PSY 321 Social Influence: Compliance, Conformity, & Obedience Dr PSY 321 Social Influence: Compliance, Conformity, & Obedience Dr. Sanchez

Today’s Outline Compliance Conformity Majority vs. Minority Influence Techniques and Experiments Conformity Majority vs. Minority Influence Obedience

Compliance Changes in behavior that are elicited by direct requests.

The Language of Requests Talking fast and catching people off guard can improve compliance rates. People can be disarmed by the simple phrasing of the request. How you ask for something can be more important than what you ask for. Langer: We often respond mindlessly to words without fully processing the information they are supposed to convey.

The language of requests: Experiment Langer et al., 1978 IV: Request did or did not include a reason “I have five copies. May I use the Xerox machine?” “I have five copies. May I use the Xerox machine, because I’m in a rush?” “I have five copies. May I use the Xerox machine, because I have to make copies?”

Langer et al. (1978)

Breaking the Mindless Routine (Santos et al. 1994)

Norm of Reciprocity The powerful norm of reciprocity dictates that we treat others as they have treated us. This norm leads us to feel obligated to repay for acts of kindness, even when unsolicited. Example: writing “thank you” on back of check increases tip Coca-Cola study Norm of reciprocity is relatively short-lived.

Sequential Request Strategies: Foot-in-the-Door Technique Person begins with a very small request; secures agreement; then makes a separate larger request. Why is it effective? Self-perception theory (Bem) Consistency

Foot-in-the-Door: Experiment Freedman & Fraser, 1966 IV: Small request first, or not Initial request (small): By phone, asked women to complete short survey on household products Intrusive request (big): 3 days later, asked women to allow a few men into the house for 2 hours to rummage through drawers

Freedman & Fraser (1966)

Sequential Request Strategies: Low-Balling Person secures agreement with a request and then increases the size of that request by revealing hidden costs. Why is it effective? Psychology of commitment. Sense of obligation to salesperson.

Low-balling: Experiment Cialdini et al., 1978 Asked intro psych students to participate in experiment IV: low-balling or upfront half were told in advance that it would start at 7am; half were told after agreeing that it would start at 7am

Cialdini et al. (1978)

Sequential Request Strategies: Door-in-the-Face Technique Person begins with a very large request that will be rejected; then follows that up with a more moderate request. Why is it effective? Perceptual contrast? Reciprocal concessions? Guilt?

Door-in-the-Face Technique: Experiment Cialdini et al., 1975 IV: Large request first? Asked students to volunteer for 2 hrs/week for 2 yrs to work with juvenile delinquents Or no large request first Followed by smaller request: Will you escort juvenile delinquents to zoo?

Cialdini et al. (1975)

Sequential Request Strategies: That’s Not All, Folks! Person begins with a somewhat inflated request; then immediately decreases the apparent size of the request by offering a discount or bonus. Why? People think they’re getting a deal

That’s-Not-All Technique: Experiment Burger, 1986 IV: Did the deal get “sweeter”? ½ of Ps told cupcakes cost 75 cents ½ of Ps first told cupcakes cost $1, then told the price would be reduced to 75 cents

Burger (1986)

Sequential Request Strategies

Assertiveness: When People Say No To be able to resist the trap of compliance techniques, one must: Be vigilant. Not feel indebted by the norm of reciprocity. Compliance techniques work smoothly only if they are hidden from view.

Conformity Tendency to change perceptions, opinions, or behavior in ways that are consistent with group norms.

The Chameleon Effect

Conformity: Autokinetic Phenomenon Sherif (1935, 1937) Study of “norm formation” Dark room, pinpoint of light appears 15 feet in front of you Asked, “How far did light move?” First time, you’re alone Subsequent times, you’re with others (this is the IV)

A Classic Case of Suggestibility

Conformity: Asch Line-Matching P surrounded by 6 confederates Asked to judge length of a line IV: Confederates give correct or incorrect answer

Line Judgment Task Used in Asch’s Conformity Studies

What Did Asch’s Participants Do? Participants went along with the clearly incorrect majority 37% of the time. However, 25% of the participants NEVER conformed. Of the conformists, 50% conformed for at least half of the critical presentations. The rest conformed on an occasional basis.

Sherif’s vs. Asch’s Studies Sherif: Because of ambiguity, participants turned to each other for guidance. Maybe group was right Asch: Found self in awkward position. Obvious that group was wrong

Why Do People Conform? Informational Influence: People conform because they believe others are correct in their judgments Sherif autokinetic effect 2 heads better than one? Implications for eyewitness testimonies

Why Do People Conform? Normative Influence: People conform because they fear the consequences of appearing deviant. Asch line-matching Effects of Ostracism Cyberball “Minority Slowness Effect”

Types of Conformity Private Conformity: Changes in both overt behavior and beliefs. Sherif autokinetic effect Enduring conformity Public Conformity: Superficial change in overt behavior only. Asch line-matching If wrote answers privately, effect went away

Distinguishing Types of Conformity From Robert Baron et al., (1996) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915-927. Copyright (c) 1996 by the American Psychological Association. Adapted with permission.

Model of the Types of Conformity

Majority Influence: Group Size Conformity increases with group size -- but only up to a point. Why? Law of “diminishing returns”? Perception that others are either in “collusion” or “spineless sheep”?

Majority Influence: Awareness of Norms Conform only when know about and focus on social norms. Often misperceive what is normative. Pluralistic ignorance 1) members of a group who think that they have different perceptions, beliefs, or attitudes from the rest of the group 2) adjust their attitude

Majority Influence: Having an Ally in Dissent When there was an ally in Asch’s study, conformity dropped by almost 80%. Why does having an ally reduce majority influence on our behavior? Substantially more difficult to stand alone for one’s convictions than when one is part of even a tiny minority. Any dissent can reduce the normative pressures to conform. EVEN AN INCORRECT ALLY OR AN ALLY WITH POOR VISION SKILLS REDUCED CONFORMITY

Majority Influence and Gender Differences IV: Masculine, Feminine, or Stereotype Neutral Q’s DV: Percent agreeing w/majority response Results? Men conformed more to feminine qs Women conformed more to masculine qs No difference on neutral items