Chapter 7 Social Influence Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Social Influence Conformity Compliance Obedience to Authority Changing one’s beliefs or behavior to be consistent with group standards Compliance Doing what we are asked to do even if we prefer not to Obedience to Authority Complying with a person or group perceived to be a legitimate authority Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conformity Sherif’s Autokinetic Effect Study Participants estimated the apparent (but illusory) movement of a light. When alone, estimates varied from one inch to 800 feet. When put in groups of 2 or 3, participants’ estimates converged. The effect of group influence persisted when individuals were alone again. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Asch Line Judgment Study Which line on the right best resembles the one on the left? Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conformity To understand conformity, one must understand the cultural context. Individualistic cultures emphasize freedom and independence, so “conforming” means loss of control. Collectivist cultures emphasize ties to the social group, so “conforming” means maturity and inner strength. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conformity Why do people conform? Informational Influence The Desire to Be Right Normative Influence The Desire to Be Liked Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conformity Others’ behavior often provides useful information. Trust in the group affects conformity. Task difficulty affects conformity. Conformity due to informational influence affects both public behavior and private beliefs. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conformity The desire to be accepted and to avoid rejection from others leads us to conform. Conformity due to normative influence generally changes public behavior but not private beliefs. However, through dissonance reduction, a behavioral change can lead to a change in beliefs. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conformity When do people conform? Group Size Group Unanimity The larger the group, the more conformity—to a point. Even one dissenter dramatically drops conformity. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conformity When do people conform? Commitment to the Group The Desire for Individuation Commitment fosters increased conformity. Desire for individuation decreases conformity Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conformity Minority Influence Dissent from a minority can reduce conformity from the majority Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conformity To be effective, a minority must be Consistent in its position Flexible in style of presentation Forceful Otherwise similar to majority Not appear to be driven by self-interest Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conformity Moscovici study: Members of 6-person groups rate color of slides; all slides are blue w/variation Experimental group has two confederates call some slides green; control group has no confederates In experimental groups, about a third of participants report at least one slide as green. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Conformity The “dual processing hypothesis” suggests that minority influence leads to systematic processing of information while majority influence is less thoughtful. Under this view, minorities’ influence is disproportional to their size. View is not universally accepted. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Compliance “Mindless conformity” Langer: A “placebo reason” (“Can I use the copier now because I have to make copies?”) increases compliance over no reason, and almost as much as a real reason (“because I’m in a rush”). Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Compliance Six Bases of Social Power Providing + outcome Rewards Special knowledge Message content Identifying w/other Influencer’s right to make request Helpless have power because of norm of social responsibility Rewards Coercion Expertise Information Referent Power Legitimate Authority Power of Helplessness Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Compliance First make a small request, then a large one. Foot-in-the-Door Technique Door-in-the-Face Technique First make a small request, then a large one. First make an unreasonably large request, then a smaller one. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Compliance Low-Ball Technique That’s-Not-All Technique Pique Technique First make a reasonable request; then reveal further costs First make a large request, then offer a bonus or discount Make an unusual request to disrupt target’s mindless refusal script Low-Ball Technique That’s-Not-All Technique Pique Technique Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Compliance Reactance Theory (Brehm, 1966): people attempt to maintain their personal freedom of action. Thus, influence attempts that threaten perceived freedom may backfire. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Obedience Obedience is based on the belief that authorities have the right to make requests. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Obedience People are more likely to obey If they receive benefits from belonging to the group If people feel fairly treated If people trust authorities’ motives If people identify with the group Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Obedience “Crimes of obedience” can occur when the demands of authorities are immoral or illegal The “Eichmann defense” refers to Adolph Eichmann’s claim that he was “just following orders” when he supervised the murder of 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

The Milgram Experiments Obedience The Milgram Experiments Men from the New Haven community were assigned to serve as the “Teacher” and administer shocks to the “Learner” (a confederate). Shock levels ranged from 15 to 450 mv Milgram was interested in the point at which people would disobey the experimenter in the face of the learner’s protests Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Obedience Shock Level (mv) % obeying 0-240 (slight to very strong) 100 255-300 (intense) 88 315-360 (extreme intensity) 68 375-420 (Danger: severe shock) 65 435-450 (“XXX”) Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Obedience Variations decreasing obedience Increasing closeness of learner Increasing distance of experimenter Two other teachers quit Variations increasing obedience Watching a peer give shocks Two other teachers continue Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Obedience The Milgram experiments illustrate the “normality” or “banality” of evil and the power of the social situation Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Obedience People sometimes do resist pressures to obey When victims’ suffering is salient When person feels responsible for their actions When others model disobedience When people are encouraged to question authority Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

Milgram Studies Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall