General Psych 2 Social Influence – Module 54 March 2, 2004 Class # 11

Mass Hysteria In 1761, after two earthquakes some guy starts spreading the rumor that a third more destructive one would soon occur People initially laughed at him But after watching a few of his friends started moving their things to the surrounding area Within a week or so a near panic takes place and those that had initially laughed paid outrageous prices for motels in a nearby town

Uncertainty In ambiguous situations, people tend to rely on information provided by others  Muzafer Sherif asked students to judge the apparent movement of a stationary light on a wall Autokinetic Effect  A stationary spot of light in a dark room appears to move

Sherif (1937) Put yourself in the role of the participant… Day 1  Participant stares at a pinpoint of light about 15 feet away  The light seems to be moving but you can’t be sure…after a few seconds it disappears Sherif: How far did it move? Participant: I’m not really sure but maybe about 8 inches

Sherif (1937) Day 2  The participant is now joined by three confederates  This time all four stare at the pinpoint of light about 15 feet away  Again, you think it moved about 8 inches Sherif: How far did it move? Confederate 1: 2 inches Confederate 2: an inch or two Confederate 3: oh, no it can’t be more than one inch Participant: oh, I guess about 6 inches Everyone else looks at you as if you are crazy

Sherif (1937) Day 3  The same situation as Day 2 except this time you reply “about 4 inches” Day 4  The same situation as Day 2 except this time you reply “its probably like 2 inches”

Consensus and Similarity We are especially likely to follow the behavior of others when:  There is strong consensus among the others (example: a large group all agrees that the shorter line is the longest one)

Consensus and Similarity We are especially likely to follow the behavior of others when:  The others are highly similar to us… Example: “copycat” suicides involve individuals similar in age and sex to the victim in highly publicized cases

Uncertainty and the Desire for Accuracy High motivation to be accurate will: Increase conformity among people who are uncertain of their judgments Decrease conformity among people who are certain of their judgments

Uncertainty and the Desire for Accuracy Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman (1996)  Asked students to choose a criminal suspect from a line-up… Some saw the pictures so quickly it was hard to be certain about their conclusions Others had ample time to be certain  Additionally… Some were motivated to be accurate with the promise of a $20 prize Others had no incentive

Okay so we have these IV’s… IV 1 : Motivation (high vs. low) IV 2 : Certainty (high vs. low)

Experimental groups Group 1: High and High Group 2: High and Low Group 3: Low and High Group 4: Low and Low

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% LOW Importance of Accuracy HIGH Percent Conforming When participants were certain, motivation to be accurate DECREASED conformity When participants were uncertain of their own judgments, motivation to be accurate INCREASED conformity

Managing Self-Image Personal commitments tie an individual’s identity (or self-image) to a position or course of action, making it more likely that he or she will follow through

Conformity: Asch’s Research on Group Influence Lets look at some classic research studies involving group pressure…  Asch (1951, 1952, 1956)

Which of the lines on the left most closely matches line A on the right? A 123 In this early version, Asch had 16 “naïve” participants with 1 confederate who gave incorrect answers Asch (1951)

Results:  Participants laughed at and ridiculed the confederate

Conformity: Asch’s Research on Group Influence (1951, 1952, 1956) Series of experiments most done with 1 participant and 5-8 confederates Real participant would give their judgment after several confederates had already given theirs

Which of the lines on the left most closely matches line A on the right? A 123 What would you say if you were in a group of 6 others, and all agreed the answer was 3? Asch (1956)

When alone, 95% of participants got all the answers correct… A 123 When confronted by the unanimous incorrect majority, participants conformed 37% of the time…in fact 75% went against their own eyes at least once if the group gave a wrong answer Asch (1956)

Some participants said they didn’t want to look silly or be rejected by the rest of the group  Normative social influence – they wanted to “fit in” with the others Some participants said it was because they thought the others must have had better eyesight or be better informed in some way  Informational social influence – they were basically utilizing others as a source of information

Asch’s conclusions…conditions that strengthen conformity The following were influential insofar as conformity was concerned...  Group size  Incompetent and insecure individuals  Group’s status and attractiveness

Group size As the number of people increases so does conformity…  Asch varied the size of his groups using 1 to 15 confederates in his many studies  Once there was 3 or 4 confederates, the amount of additional influence was negligible

Incompetent and insecure individuals When one is made to feel incompetent or insecure conformity is likely

Group’s status and attractiveness Kind of goes without saying…if its a group you want to be a part of – you will likely conform to its opinions

Asch’s conclusions…conditions that weaken conformity  Presence of an ally (the “true partner effect”)  Independence

Presence of an ally The presence of a true partner, who agreed with the subject, reduced conformity by 80% When we have an ally, we can diffuse the pressure because we are not the only one breaking the norm

Independence Some people care more about standing up for their rights than being disliked In the movie, “12 Angry Men” – a lone dissenter resisted the pressure to conform

Asch (1956) Bottom-line Conclusion:  People faced with strong group consensus sometimes go along even though they think the others may be wrong  And these are strangers…what if they were member’s of your own circle of friends?

Obedience Milgram (1964, 1974)  Obedience experiments  The behavior change that comes in response to a demand from an authority figure

Observed Behavior Surprisingly, 26/40 went all the way to the final switch  Why the gap between the behavior predicted by experts in human motivation, and the actual behavior???  Acknowledgments: Several of the slides containing graphics were obtained from wattlab.com.uconn.edu

Results of Milgram’s Obedience Experiment Adapted from S. Milgram "Behavioral Study of Obedience" from Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Used by permission of Alexandra Milgram.

Factors Affecting Obedience Prestige and status of authority figure  Supported by prestigious institution Person giving orders was close at hand  Milgram was right there Presence of others who disobey  Here, no role models who disobeyed  Out of sight

Determining Factors 1) Emotional Distance  When learner was in the same room, full compliance dropped to 40%  When teacher applied learner’s hand to shock plate, compliance fell to 30%  Victims were depersonalized in original study 2) Proximity of Authority Figure  When Milgram gave commands by telephone, compliance dropped to 21% 3) Legitimacy of Authority  When a “clerk” gave the orders, compliance was 20%  Prestige and status of authority figure  Supported by prestigious institution

Determining Factors 4) Group Influence  When two confederates “refused” to keep going, only 10% of real subjects fully complied with the orders  No “role model” who didn’t go all the way

Another Possible Explanation… Cognitive Dissonance  Behavior (shocking learner) conflicted with belief (learner is a decent person)  So solution is to alter belief: “He’s such an idiot he deserves to get shocked”

Milgram’s Experiments: Points to Ponder… Consider the role of the fundamental attribution error in explaining people’s predictions of obedience in the Milgram procedure  The psychiatrists’ predictions were way off… Ethical questions surrounding Milgram’s obedience experiments  Would it have been better from an ethical perspective if Milgram’s research had never been conducted?

What would you have done had you been a participant in that original study? Don’t commit the Fundamental Attribution Error!

Social Facilitation If performance can be individually evaluated, the presence of others will be arousing (improve performance on simple tasks but interfere with performance on complex tasks)

Triplett (1898) Was one of the first scientists to ask the question "What happens when individuals join together with other individuals?" Triplett, who was a bicycling enthusiast, noticed that cyclists performed better in races than they did when they were paced by motor- driven cycles or when they were timed riding the course alone

Zajonc (1965) Proposed that the mere presence of others increases arousal which in turn affects our performance

Zajonc (1969) Cockroach study  Cockroach placed in a tube with a bright light at one end of the tube…  To escape the light, the cockroach had to run down the tube and into a darkened box at the other end of the tube… IV: Presence or absence of other cockroaches DV: Speed of escape  Results: Cockroaches were faster to escape when other cockroaches were present

Criticisms of Zajonc Support for this model was eroded when later studies showed that the type of audience was important e.g. home or away fans The exact mechanism behind the social facilitation has yet to be determined but all of the following have been proposed: heightened self-awareness, self-consciousness, self- presentation concern, self-monitoring and self-attention

Michaels et al. (1982) Secretly rated pool players in a hall as above average or below average ability…  Then a group of confederates came and stood by their table as they played  The above average players' shot accuracy improved from 71 to 80% accurate, while the below average players slipped from 36 to 25% accurate Does the Yerkes-Dodson Law applies here?

Social Loafing If performance cannot be individually evaluated, the presence of others will lead to a diminished effort on the part each person

Latane et al. (1979) IV: clapping alone vs. clapping in groups of 2, 4, or 6 people DV: amount of noise made by each participant Results:  As the size of the group, individual sound decreased

Why the lack of effort? They feel less accountable and therefore worry less about what others think They view their contribution as dispensable Often feel they can get away with “free-riding” Plain and simple reality?  People are motivated by rewards…if they don’t feel they’ll get any credit then they probably won’t bust their…

Group Polarization The exaggeration through group discussion on initial tendencies in the thinking of group members For example:  Low prejudice groups can become less prejudiced and high prejudiced groups can become more prejudiced

Groupthink Group decision-making that is not optimal, sometimes disastrous, because the group’s primary goal is consensus instead of accuracy Example:  U.S. Space Shuttle Challenger explosion

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies When an initially inaccurate expectation leads to actions that cause the expectation to come true