEFERENCE TO AUTHORITY: follow order of superiors
Compliance Strategy: Low-Balling
Inducing someone to agree to something at a lower cost/commitment, subsequently claiming it was an error, then raising price/commitment. Person often will agree because of
dissonance reduction
and the
illusion of irrevocability
(feeling like you already c
Compliance Strategy: Foot-in-the-Door Technique
Social influence strategy in which getting people to agree first to a small request makes them more likely to agree later to a second, larger request.
Compliance Strategy: Door-in-the-Face Technique
Social influence strategy in which first asking people for a large request that they will probably refuse makes them more likely to agree later to a second, smaller request.
Compliance Strategy: That's Not All
Inflated request later reduced with discount or bonus items (ex: Sham-Wow --> "If you spend $30 to buy a Sham-Wow now, you get an extra/free BLANK!")
Sherif Light Study (Conformity)
- Ps view a point of light on a wall in a dark room and say how much it's moving (AUTOKINETIC EFFECT: light appears to move but doesn't actually, so test is SUBJECTIVE to observer)
- IV: individual or group judgment on if light is moving or not
- DV: Ps'
Asch Line-Judgment Experiment (Conformity)
- Task: view standard line next to three comparison lines
- IV: alone or after confederate gave clearly false answer
- DV: Ps' judgments
- Results: Ps' conformed to wrong group answer 37% of the time
-
public & normative
MOTIVES FOR CONFORMITY: 1. need fo
Informational Social Influence
Relying on other people as a source of information to guide our behavior; we conform because we believe that others' interpretation of an ambiguous situation is correct and can help us choose an appropriate course of action.
Normative Social Influence
Going along with what other people do in order to be liked and accepted by them; we publicly conform with the group's beliefs and behaviors but do not always privately accept them.
Public Acceptance
Acting in accord with social pressure while privately refuting that position. Change in behavior, no change in values.
Private Acceptance
Acting in accord with social pressure while privately accepting that position. Change in behavior AND change in values.
Minority Influence
A minority influences behavior/beliefs of majority through CONSISTENCY/ in order to be accepted as part of the mainstream. IDIOSYNCRASY CREDITS come into play. Operates through INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE and often leads to private conformity.
Idosyncrasy Credits
The tolerance a person earns, over time, by conforming to group norms; if enough idiosyncrasy credits are earned, the person can behave deviantly without retribution from the group. Past conformity allows at some point in the future to deviate from the gr
Obedience
A change in one's behavior due to the direct influence/commands of a perceived authority figure.
Milgram Study
Study of obedience to authority figure even if a violation of ethical standards. 65% of Ps shocked dangerous amounts when ordered.
CONCLUSIONS:
- NORMATIVE PRESSURES made it difficult for Ps to refuse to continue (injunctive norms - hurting people is wron
Burger Study
Modern-day variation of original Milgram study; study was stopped once Ps went past 150 volts.
Perceptual Contrast
Relative size or magnitude of options compared/contrasted with other options. IN MILGRAM: gradual escalation of shocks, already did 150 volts, 25 doesn't seem that much more. DOOR-IN-THE-FACE: asking something big, then something small, perceptual contras
Psychological Process of Compliance/Obedience
SELF-PERCEPTION: We determine our attitudes from our behavior (EX: you agree to a request and decide you're a reasonable/helpful person, so when asked another request -> you say yes)
Attitudes
A positive, negative, or mixed reaction to/evaluation of a person, object, or concept.
Implicit Attitudes
Attitudes that are involuntary, uncontrollable, and at times unconscious. EX: whether you make good eye contact or how nervous you appear to be around minority groups.
Explicit Attitudes
Attitudes that we consciously endorse and can easily report. EX: attitudes about government candidates
Attitude Measurement
OVERT MEASURES (i.e. self-reports):
- Context (question order, vague wording, environment, etc).
- Socially Desirable Responding (not always honest response)
BETTER METHODS:
- BOGUS PIPELINE (fake polygraph to get Ps to truthfully respond to self-report d
Cognitively Based Attitude
An attitude based primarily on people's beliefs about the properties of an attitude object. EX: Objective merits of a car: How many miles per gallon does it get? What are its safety features?
Behaviorally Based Attitude
An attitude based on observations of how one behaves toward an object. EX: If you ask a friend how much she likes to exercise and she replies, "Well, I guess I like it, because I always seem to be going for a run or heading over to the gym to work out," s
Affectively Based Attitudes (ex: classical or operant conditioning)
An attitude based more on people's feelings and values than on their beliefs about the nature of an attitude object.
AFFECTIVELY BASED ATTITUDES: (1) do not result from a rational examination of the issues, (2) are not governed by logic, and (3) are often
Yale Attitude Change Approach
The study of the conditions under which people are most likely to change their attitudes in response to persuasive messages, focusing on:
- SOURCE/COMMUNICATOR (e.g., how expert or attractive the speaker is)
- MESSAGE (e.g., the quality of the arguments,
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Better because it explains the type of people/environment/approach to persuade people.
1. CENTRAL ROUTE TO PERSUASION: reflective, requires mental effort/high motivation & ability to process a message, responsive to substantive information
2. PERIPHERAL R
Attitude Accessibility
The strength of the association between an object and an evaluation of it, which is typically measured by the speed with which people can report how they feel about the object or issue.
Particularly good predictor of behavior when behavior in question is
Theory of Planned Behavior
We consider our behavioral options, evaluate the consequences/outcomes of each, & reach a decision to act/not. People's intentions are best predictors of their deliberate behaviors, which are determined by:
- ATTITUDES TOWARD SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS (how do I
Counter-Attitudinal Behavior
Taking a public position that contradicts one's private attitude (creates COGNITIVE DISSONANCE). When we do this with little external justification�that is, without being motivated by something outside of ourselves�what we believe begins to conform more a
Cognitive Dissonance
The discomfort that people feel when two COGNITIONS (beliefs, attitudes) conflict, or when they behave in ways that are inconsistent with their conception of themselves.
Aversive Affective State
Results when two cognitions that we hold conflict, or when our behavior is inconsistent with our attitudes (most aversive when conflicts with self-worth). To protect our self-esteem, we are motivated to reduce/eliminate cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Freely chosen, counter?attitudinal behavior creates cognitive dissonance, an aversive state. We have a need (motivation) to reduce cognitive dissonance, and hence alleviate this aversive state. HOW:
- Change behavior to be in line with attitude
- Change c
Boring Task Study
Ps performed a boring task and asked to enthusiastically convince following Ps that task was fun (counterattitudinal - convincing them that boring task was fun).
IV: inducement - $1 (small external justification) or $20 (large external justification) for
Self-Perception Theory
When our attitudes and feelings are uncertain or ambiguous and our internal states are weak/hard to interpret and there is an absence of compelling situational pressures, we infer these states by observing our behavior and the situation in which it occurs
Cognitive Dissonance Theory vs. Self-Perception Theory
CD: We are motivated to reduce aversive physiological arousal which leads to attitude change. SP: rational consideration of internal/external forces which leads to attitude change.
Fake Pill Study
- Ps wrote essay arguing against inflammatory speakers on college campuses (counter-attitudinal behavior)
- IV: attributions for possible arousal (placebo pill at beg. of study; told no effect, would feel relaxed or would feel tense)
- DV: Ps' attitudes t
Postdecision Dissonance
Enhancing the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and devaluating the rejected alternatives after making a decision to help yourself feel better about the decision and try to reduce the dissonance. The more important the decision, the greater the dis
Justification of Effort
The tendency for individuals to increase their liking for something they have worked hard to attain.
Internal Justification
The reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself when you can't find external justification for behavior (e.g., one's attitude or behavior).
$1 - NO SUFFICIENT EXTERNAL JUSTIFICATION SO YOU CHANGE YOUR OWN OPINION OF BORING TASK/MAKE IT SEE
External Justification
A reason or an explanation for dissonant personal behavior that resides outside the individual (e.g., to receive a large reward, avoid a severe punishment, etc.).
$20 - SUFFICIENT EXTERNAL JUSTIFICATION SO YOU DON'T CHANGE ATTITUDE/STILL THINK IT'S BORING
Ben Franklin Effect
Doing someone a favor with little or no external justification can create a more favorable attitude toward that person.
Insufficient Punishment
When we lack sufficient external justification for having resisted a desired activity or object, dissonance results in us internally devaluing forbidden activity or object.
If I get punished a lot for hitting sibling, I think "I didn't hit her because I d
Hypocrisy Induction
The arousal of dissonance by having individuals make statements that run counter to their behaviors and then reminding them of the inconsistency between what they advocated and their behavior. The purpose is to lead individuals to more responsible behavio
Self-Affirmation Theory
People can reduce threats to their self-esteem by affirming themselves in areas unrelated to the source of the threat.
Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory
The idea that people experience dissonance when someone close to us outperforms us in an area that is central to our self-esteem. REDUCTION:
- Becoming less close to person
- Changing our behavior so that we outperform them
- Deciding that the area is not
Heuristic-Systematic Model of Persuasion
An explanation of the two ways in which persuasive communications can cause attitude change;
when people take the peripheral route to persuasion, they often use heuristics.
Attitude-Change Techniques
If an attitude is cognitively based, your best bet is to try to change it with rational arguments; if it is affectively based, you're better off trying to change it with emotional appeals.
Subliminal Messages
Words or pictures that are not consciously perceived but may nevertheless influence people's judgments, attitudes, and behaviors. EX: RATS incident with Bush and Gore campaigns (possible attempt by the Bush campaign to use subliminal messages to create a
Social Impact Theory
The idea that conforming to social influence depends on three variables regarding the group in question:
1. STRENGTH/IMPORTANCE (How important to you is the group?)
2. IMMEDIACY (How close is the group to you in space and time during the attempt to influe
Injunctive Norms
People's perceptions of what behaviors are approved or disapproved of by others. What we THINK other people approve or disapprove of. EX: We know that littering is wrong.
Descriptive Norms
People's perceptions of how people actually behave in given situations, regardless of whether the behavior is approved or disapproved of by others. What people ACTUALLY DO in a given situation. EX: We know that there are situations when people are likely
Group
Two or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense that their needs/goals cause them to influence each other.
- interactions over time
- degree of shared identity
- degree of shared goals
- degree of common fate/outcomes
Social Roles
Shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave. EX: Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib - people getting caught in the web of their social roles, unable to resist.
Characterizing Groups
- Roles: FORMAL (set meeting agenda) vs. INFORMAL (encourage member participation)
- Norms: FORMAL (observe explicit rules) vs. INFORMAL (be polite)
- Interdependence: HIGH/LOW extent to which actions/lack thereof influence others
- Cohesiveness: STRONG/W
Cockroach Study
As long as the task is a relatively
simple, well-learned
one�as escaping a light is for cockroaches�the mere presence of others
improves performance.
But, when working on a difficult task, the roaches took longer to solve it when other roaches were presen
Social Facilitation (Bob Zajonc)
The presence of others increases
physiological arousal,
making it easier to perform a dominant response but harder to do something complex/learn something new.
Arousal enhances performance on simple tasks but impairs performance on complex tasks.
Social Loafing
When people are in the presence of others and their individual performance cannot be evaluated, we tend to perform
worse on simple/unimportant tasks
but
better on complex or important tasks.
Becoming relaxed impairs performance on simple tasks but can imp
Role of Arousal in Social Facilitation
- Mere presence: heatened state of readiness (fight or flight)
- Evaluation Apprehension: concerns about being judged/nervousness
- Distraction-Conflict: divided attn creates conflict and arousal to attend to/accomplish multiple tasks
Ringelmann Effect
An individual pulling on a rope in a group exerts less force than an individual pulling alone.
Deindividuation
The loss of self-awareness and self-restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity. WHY:
- Peopel feel less accountable when there is reduced likelihood that they can be singled out and blamed for their behavior
- Increases the
Process Loss
Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving. EX: Trying to convince a group to follow your idea, being faced with opposition and disbelief, watching the group make the wrong decision. WHY:
- Communication problems
- Not knowing who
Transactive Memory
The combined memory of a group that is more efficient than the memory of the individual members. EX: Different people responsible for remembering different parts of a task or different information. Tendency for groups to fail to consider important unique
Groupthink
A kind of decision process in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner. TO REDUCE:
- Remain impartial
- Seek outside opinions
- Create subgroups
- Seek anonymous opinions
Risky Shift (old idea)
The tendency for groups to make riskier decisions than individuals would BUT tend to make decisions that are more extreme in the same direction as the initial predispositions of their members (could be risky or conservative depending on leanings of the gr
Great Person Theory
The idea that certain key personality traits make a person a good leader, regardless of the situation. RESEARCH: Surprisingly few personality characteristics correlate strongly with leadership effectiveness.
Group Polarization (modern idea)
The tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of their members. WHY:
- Persuasive arguments: all individuals bring to the group a set of arguments supporting their initial recommendation
- Social comparison:
Transactional Leaders
Leaders who set clear, short-term goals and reward people who meet them.
Transformational Leaders
Leaders who inspire followers to focus on common, long-term goals.
Contingency Theory of Leadership
Effectiveness of a leader depends both on how task-or-relationship-oriented the leader is and on the amount of control the leader has over the group.
Task-Oriented Leaders
Getting job done > workers' feelings and relationships. Do well in HIGH-CONTROL work situations (when leader's position is clearly perceived as powerful and the work needing to be done by the group is structured/well defined, EX: corporate manager) and in
Relationship-Oriented Leaders
Leaders who are concerned more with workers' feelings and relationships. Most effective in MODERATE-CONTROL situations (fairly smooth but some attention to relationships/feelings is needed)
Agentic vs. Communal Traits
Agentic: assertive, controlling, dominant, independent (typically assigned to males)
Communal: concerned with welfare of others, warm, helpful, affectionate (typically assigned to women)