1. Chapter 7
Social Influence
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. 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

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Obedience Shock Level (mv) % obeying 0-240 (slight to very strong) 100
(intense) 88
(extreme intensity) 68
(Danger: severe shock) 65
(“XXX”)
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

25. 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

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

27. 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

28. Milgram Studies
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall