SOCIAL FORCES INFLUENCE HOW WE: THINK SEE FEEL KNOW

Basic Social Psychology Principles: A) SOCIAL COMPARISON: SOCIAL REALITY CONSENUAL VALIDATION B)SELF-GENERATED REALITY & SELF-FULFILING PROPHECY C) FUNDEMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR

SOCIAL INFLUENCE: HOW PEOPLE ARE INFLUENCED BY THE ACTUAL, IMAGINED, OR IMPLIED PRESENCE OF THERES (ALLPORT). SOCIAL INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE GREAT, GREAT INFLUENCES IN NATURE … TREMENDOUSLY POWERFUL … YET YOU CAN'T SEE IT" (ELLEN BERSCHEID).

THAT SO FEW NOW DARE TO BE ECCENTRIC, MARKS THE CHIEF DANGER OF OUR TIME. --- JOHN STUART MILL CONFORMITY QUOTES “THAT WE HAVE FOUND THE TENDENCY TO CONFORM IN OUR SOCIETY SO STRONG THAT REASONABLY INTELLIGENT AND WELL-MEANING YOUNG PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO CALL WHITE BLACK IS A MATTER OF CONCERN. IT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR WAYS OF EDUCATION AND ABOUT THE VALUES THAT GUIDE OUR CONDUCT.” --- ASCH, 1955, P. 34

SOCIAL INFLUENCE INFORMATIVE( e.g., Sherif’s Research) NORMATIVE (e.g., Asch’s Research)

SHERIF’S AUTOKINETIC STUDIES ALONE MOVEMENT IN INCHES SUBJECT 1 SUBJECT 2 SUBJECT 3

NORMALIZATION 1)DIVERSITY OF OPINION (INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES) 2)INFLUENCE OF OTHERS (ESTABLISHMENT OF NORMS) 3)INFLUENCE OF DEVIANT OPINION(S); INNOVATION

FACTORS AFFECTING CONFORMITY A)PERSONALITY (E.G., SELF-ESTEEM, AUTHORITARIAN) B)GENDER (TYPE OF TASK) C)GROUP SIZE (4-PERSON GROUP VS. TWO 2- PERSON GROUPS) D)GROUP ATTRACTIVENESS E)GROUP COHESIVENESS F)COMMITMENT TO ONE’S OPINION G)SOCIAL SUPPORT

NUMBER OF PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH SUBJECT % ERRORS CONFORMITY LEVELS DID NOT INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY AFTER THE GROUP SIZE WAS MORE THAN 4 OR 5 PEOPLE CONFORMITY LEVELS AS A FUNCTION OF GROUP SIZE

CONFORMITY AS A FUNCTION OF ACCEPTANCE BY A GROUP HIGHAVERAGELOWVERY LOW GROUPS PRIOR RATING OF SUBJECTS DESIREABILITY CONFORMITY WAS GREATEST AMONG PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED THE GROUP RATED THEM AS AVERAGE IN DESIREABILITY

NONEMAGIC PAD PAPERPAPER & HAND IN COMMITMENT CONDITION THE GREATER THE LEVEL OF COMMITMENT, THE LESS CONFORMITY IN THE FACE OF GROUP PRESSURE COMFORMITY AS A FUNCTION OF COMMITMENT TO ONE’S OPINION

A)PUBLIC COMPLIANCE VERSUS PRIVATE INTERNALIZTION B)CONFORMITY, ANTI-CONFORMITY, & INDEPENDENCE C)INFLUENCE OF A DEVIATE (KEY IS CONSISTENCY OF OPINION & AVOID BEING SEEN AS RIGID) OTHER CONFORMITY ISSUES

INFLUENCE OF MILGRAM’S STUDIES NUMBER OF REPRINTS IN ANTHOLOGIES TV DRAMA (10 TH LEVEL) MAGAZINE INTERVIEWS (E.G., ESQUIRE, HARPER’S 60 MINUTES BOOK (OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY)

Public Announcement We Will Pay You $4.00 For One Hour of Your Time Persons Needed for a Study of Memory We will pay five hundred New Haven men to help us complete a scientific study of memory and learning. The study is being at Yale University. Each person who participates will be paid $4.00 (plus 50 cents carfare) for approximately one hour’s time, We need you for only one hour there are no further obligations. You may choose the time you would like to come(evenings, weekends, or weekdays). No special training, education, or experience is needed. We want: Factory workersBusinessmenConstruction workers City employeesClerksSalespeople LaborersProfessional peopleWhite-collar workers BarbersTelephone workersOthers All persons must be between the ages of 20 & 50. High school and college students cannot be used. Source: Adapted From Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, 1974, by Stanley Milgram.

OBEDIENCE QUOTES “IT IS SURPRISING HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR PEOPLE TO KEEP SITUATIONAL FORCES IN MIND, AS THEY SEEK A TOTALLY PERSONALISTIC INTERPRETATION OF OBEDIENCE, DIVORCED FROM THE SPECIFIC SITUATIONAL PRESSURES ACTING ON THE INDIVIDUAL” (MILGRAM, 1974). “ANY INTERPRETATION INVOLVING THE ATTACKER’S STRONG SADISTIC IMPULSES IS INADEQUATE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN SUCH KILLINGS IS SADISTTICALLY INCLINED” (KELMAN, & HAMILTON, 1989, p.13, REGARDING THE MY LAI MASSACRE)

EXPERIMENT #VARIATIONRESULTS 1-4 PROXIMITY 65% OBEDIENCE 5 HEART PROBLEM (PROTESTS AT VARIOUS LEVELS) 65% OBEDIENCE 6 PERSONNEL CHANGE 50% OBEDIENCE 7 CLOSENESS OF AUTHORITY 22% OBEDIENCE* SUMMARY OF MILGRAM’S OBEDIENCE STUDIES

8 FEMALES AS SUBJECTS 65% OBEDIENCE 9 VICTIM'S CONTRACT 40% OBEDIENCE 10 INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT, MOVE TO DOWNTOWN SITE 48% OBEDIENCE 11 SUBJECTS CHOOSE LEVEL 38/40 PICKED LEVELS

12 LEARNER DEMANDS SHOCK; EXP. SAYS STOP All STOPPED 13 ORDINARY PERSON GIVES ORDERS 20% OBEDIENCE 13A S AS BYSTANDER, 16 REFUSED IN #13; ACCOMPLICE TAKES ROLE OF SHOCKER 69% ALLOWED OBEDIENCE 14 AUTHORITY AS VICTIM AT 150 ALL STOP

15 2 AUTHORITIES; EACH GIVE DIFFERENT COMMANDS 18/20 STOP 16 2 AUTHORITIES - 1 SERVES AS THE VICTIM 65% OBEDIENCE 17 2 PEERS - ONE ADMINISTRATOR 10% OBEDIENCE 18 PEERS GIVE SHOCK, S GIVEN A SUPPORT ROLE 93% REMAINED IN ROLE

OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE RATES SENSE OF URGENCY (TIME PRESSURE) NO COMMUNICATION STEP BY STEP INCREASES IN SHOCK LEVELS STATE OF “AGENCY” (OTHERS ARE RESPONSIBLE)

ETHICAL ISSUES USE OF DECEPTION (LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT) HARNFUL LONG-TERM EFFECTS TO PARTICIPANTS ADEQUACY OF DEBRIEFING THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW (USE OF 4 TH PROD)

THE 4 PRODS PLEASE CONTINUE, OR PLEASE GO ON. THE EXPERIMENT REQUIRES THAT YOU GO ON. IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT YOU CONTINUE. YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE, YOU MUST GO ON.

MILGRAM’S POSITION UNDERSTANDING OF CRITICAL PHENOMENON INSIGHT OF PARTICIPANTS CRITICISM DUE TO NATURE OF FINDINGS EVERY EFFORT TO DEBRIEF (PURPOSE OF STUDY, FOLLOW-UP REPORT & QUESTIONNAIRE, PSYCHIATRIC INTERVIEW 1 YEAR ALTER) RESULTS UNEXPECTED NO HARM TO PARTICIPANTS (ESPECIALLY LONG- TERM; MANY WOULD DO IT AGAIN)

RECIPROCITY SCARCITY AUTHORITY COMMITMENT LIKING SOCIAL VALIDATION SIX UNIVERSAL INFLUENCE PRINCIPLES

STRATEGYPRINCIPLE POSITIVE MOODSMAKE REQUEST IN A POSITIVE SETTING INGRATIATIONSAY FLATTERING THINGS FAVORSDO A SMALL FAVOR FOR TARGET FOOT-IN-THE-DOORFOLLOW SMALL REQUEST WITH A MUCH LARGER ONE DOOR IN THE FACEFOLLOW A LARGE REQUEST WITH A SMALLER ONE LOW-BALLGET COMMITMENT ON FAVORABLE TERMS & CHANGE CONDITIONS REACTANCEGET COMMITMENT BY LIMITING CHOICE COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES

He did something that, on the face of it, seems foolish and costly. Each month he sent every one of his more than 13,000 former customers a holiday greeting card containing a printed message. The greeting card changed from month to month (e.G., “Happy new year,” happy thanksgiving”) but the message printed on the face of the card never varied. It read, “I like you.” (Cialdini, 1988, p. 166). INGRATIATION

Foot in the Door Procedure: Small 1 st request, followed by a larger 2 nd request Key Points: 2 nd request can be made by a different person 2 nd request can be on a different issue Performing the 1 st request is not essential. Agreeing to do it is sufficient Principle : Commitment (Self-perception)

Door in the Face Procedure: V ery large 1 st request (refused), followed by a smaller request. Key Points: B oth requests must be made by the same person Perception of a concession/negotiation Feeling of satisfaction within target Principle: Reciprocity

That’s Not All Procedure: A)Give original cost, then reduce it before the target responds B)Give original cost, then add something “extra” before the target responds Principle: Reciprocity