The field of social psychology generates the notion that people are social by nature.

What is Social
Influence?-Social influence refers to the efforts of others to change our attitudes, beliefs, perceptions,
or behaviors, intentionally or unintentionally. Social influence takes many forms and can been seen in
conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion.

Goals of social influence: people yield to social influence to achieve one or more of three basic goals: 1.
To choose correctly and behave effectively(to be right). 2. To gain social approval.(to be liked) 3. To
manage self-image

Categories of Social Influence

Social Norms-Rules or standards that are understood by a group and that guide behavior without the
force of laws
Conformity - Changing one’s behavior to match the responses or actions of others (no pressure
necessarily)
Compliance-Changing one’s behavior in response to a direct request

Types of Norms (norms: rules for behavior)

– explicit (written)

– implicit (unwritten)

– descriptive- what most people do

– injunctive- what should be done

Rules indicating how individuals are expected to behave in specific situations.

Descriptive norms: norms that simply indicate what most people do in a given situation (signs, laws such
as “keep off the grass,” “No swimming.”)
Injunctive norms: norms specifying what ought to be done—what is approved or disapproved behavior
in a given situation (“Don’t stare at strangers,” “Don’t arrive at parties on time.”)

Social Norms

 Social norms – rules and standards that are understood by a group and that guide behavior
without the force of laws.
 Emerge out of interaction with others
 May or may not be stated explicitly
 Sanctions are not legal but come from disapproval within social networks

Formation and Transmission of Norms

Formation
1. Value to society – importance of reinforcement e.g., dress code for JG SOM
2. Function – survival, e.g., sibling incest avoidance
Transmission
-Active instruction, Demonstrations, Storytelling, rituals, Nonverbal behavior
(Research on social norms)

A. Sherif's studies of Norm formation. People looked at stationary light - and then
formed a group consensus as to how far the light moved. Illustrated power of
suggestibility. Later showed a suggestion could continue through five or more
generations of participants.

Sherif (1936) • Participants were in a dark room • A point of light was shown on the wall •
Asked: How far did the light move? • In reality, it doesn’t move at all, but the situation is
ambiguous. • Autokinetic Illusion: A point of light will appear to move in a dark room. • This is
an ambiguous, difficult task! • Participants first reported how far they thought the light moved
while they were alone, and then made their judgments around other judging participants. •
Participants can easily doubt their own judgment (“Was it really 1 inch, or was it 2?? I don’t
know.

Have real-life examples of the power of suggestibility - suicides and auto accidents go
up after a prominent person commits suicide.

Within days of the release of 13 Reasons Why, Netflix’s teen-oriented drama about a high-school
student who takes her own life, the show was being loudly criticized by suicide-prevention experts, who
were concerned it could lead to a suicide-contagion effect and a spate of copycat attempts. Now,
research published at the end of July argues that those concerns may have been founded. Google
queries about suicide rose by almost 20 percent in 19 days after the show came out, representing
between 900,000 and 1.5 million more searches than usual regarding the subject.
The study, published at JAMA Internal Medicine, used Google Trends to monitor certain search terms
regarding the subject of suicide, like “how to commit suicide,” “suicide hotline number,” and “teen
suicide.” Seventeen out of the top 20 searches were significantly elevated, and the biggest increases
came with terms related to suicidal thoughts and ideation, like “how to kill yourself.” The time period for
searches ended on April 18 to preclude the suicide of the former NFL player Aaron Hernandez, which
could have influenced data, and any searches related to the movie Suicide Squad were discounted.

One of the biggest concerns among psychologists and educators was that the show might spark a
contagion effect, where increased coverage of suicide in the media leads to a related increase in suicide
attempts.

Norm Violations Why don’t people always behave in a normative manner? - Normative Focus Theory
(Cialdini et al., 1990) - Only norms that are salient (come to mind easily) due to recent activation or
activation by the situation, will guide behavior.

Example of norm violation

1.Woman battles for toilet in Akshay Kumar movie but India’s reality is different
Women have limited decision-making powers in the construction of toilets in homes,
according to a 2016 study conducted in Puri, a coastal Odisha district, by researchers at the
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

What is conformity?
Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in belief or behavior in order to fit in with a
group.
This change is in response to real (involving the physical presence of others) or imagined (involving the
pressure of social norms / expectations) group pressure.
Conformity can also be simply defined as “yielding to group pressures” (Crutchfield, 1955). Group
pressure may take different forms, for example bullying, persuasion, teasing, criticism, etc. Conformity is
also known as majority influence (or group pressure).
The term conformity is often used to indicate an agreement to the majority position, brought about either
by a desire to ‘fit in’ or be liked (normative) or because of a desire to be correct (informational), or simply
to conform to a social role (identification).
Jenness (1932) was the first psychologist to study conformity. His experiment was an ambiguous
situation involving a glass bottle filled with beans. He asked participants individually to estimate how
many beans the bottle contained. Jenness then put the group in a room with the bottle, and asked them to
provide a group estimate through discussion.
Participants were then asked to estimate the number on their own again to find whether their initial
estimates had altered based on the influence of the majority. Jenness then interviewed the participants
individually again, and asked if they would like to change their original estimates, or stay with the group's
estimate. Almost all changed their individual guesses to be closer to the group estimate.
However, perhaps the most famous conformity experiment was by Solomon Asch (1951) and his line
judgment experiment.

Kelman (1958) distinguished between three different types of conformity:

A. Compliance. Publicly acting in accord with social pressure while privately

disagreeing. This term best describes the behavior of a person who is motivated to
gain reward or avoid punishment. On the level of compliance, many experimenters
see little difference between animals and humans, because all organisms respond to
rewards and punishments.

B. Identification. As with compliance, we do not behave in a particular way because

such behavior is intrinsically satisfying. Rather, we adopt a particular behavior
because it puts us in a satisfying relationship to the person or persons with whom we
are identifying. We do come to believe in the opinions and values we adopt, though
not very strongly. We want to be like some particular person.
EX: Want to be just like your father.

C. Internalization (or acceptance). Both acting and believing in accord with social
pressure. This is the most permanent, deeply rooted response to social influence.
Internalization is motivated by a desire to be right. If the person who provides the
influence is perceived to be trustworthy and of good judgment, we accept the belief he
or she advocates and we integrate it into our belief system.

Man (1969) identified an additional type of conformity:

Ingratiational
This is when a person conforms to impress or gain favor/acceptance from other
people.
It is similar to normative influence, but is motivated by the need for social rewards
rather than the threat of rejection, i.e., group pressure does not enter the decision to
conform.

D. Comparison of the three:

1. Compliance is the least enduring and has the least effect on the individual, because
people comply merely to gain reward or to avoid punishment. Rewards and
punishments are very important means to get people to learn and to perform specific
activities but are limited as techniques of social influence because they must be ever
present to be effective - unless the individual discovers some additional reason for
continuing the behavior. (???)

2. Continuous reward or punishment is not necessary for identification. All that is

needed is the individual's desire to be like that person. You will continue to hold
beliefs similar to the SO as long as he remains important to you, he still holds the
same beliefs, and those beliefs are not challenged by counter-opinions that are more
convincing. If the SOs beliefs change or he becomes less important to you, your
beliefs can change. They can also change if people who are more important to you
express different beliefs. The effect of identification can also be dissipated by a desire
to be right.

3. Internalization is the most permanent response to social influence because your

motivation to be right is a powerful and self-sustaining force that does not depend on
constant surveillance (as does compliance), or on your continued esteem for another
person or group (as does identification).
4. In compliance, the important component is power -the power of the influencer to
dole out rewards and punishments. In identification, the crucial component
is attractiveness - the attractiveness of the person with whom we identify. Because we
identify with the model, we want to hold the same opinions that the model holds. In
internalization, the crucial component is credibility - the credibility of the person who
supplies the information

5. Any of the three can determine behavior. In the Asch studies, it seems obvious the
subjects were complying with the unanimous opinion of the group in order to avoid
the punishment of ridicule or rejection. If either identification or internalization had
been involved, the conforming behavior would have persisted in private (NOTE:
Subjects gave different answers when responses were not public.)

6. Circumstances can increase the permanence of conformity produced by compliance

or identification. While complying, we might discover something about our actions, or
about the consequences of our actions, that makes it worthwhile to continue the
behavior even after the original reason for compliance is no longer forthcoming. For
example, people came to obey speeding laws even after enforcement was lessened
because they liked the less hectic pace.
3. Classic studies

B. Asch's studies of group pressure. Asch believed intelligent people would not conform when they could readily
see the truth for themselves. Showed people lines - a third of the time subjects were willing to go against their better
judgment and agree with the group. About 75% went with the group at least once!

Asch found that three different kinds of reactions had contributed to the conformity.

1. Distortion of perception. A number of subjects said they were not aware their estimates had been
distorted by the majority. They came to see the rigged majority estimates as correct.
2. Distortion of judgment. Most of the subjects who yielded to the majority concluded their own
perceptions were inaccurate. Lacking confidence in their own observations, they reported not what they
saw but what they felt must be correct.
3. Distortion of action. A number of subjects admitted that they had not reported what they had in fact
seen. They said they had yielded so as not to appear different or stupid in the eyes of other group
members.
Crutchfield did a similar study with military officers. 46% of the time they voted with the group!

C. Milgram's obedience experiments. In the above, there was no explicit pressure to conform. Milgram did his
electric shock studies. (***Describe experiment - read p. 245 of Myers.) 63% went to the maximum shock level.

These studies show compliance can take precedence over one's own moral senses. Evil situations have
enormous corrupting power. Fragmenting evil makes it even more effective.

We tend to make the fundamental attribution error when looking at such things - but Milgram said
"The most fundamental lesson of our study is that ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without
any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process."

Conformity to Social Roles

Social roles are the part people play as members of a social group (e.g. student, teacher, policeman etc). There is
considerable pressure to conform to the expectations of a social role. Conforming to a social role is called
identification.

Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Experiment (AO1)

Zimbardo wanted to investigate how readily people would conform to the social roles of guard and
prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life.
Procedure: To study the roles people play in prison situations, Zimbardo converted a basement of the
Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. He advertised for students to play the roles
of prisoners and guards for a fortnight. Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of
prisoner or guard in a simulated prison environment.

Prisoners were issued a uniform, and referred to by their number only. Guards were issued a khaki
uniform, together with whistles, handcuffs and dark glasses, to make eye contact with prisoners
impossible. The guards worked shifts of eight hours each (the other guards remained on call). No
physical violence was permitted.
Zimbardo observed the behavior of the prisoners and guards (as a researcher), and also acted as prison
warden.
Findings: Within a very short time both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, with the
guards adopting theirs quickly and easily. Within hours of beginning the experiment some guards began
to harass prisoners. They behaved in a brutal and sadistic manner, apparently enjoying it. Other guards
joined in, and other prisoners were also tormented.
The prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behavior too. They talked about prison issues a great deal of
the time. They ‘told tales’ on each other to the guards. They started taking the prison rules very
seriously, and some even began siding with the guards against prisoners who did not obey the rules.
As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive and assertive. They
demanded ever greater obedience from the prisoners. The prisoners were dependent on the guards for
everything so tried to find ways to please the guards, such as telling tales on fellow
prisoners.

Evaluation of Zimbardo's Study

Demand characteristics could explain the findings of the study. Most of the guards later claimed they
were simply acting. Because the guards and prisoners were playing a role their behaviour may not be
influenced by the same factors which affect behavior in real life. This means the studies findings cannot
be reasonably generalized to real life, such as prison settings. I.e the study has low ecological validity.
The study may also lack population validity as the sample comprised US male students. The studies
findings cannot be applied to female prisons or those from other countries. For example, America is an
individualist culture (were people are generally less conforming) and the results maybe different in
collectivist cultures (such as Asian countries).
A strength of the study is that it has altered the way US prisons are run. For example, juveniles accused of federal
crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners (due to the risk of violence against them).
The study has received many ethical criticisms, including lack of fully informed consent by participants as Zimbardo
himself did not know what would happen in the experiment (it was unpredictable). Also, the prisoners did not
consent to being 'arrested' at home.

Also, participants playing the role of prisoners were not protected from psychological harm, experiencing incidents
of humiliation and distress. For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable
bursts of screaming, crying and anger. However, in Zimbardo's defence the emotional distress experienced by the
prisoners could not have been predicted from the outset. In addition Zimbardo did conduct debriefing sessions for
several years afterwards and concluded they were no lasting negative effects.

Another strength of the study is that the harmful treatment of participant led to the formal recognition of ethical
guidelines. Studies must now gain ethical approval before they are conducted. An ethics committee review
whether the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in the light of possible risk of physical or psychological
harm. They may request researchers make changes to the studies design or procedure, or in extreme cases deny
approval of the study altogether.

When I was in Std. 12th, I was left amazed at the level of mindless conformity among my
classmates on the issue of career selection. All my classmates ( science students ) wanted
to become either an engineer or a doctor. As if nothing else exists in the universe. India
might be requiring talent and manpower in basic sciences,journalism, and countless other
fields but sorry, these are not in fashion. Every Tom, Dick , and Harry with no exception
wanted to go for either of these two careers; individual tastes, capabilities and interests be
damned

Conformity in daily life:

1. Indian education
2. Career choice after 12th –
3. Conformity as a girl
4. Fair and lovely
5.
6. Conformity in mean girls
Who conform?

 Low self-esteem
 High need for social support or approval
 Need for self-control
 Low IQ
 High anxiety
 Feelings of self-blame and insecurity in the group
 Feelings of inferiority
 Cohesiveness: the factors that bind group members together into a coherent social entity and
the extent that we want to belong to it.
 Group size
 Norms (but we follow injunctive norms only to the extent that they are salient—the focal point
for persons involved at the time the behavior occurs—called normative focus theory).
 Group Size
 Group Unanimity
 Expertise and Status
 Culture
 Gender
 Difficulty of the Task
 Anonymity
 Situational norms guide behavior in a certain situation or environment and can be activated in
an automatic manner.

 Study by Aarts & Dijksterhuis (2003) where participants viewed images of library or railway
station, some told they would later visit the site/some not, then asked to read a list of words
aloud. Lowered their voices in the expect-to-visit library condition.

Cultural Differences-Smith, Bond and Kagitcibasi (2006)

 Surveyed conformity studies that used Asch’s paradigm/variant.

 Level of conformity ranged from 14% among Belgian students (Doms, 1983) to a high of 58%
among Indian teachers in Fiji (Chandra, 1973).
 Conformity was lower among participants from individualist cultures in North America and
north-western Europe (25.3%) than collectivist cultures in Africa, Asia, Oceania and South
America (37.1%)
 Group size-Found that as the unanimous group increased from one person to two, three, four,
eight, ten and fifteen, the conformity rate increased and then decreased: 3, 13, 33, 35, 32, 31
per cent.
 Findings suggest conformity reaches its full strength with a 3-5 person majority and additional
members have little effect.

 Group unanimity -Conformity is greatly reduced if the majority is not unanimous.

 Asch found that a correct supporter reduced conformity from 33 to 5.5 per cent.
 Any lack of unanimity seems to be effective.
  Asch found that a non-conformist who was even more wildly incorrect than the majority was
equally effective.

India is actually more conformist than western countries but less than asian countries like china and
japan because of homogeneous composition of the country. Most conformist country of the world is
not India but rather North korea because its dicatorship. While most non conformist country is
indeed the USA and some european countries like UK. In India if you do anything differently people
start thinking you as weird and will avoid you and even would start hating you. Ive been to many
countries but level of conformity in India is higher on average. Being a non conformist anywhere is
hard but its harder in India as there are so many traditions. Unless you become a doctor or engineer
people judge you as lazy.
If India were a little bit easy on non conformists it would have been a richer, more developed nation
with more innovations. Most people in India are doped with cricket,Bollywood so much that they
take anything which it gives to them.
This level of conformity comes because of caste system and being hyper consciousness of other
persons perception. If there wasnt so much pressure of being married we would be seeing more
inventions and innovations just like more developed countries as early marriage kills the spirit of
innovation and
new ideas.

Caste system and conformity

caste system forces people to act in a way which conforms to caste.
Priest class acts as priests while untouchable class are forced to act in a certain way. So despite
having so much diversity most people try to conform and conformity is detrimental to innovation so
we can say caste system hindered innovation as it prevents free thinking.

What increases or decreases conformity?

A. Unanimity. Any puncturing of unanimity makes it easier to defy the group (even if the other defier is
an idiot!). In fact, even if one other person gives an incorrect response that is different from the error
the others are making (i.e. he says A, the group says B, and the right answer is C) conformity drops
sharply. A fellow dissenter exerts a powerful freeing effect from the influence of the majority. Milgram
found that when teacher/confederates disobeyed, only 10% of the subjects delivered the maximum
shock.
B. Group size - but the group needn't be that big. Groups of 3 people are about as influential as groups
of 16.
C. Cohesiveness. The more attracted individuals are to the group, the more likely they are to conform to
its dictates.
D. Status (of the person who is being asked to obey). There are different theories about the effect of
status on conformity. George C. Homans takes the view that both high and low status individuals
conform less than those intermediate in status. He reasons that one deviation is unlikely to jeopardize
the position of a high status person, and that low status people have little to lose by nonconformity. But
for persons of intermediate status, the situation is different; they lack the standing of the high status
person, and unlike the low status person, they have plenty of room for downward mobility. Some
research confirms this, but other research does not.
Milgram found lower status types obeyed orders more readily. Conversely, higher status people, or
those who feel they are more competent at the task in question, are more likely to resist group
pressure.
E. Self esteem. Individuals who have a generally low opinion of themselves are far more likely to yield to
group pressure than those with high self-esteem.
F. Culture. Norwegians conform more than the French. Japanese students are more willing to take a
minority position than American Students.
E. Publicity and surveillance. The greater the publicity and surveillance associated with the behavior, the
greater the conformity. Where behavior is difficult to monitor, the effectiveness of social sanctions is
weakened. In public settings, we are likely to experience pressures for compliance although private
acceptance may be absent.
F. Prior commitment. Once people have given an answer, they are much more likely to stick with it than
when they hear others first. Those who state own opinions first are much less open to influence. Don't
want to appear wishy-washy.
G. Emotional distance of the victim. Milgram found closer they physically were to the victim, less likely
they were to obey. (e.g. sometimes the victim was in another room, sometimes in the same room, and
sometimes the teacher actually had to press the victim's arm against the shocker). Vividly witnessing the
suffering of others makes it more difficult to continue inflicting pain on them.
In another variation on this theme, the subject did not have to press the shock lever himself but was
assigned the subsidiary role of helping another teacher. Over 90% of the subjects went to the maximum
level. It seems that most were quite willing to participate in this situation as long as they were not the
ones who inflicted the pain.
NOTE: Has relevance for the Kurt Waldheim situation, and others.
NOTE: This has real implications in the nuclear age, where you can kill people thousands of miles away.
It is easy to be indifferent to the plight of innocent victims. Somebody suggested that, before the
president could issue orders to use nuclear weapons, he should first have to kill the man holding the box
- so that s/he is aware of the reality of death.
H. Legitimacy of authority. We have been conditioned to believe that scientists are responsible,
benevolent people of high integrity. When an "assistant" took over in the Milgram experiments,
compliance dropped to 20%. When studies were done in Bridgeport, Connecticut rather than at Yale,
only 48% delivered the maximum shock.
A study of nurses found almost universal compliance with drs. orders, even when they were told to give
overdoses.
I. Closeness of authority. When orders were given by telephone, the number of fully obedient subjects
dropped to 25%.
J. Personality. Demonstrated effect has been very small. However, studies have tended to look at similar
people in strong situations. Dissimilar people in weak situations may show more differences. i.e. put
Mother Theresa and Charles Manson together in an everyday situation, and personality may play a more
prominent role.
K. Difficulty and ambiguity. The more difficult the task or the more ambiguous the stimulus, the greater
the conformity. Where the task is difficult, we are more likely to look to others as sources of information
regarding appropriate courses of action.
L. Allocation of resources. Equitable sharing of resources heightens people's tendency to comply and
requires less surveillance to produce compliance.
M. Guilt. When we commit a wrong, we feel guilty. We seek to atone by complying with another
person's wishes. Guilty people seek out ways to lessen their guilt by voluntarily engaging in a good deed.
However, a desire for restitution does not seem to be the reason why. A person who does harm may be
even more inclined to help someone who is not the victim. Continued contact with the victim apparently
results in uncomfortable feelings of obligation.
• Construal of Disagreement (Ross et al., 1976) • If there is a good reason for the majority view to differ
from yours, you don’t feel pressure to conform. • Example: If others have an incentive for taking their
stance.

4. Why conform?

A. Informational influence - Behavior of others might convince us that our original

judgment was incorrect. The group's behavior provides valuable info about what is
expected.

B. Wish to avoid punishment (such as rejection or ridicule) or gain rewards. We are

concerned about our social image and outcomes.

C. Groups create barriers to independent behavior.

1. Risk of disapproval from other group members. By deviating too far, individuals
risk rejection.

2. Lack of perceived alternatives. A member may not realize he has any other choice
but conformity. (In Milgram experiments, subjects were told they had no other
choice.)

3. Fear of disrupting the group's operations. People fear independence will hamper the
attainment of group goals.

4. Absence of communication among group members. Lacking information that others

might join in the nonconforming action, they avoid going out on a limb.

5. No feeling of responsibility for group outcomes. Members who conform may cause
a group to fail to meet its objectives. They hesitate to take the initiative to turn the
situation around, especially if they do not feel personally responsible for the group's
success or failure.

6. A sense of powerlessness. If a person feels that he cannot change the situation, he is

unlikely to try anything new. The apathy becomes self-fulfilling. No one tries
anything

Two Main Types of Conformity

1. Informational Social Influence • Other people can be useful sources of information about what is
appropriate in a given situation •
2. Normative Social Influence • Sometimes we want to be accepted by others, so we do what they do
because going against them would cause conflict, disapproval, or judgment

3.Referent Informational Influence

 Pressure to conform with a group norm that defines oneself as a group member.

 Comes from social identity theory.

 People conform because they are group members, not to validate physical reality or to avoid
social disapproval.

 People do not conform to other people but to a NORM: other people act as a source of
information about the appropriate in group norm.

 Because the norm is an internalised representation, people can conform to it in the absence of
surveillance.

Informational- Sometimes, situations are ambiguous. • You need to look to others to figure out the best
way to act in an unclear situation.

Sherif (1936) • Participants were in a dark room • A point of light was shown on the wall • Asked: How
far did the light move? • In reality, it doesn’t move at all, but the situation is ambiguous. • Autokinetic
Illusion: A point of light will appear to move in a dark room. • This is an ambiguous, difficult task! •
Participants first reported how far they thought the light moved while they were alone, and then made
their judgments around other judging participants. • Participants can easily doubt their own judgment
(“Was it really 1 inch, or was it 2?? I don’t know

Sherif (1936) • People’s judgments converged over time! • Individual judgments converged towards a
group norm • Ambiguous situation = People used other answers as a source of help/information.

Based on the desire to be correct (or accurate). • We can use other people’s knowledge as a source of
info. • When is informational social influence more likely? • Situation is ambiguous/difficult. • These are
the situations when we feel low in knowledge/ competence about the topic, so we need help.

Normative• Peer Pressure! • This is when you use others’ behavior/comments as a guide for how to fit
in and avoid disapproval. • Guides behavior to avoid social punishment

This is conformity based on the desire to be liked or socially accepted when the situation is clear/
unambiguous but one’s own beliefs conflict with those of the group. Line Judgment Study (Asch, 1956) •
Very easy (Judge whether two lines are the same length) • One true participant in a group of
confederates • After a couple of rounds, the confederates start to give an (obviously) wrong answer
Overall, participants conformed on 1/3 of the “critical trials,” and 75% of participants conformed at least
once!

Sherif: Informational Social Influence • Difficult task; unsure of answer • Ambiguous • Actually use
others’ responses to form an opinion • Actually believe what others say & internalize it

• Asch: Normative Social Influence • Clear/easy task; sure of answer • Not ambiguous • Own beliefs
clearly conflict with those of the group • Conform on the outside, but not on the inside

Very rare to find a situation in which only one is at work. • However, sometimes one is more important.

Informational influence leads to internalization (private acceptance) of the majority opinion/behavior •

You actually change your attitude/belief • Normative influence leads to temporary public compliance
with the majority opinion/behavior • Your attitude remains the same, you just behave inconsistently
with your attitude for the moment

2. Informational Social Influence and Sherif’s Conformity Experiment

• Informational social influence
- the influence of other people that results from taking their comments or actions as a source of
information as to what is correct or proper

3. Normative Social Influence and Asch’s Conformity Experiment

• Normative social influence - the influence of other people that comes from the desire to avoid
their disapproval, harsh judgments, and other social sanctions.

everyone buying product so should you

 • Compliance- getting people to say yes to a request

Principles underlying compliance

– friendship/liking- “she seems genuine and nice”(ellen)

– commitment/consistency- “I’m committed to the cause”

– scarcity- “only one left”

– reciprocity- “she helped me so I should return favor”

– consensus - “everyone else is doing it”

– authority- “he seems legitimate”

Compliance Techniques

• Tactics based on liking

– ingratiation- enhance self or flatter target

– personal appeals - appeal to feelings of loyalty, friendship

• Tactics based on commitment/consistency

– foot-in-the-door- small request followed by larger one

– lowballing- changing the deal midstream

• Tactics based on reciprocity

– door-in-the-face- large request followed by smaller one

– “that’s not all”- sweeten the deal midstream

– Tactics based on scarcity

– playing hard to get- suggesting item is scarce (valuable)

– deadline technique- limited time to buy

• Rational Persuasion
 – Elaboration-Likelihood Model

• Tactics based on mood

– Negative mood

• negative state relief hypothesis - The idea that people engage in certain actions,
such as agreeing to a request, in order to relieve negative feelings and to feel
better about themselves

– good mood- prime happy thoughts (AIM model)

• Inspirational appeals

Compliance occurs when we are influenced via a direct attempt by someone without authority/power
over us. • The authority/power of the requester is what differentiates obedience and compliance. •
Three main types • Reason-Based • Emotion-Based • Norm-Based

. Reciprocal Concessions • AKA “Door-In-The-Face” • Requesting a very large favor that you know the
target will decline, and then following it up with a more modest request for what you really want •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqvYJ23AAqI • NOTE: It has to be the REQUESTER who makes a
concession! You can’t just follow up someone else’s big request with a separate smaller request. You
have to seem like you are sacrificing something.

Door-In-The-Face • Cialdini et al. (1975) • Condition 1: Chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a

zoo day trip? • Condition 2: Counsel juvenile delinquents 2 hours/week for 2 years? followed by
Chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a zoo day trip? • Percent who agreed to chaperone: 17%
vs. 50% • The requester makes a concession, so you feel obligated to make a concession as well (from
“no” to “yes”)

REASON based- • 2. Foot-In-The-Door Technique • Make a small, initial request that virtually everyone
would agree to, and then follow it up with a larger request for what you really want •
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhGr5lVg4 R

Freedman & Fraser (1966) • Condition 1: “Will you display this large sign in your yard?” • Condition 2:
“Will you display this small sign in your window?” followed by “Will you display this large sign in your
yard? Percent who agreed to the large sign: 17% vs. 76%

Committing to the first act causes a change in your selfschema via self-perception • “If I agreed to the
first one, then I must be the kind of person who supports this cause.

3. That’s-Not-All Technique • Adding something to an original offer

Burger (1986) • Sold desserts at Santa Clara U. arts fair for the Psych Club • Condition 1: 1 cupcake + 2
cookies, $0.75 • Condition 2: 1 cupcake for $0.75... “and we’ll throw in 2 cookies!” • Percent who
purchased: 40% vs. 73% • The add-on feels like a gift • This elicits the norm of reciprocity • “If you are
offering to give me something extra, I should offer something in return...like buying.

4. “Even A Penny Helps” Technique • By legitimizing tiny contributions, you do two things: • You
invalidate the thought that someone “can’t really afford to give” • You make people feel OK about giving
what they can (someone may want to donate a little, but be too embarrassed to be seen giving such a
small amount). • This technique increases the percent of people who donate money to charities, but
doesn’t lower the amount that is typically given. • This suggests that the technique mainly works due to
Reason A

Emotion-Based • 1. Positive Mood • Increases compliance • Isen et al. (1976) • Participants got a phone
call from someone who “spent my last dime on this misdialed phone call” and requested that the
participant “dial the intended number and relay a message” • Condition 1: Simply received the phone
call • Condition 2: 20 minutes before the call, participant received a small gift • Percent who made the
call: 10% vs. up to 100%

Positive Mood & Compliance • Why does positive mood increase compliance? • 1. Construal • If you’re
happy and you feel good, you assume other people’s intentions are good • Forgas & East (2008) •
Participants watched a happy, neutral, or sad film clip • Watched a deceptive or truthful interview of an
individual who denied committing a theft • Results • Positive mood increased trust, decreased lie
detection • Negative mood decreased trust, increased lie detection

Why does positive mood increase compliance? • 2. Positive Mood Maintenance • Saying no to a request
is awkward and creates negative affect • To stay feeling good, you have to comply • Isen & Levin (1972)
• Participants given a cookie (positive mood) or not (neutral mood) • Asked if they would serve as a
confederate for a quick experiment • ½ told their role was to help the “real” participant • ½ told their
role was to harm the “real” participant • Result: Positive mood increased compliance only when the task
involved helping someone else, not hindering them.

2. Negative Mood • Increases compliance...specifically guilt • Harris et al. (1975) • Asked Catholics to
donate money to March of Dimes • Condition 1: Asked while walking into confession • Condition 2:
Asked while walking out of confession

• More donations before confession than afterward • Before, they were probably feeling more guilty

Negative Emotions & Compliance • Negative State Relief Hypothesis • Negative moods increase
compliance because doing something for someone else helps to make you feel better
Reactance • When your freedom is threatened, you experience negative arousal and try to re-assert
your freedom by engaging in the forbidden behavior. • Sort of like “acting out.” • Think back to fear
appeals. • Why might fear appeals encourage reactance?

Norm-Based • Descriptive Norms • Objective, factual description of what most people do • Example:
“Most people sleep less than 8 hours per night.” • Prescriptive Norms • What most people should do
according to some rule or tradition • Example: “People should sleep more than 8 hours per night.”

By providing information about how other people typically behave, you can elicit conformity •
Descriptive norms usually work via informational influence • Prescriptive norms usually work via
normative influence • However, they are less likely to work than descriptive norms • Descriptive = What
People Do • Prescriptive = What People Should Do

Schultz et al. (2007) • CA homeowners received messages about how much electricity they used in
previous weeks and how much the average use was in their neighborhood • Result: People who
consumed more than average started using less; people who consumed less than average started using
more • To counteract the negative effect, the info was accompanied by a smiley or frowny face to
indicate approval or disapproval

Goldstein et al. (2006) • Placed small cards in hotel rooms asking guests to reuse their towels •
Normative information on the cards was manipulated • Condition 1: No normative information •
Condition 2: “Majority of past guests have reused their towels.” • Condition 3: “Majority of past guests
who stayed in this room reused towels.” • Results: The stronger the norm info, the more compliance. •
Reuse Rates: Majority in this room > Majority > No norm

Cialdini et al. (2006) • Placed signs in Petrified Forest National Park (AZ) to stop people from taking
petrified wood with them • Different signs • Sign 1: “Many past visitors have removed the petrified
wood from the park, changing the state of the Petrified Forest. Please help stop this problem.” • Sign 2:
“The majority of past visitors have left the petrified wood in the park, preserving the natural state of the
Petrified Forest.”

• Results: Theft was 4x lower for Sign #2 than Sign #1! • When trying to change norms, people often
highlight how common it is for people to do the wrong thing... • ...but this encourages people to
continue doing the wrong thing!! • People are very responsive to descriptive norms.

Reason-Based Approaches • Door-In-The-Face (Reciprocal Concessions) • Foot-In-The-Door • That’s-

Not-All • Even-A-Penny-Helps • Emotion-Based Approaches • Positive & negative moods both increase
compliance • Reactance • Norm-Based Approaches • Descriptive Norms • Prescriptive Norms
Obedience- change behavior in response to direct orders from authority (most direct form)

• Milgram’s Obedience Study

– Participants told to deliver increasing levels of shock to a “learner” each time he made
an error on a simple learning task.Why did so many people obey? What was wrong with
them?

Why did so many obey?

 • experimenter said he was responsible (diffusion)

• commands were gradual in nature

• participants had little time for reflection

• experimenter was perceived as an authority figure

– People believed he had the power to influence/control their behavior

Sources of Authority (Power)

Source Definition

Coercive Ability to punish or remove positive consequences

Reward Ability to provide positive or remove negative consequences

Expert Person has expertise (knowledge) not widely available

Legitimate Believe person has influence because of role.

Referent People identify with or want to be like authority figure

EVERYDAY EXAMPLES OF OBEDIENCE.

There are five main factors that may contribute to the increasing and decreasing levels of ones obedience.
In this post I will give a relevant example for each.
1. The presence of an authority figure. In schools, many teachers find that their absence from the
classroom instantly causes a eruption of noise – caused by the pupils. This is because from a young age
we have been brought up viewing teachers as a legitimate authority figure – and in the majority of cases
we will obey them. However when the physical absence of the teacher is apparent the ‘unspoken’ rules
(for example, no talking) are dismissed.
2. The power – or social position – that an individual has may affect ones willingness to obey them. For
example we are much more likely to follow an instruction given by a police officer than a lunch lady (if
the same instruction was commanded). This willingness to obey is usually subconscious and mostly
related to the appearance of the individual.
3. The influence of peers – and whether or not they obey. This factor is guaranteed to be observed at any
football match. When in a group of a large number peoples actions may change significantly as apposed
to if they were alone. An example of this may be football related violence, or racist, bigoted chants that
may be heard at a game. I believe that this is to do with the sense of anonymity created from being in a
large group.
4. An individuals personality has a vital role in their willingness to obey. For example a medical student
on a night out may avoid smoking although his other peers are participating and encouraging him to. This
is due to the students own knowledge and self-confidence in his actions.
5. Someones personal responsibility – regarding the action – may affect their own willingness to conform
to an instruction. In most cases this factor would usually be relevant if the instruction caused a negative
affect on another individual. An example for this factor would be, if a person was ordered to eat a certain
food (pork) they may refrain against it due to their own personal religious beliefs.