1. Compliance
Type of social influence in which a person changes attitudes or behavior in response to another’s direct request
Six principles involved in getting people to comply with requests
Friendship/Liking
Commitment and Consistency
Scarcity
Reciprocity
Social Validation
Appeals to Authority

2. Compliance Friendship/Liking
Ingratiation: If someone likes you, they are more apt to agree with your request
Self-enhancement: If you look good, use appealing nonverbal behavior, people will come to like your request as well! (think of classical conditioning)
Enhancing the other: flattery will get you places; gifts and favors work too

3. Compliance Commitment and Consistency
Once we make a choice or take a stand, we encounter pressure to behave consistently with that commitment
Foot-in-the-door
Lowballing
Bait-and-switch
Effortful commitment
Small request => granted => followed by larger (target) request
You agree to attractive offer => followed by a less attractive offer => you feel inclined to agree
Items are on sale that are out of stock/unavailable or of obviously poor quality => you go find the ones that are in stock or of better quality (everyone must've had this happen to them at nationwide chains; no names please)
Hazing
(Aronson study of people in an embarrassing situation)

4. Effortful Commitment Aronson & colleagues
Female participants came to the lab to join a ‘discussion group’
Control participants: Asked to read a neutral passage to the male experimenter
High-Effort participants: Asked to read an explicit passage from an erotic novel
Sex Discussion Screening (Aronson & Mills 1959) > Female students at the University of Minnesota are told of an interesting class that engages in group discussions about sex. Sounds enticing ... who wouldn't want to take the class? However, there's a screening test to make sure you are mature enough to participate in such discussions. The different kinds of screenings are tabulated below. After the lengthy screening, the students are allowed to listen in on a discussion being conducted by the group they would be joining. They are led to believe that they are listening to live dialogue, but it was actually a prerecorded tape consisting of the dullest dialogue humanly possible. The secondary sexual characteristics of insects. Is that the thorax or the abdomen? Blah blah blah. After the listening, the students fill out a questionnaire rating how much they liked what they just heard. conditionscreening processdiscussion ratingcontrolrecite sexually neutral words, like "car", in front of male experimenterso-so, or boringmildly embarrassingrecite sexually mild words (e.g. "prostitute" and "virgin") in front of male experimenterso-so, or boringextremely embarrassingrecite raunchy X-rated Henry Miller literature in front of a male experimenterit was incredibly fascinating Those poor females who recited Henry Miller decided that the boring discussion was actually interesting. They changed their attitude about the ends to justify the means.

5. Effortful Commitment Aronson & colleagues
They discover that the group is BORING!
High-effort participants rated the discussion group as
more interesting
more fun
they were more willing to come back to the group
than the control participants

6. Compliance
Scarcity
Opportunities seem more valuable when they are less available
Limited number—Item is rare and hard-to-get
Limited-time offer
See also reactance!

7. Compliance Reciprocity
We should try to repay what another has provided us
Door-in-the-face
That’s not all
Door-in-the-face: Large request => denied => followed by the smaller (target) request. (Used effectively on Tamara by a Girl Scout) That's not all: Offer coupled with supposed added benefits (get two; get the additional carpet cleaner) before you've decided to commit to offer
Foot-in-mouth: Target gets you to feel like you're in a relationship => you feel more obliged to comply with subsequent request

8. Compliance Social Validation
We view a behavior as correct in a given situation to the extent we see others performing that behavior
Bystander intervention
Canned laughter etc.
Charity telethons

9. Compliance Appeals to Authority Authority provides benefits to society
Automatic compliance with authority can cause trouble
Titles
Material culture
Experts agree…

10. Obedience
Type of social influence in which a person obeys a direct order from another to perform an action
Nazi Germany—Many people were simply following orders. Is this legitimate? Are normal people capable of true evil when ‘following orders’?
Blind obedience can also be seen in cases where people explain their actions that had horrific consequences as simply a matter of "following orders." This has been the explanation given for many war crimes, including people's behavior during the Nazi regime in Germany. Clearly, many people associated with the Nazis in Germany were simply evil and nasty, esp. Hitler himself. However, just as horrific were the actions committed by people who were just "following orders" or simply "doing what they were told." People who we would consider quite normal on any measure you would like to take can do very nasty things, when given the appropriate orders.

11. Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiments
40 males, aged 20 to 50, each paid $4.50 for a study on learning and memory
Participant is the ‘teacher’— teach a list of word pairs to the ‘learner’ and shock him in increasing levels if he gets it wrong
Milgram's Obedience Study
One of the most famous studies in psychology, if not the most famous, was conducted by Stanley Milgram in the early 1960s. Milgram was interested in obedience and conformity. Men were put in the position of being the teacher to another person (the learner). The teacher's task was to get the other person to learn a series of word associations. For each incorrect response, the teacher was to administer a shock to the learner with the flip of a switch. The learner was actually a confederate of the experimenter, and did not receive any of the shocks that the teacher believed were administered. The shocks began at 15 volts (indicated as "slight shock"), and got increasingly higher to an end of 450 volts (indicated as "XXX"). As the shock increased, the learner complained of pain, exclaimed his distress, asked to be released, pounded on the wall to get out, then stopped all activity. If the teacher suggested that the experiment end, the experimenter instructed the teacher to continue, and if necessary the experimenter said "the responsibility is mine, please continue."
Given this situation, most people believed that only a few teachers would administer shocks all the way to the end, that is would administer 450 volt shock, esp. given the learner's protesting. Indeed, Milgram himself thought that few people would obey the experimenter in this situation. Milgram's original intention was for this situation to be a control condition for further experimentation. Thus, most people hearing a description of the situation underestimated the influence of the situation (in this case, the expermenter's commands) on an individual's behavior.
There were 40 people in Milgram's study. How many do you think continued to administer shocks to the learner to the point that they did administer the 450 volt shock? A: 26 of the 40 people, or 68%, administered the 450 volt shock.
Now, some subjects voiced their objections to the shocks, but they continued to obey the experimenter and administer the shocks (flip the switch). Generally, it doesn't matter to the person receiving punishment that the person giving punishment thinks the punishment isn't a good idea. All that matters is that the is not given. This is the "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you...." idea to which one might respond "yeah, sure!"
This study was done in an established laboratory by a person with a white lab coat, which definitely created an atmosphere of authority. Often when people told they are the representative of an authority they will act as if their actions have already been determined by the authority's instructions. The people simply see themselves as the agents of the authority. That is, they continue to perform nasty actions, because they are just following orders.
Milgram did several variations on this study. He varied where the study was done, how much distance there was between the teacher and the learner, how much distance between the teacher and the experimenter, etc. Milgram found that obedience decreased when (a) the authority figure or authoritative institution is not present, (b) the connection between the action and the outcome is more salient, and when there is a cue for disobedience (either making the obedience norm less accessible, or the social responsibility norm more accessible). He found obedience increased when people feel less responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Milgram's study would not be allowed today, as it violates current ethical guidelines for experimentation with people.

13. Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiments
At certain levels, the ‘teacher’ hears the ‘learner’ protest
If the ‘teacher’ asks to end the experiment, the experimenter responds with a verbal prod
How far would you go? How far do you think the average person would go?
Milgram asked this question of psychiatrists, college-students, adults
Average: 135 volts and then refuse, No one expected to go beyond 300 volts, no one expected the average person to go to XXX on the shock panel

14. Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiments
Every participant went to 300 volts
26 participants — 65% — went all the way to 450 volts (“X X X”)
Many showed signs of considerable distress
Participants were carefully debriefed and follow-ups conducted

15. Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiments
Replications
Distance from participant to ‘learner’
Distance from participant to experimenter
Outside the Yale University setting
Women, other cultures
Autonomy of participant

16. What Breeds Obedience? Emotional Distance of the Victim
If ‘learner’ is in same room, full obedience drops to 40%
If ‘teacher’ has to hold ‘learner’s’ hand to a shock plate, full obedience drops to 30%
Depersonalization

17. What Breeds Obedience? Closeness and Legitimacy of Authority
If experimenter gives commands by phone, full obedience drops to 21%
If experimenter leaves, and a ‘clerk’ decided that the shock should be increased, 80% of participants defied the illegitimate authority

18. What Breeds Obedience? Institutional Authority
Authority of Yale University influenced volunteers
Milgram replicated the experiment in Bridgeport, Connecticut – 48% fully obeyed

19. What Breeds Obedience?
Disobedience of a fellow group member liberates us from obedience
If another person defied the experimenter, only 10% of Milgram’s participants fully obeyed

20. Intense Indoctrination: Cults
What breeds the extreme obedience we find in a cult?

21. Intense Indoctrination: Cults
Compliance breeds acceptance
Foot-in-the-door
Charismatic leader
Vivid, appealing message
Potential converts are often at a turning point in their lives
Isolation from outside influences
Social validation