Social Psychology Midterm #3

social influence

the exercise of social power by a person.or group to change the attitudes or behavior of others

what is the power of situations of social influence

situations contain a variety of subtle yet powerful forces that direct and constrain behavior
- we often fail to appreciate these forces (fundamental attribution error)

conformity

yielding to perceived group pressure by copying the behavior and beliefs of others
- pressure may be real OR imagined

social norms

expected standard of behavior established and enforced by a group (can be informal or formal rules)

local norms

social norms that arise in a particular situation (ex: a friend groups' inside jokes)

global norms

social norms that pervade cultural or social context (ex: how to behave in a classroom)

Why do we conform to group norms? (2 reasons)

1. we want to be right (informational social influence)
2. we want to be liked (normative social influence)

informational social influence

conformity out of a desire to gain information (ex: do I order at table or in line? waited for next person to come in and order to conform and model their behavior)

the 3 instances that cause informational social influence

1. uncertainty is high; desire to gain info is high
2. situation is a crisis
3. others are experts

what is used as a guide in informational social influence?

the behavior of others

informational social influence research example

- participants asked how far red dot moved but they were all unable to tell; the dot was not actually moving at all (illusion)
- participants estimates converged over trials

informational social influence research example REPLICATION

Stage 1: private indv. judgement
Stage 2: public group judgements
Stage 3: private indv. judgement
**informational social influence persists even in private settings

normative social influence

conformity out of a desire to gain rewards and avoid punishments (outcome dependence)

when does normative social influence arise (3 reasons)

1. when "objectively" correct behavior is obvious
2. when the dominant behavior pattern shown by most people (the majority) produces conformity
3. we conform out of a desire to be liked out to avoid social punishments

normative social influence research example

- brought 5 confederates and 1P into a lab
- all made similar judgements of lune lengths, P sat in 5th chair
- most people conformed at least once
- only 25% never conformed
- most conformed 1-3 times

what are two factors that influence conformity

1. group size
2. group cohesiveness

group size on conformity

larger group = more conformity; conformity pressures peak at about 4-5 people

group cohesiveness on conformity

when ALL answers are the same, much more group conformity pressures compared with having at least one deflector

3 factors of social influence

1. conformity
2. compliance
3. obedience

compliance

publicly acting in accord with a direct request; trying to get "our way"
- target recognizes that he or she is being urged to respond in a certain way

external compliance

acquiescing to a request despite disagreeing with it

internal compliance (internalization)

both acting and believing in line with a specific request

mindless compliance

following requests/norms without deliberating
- we conform to requests not bc we think meaningfully abt them, but bc we don't

what can internalized norms act as?

heuristics

research example of mindless compliance

- photocopier line-jumping
- long line, confederate asks to cit second-next in line
3 conditions:
1. simple request
2. request and excuse
2. mindless compliance (ex: I need to make copies because I need to make copies)
- 60% compliance with request
- 95% compliance with poor excuse and request
- 95% compliance with repetition and request (treated same!)

2 human motivations that facilitate compliance

1. consistency motives
2. reciprocity motives

consistency motives

we like to see ourselves behaving consistently (dissonance) (inconsistency can be aversive)

2 techniques for consistency motives

1. foot-in-the-door technique
2. low-balling (or bait and switch) technique

foot-in-the-door technique

- small request -> acceptance -> change in self-definition (/self-perception)
- large request later -> accepted bc of change in self-definition (/self-perception)

research example of foot-in-the-door technique

experimenters went door to door
- Ps asked to complete small survey abt appliances first
- 50% likely to comply to kitchen being ransacked after
- 20% likely to have kitchen ransacked when asked by itself

low-balling (or bait and switch) technique

make low offer to get compliance
- commitment is made
- leads to post-discussion dissonance reduction
- bolstering good and derogating bad facet
- increase cost and commitment remains

research example of the low-balling technique

fliers posted on campus for smoker study that earns you $100 for 1 hour
- then called and told smokers they wouldn't be able to smoke 1 week beforehand
- condition low-ball: schedule them before-hand, call them back later telling them they won't be able to smoke-before hand
- control condition: told cost and asked to commit at same time
- 10% comply - cost and commitment
- 85% comply - commitment then cost

reciprocity motives

we are motivated to return a favor or a good
deed; commonly helps maintain fairness in interaction

technique for reciprocity motives

door-in-the-face technique

door-in-the-face technique

- large request -> denied
- reduced request -> reciprocate by accepting reduced request

research example of door-in-the-face technique

- volunteers for big brothers and sisters program
- experimenters either asked for 6 hours for a week commitment then asked if willing to take kids to zoo for 2 hrs vs. small request of taking kids to a zoo by itself
- agreed: 15% agreed to small requests only; 50% agreed to large -> small request

is the effect size for door-in-the-face or foot-in-the-door bigger?

effect size of foot-in-the-door > door-in-the-face

obedience

the performance of an action in response to a direct order

3 reasons why we obey?

1. we want to be right and liked
2. norm of obedience
3. authorities as experts (expertise heuristics)

research example of obedience

- Milligram invited 40 participants into the lab who were assigned the role of "teacher"
- Ps were given increasingly powerful shocks to "learner" for wrong answers
- Question: how many people would obey and give most powerful (450 volt) shocks?
- 66% fully obeyed

variations of milgram's study on obedience

- run down office building (instead of Stanford): 48% full obedience
- same room Ps as confederate: 40% full obedience
- touch required: 30% full obedience
** authority/ obedience VERY context sensitive
** the people that stopped the shocks overwhelmingly stopped right when the confederate said no

3 factors that influence obedience

1. legitimacy of authority
2. conformity
3. incremental orders

legitimacy of authority regarding obedience

an authority perceived to be legitimate increases obedience

research example for the legitimacy of authority regarding obedience

the unknown doctor
- meds prescribed by a pronounced "doctor" for nurses to give patients -> major overdose ordered from the does prescribed on the bottle
- >95% obeyed and attempted to administer an overdose of the drug
- 46% of polled nurses reported to obeying a doctor's order they considered potentially harmful to a patient

conformity regarding obedience

- obedient confederates, more obedience (70%)
- disobedient confederates, less obedience (10%)

research example for conformity regarding obedience

Milligram's experiment but w/ multiple "teachers" (1P, multiple other confederates)

incremental orders regarding obedience

- consistency motives: Ps began small and slowly increased in shocks (foot-in-the-door)
- how torturers are trained

group

two or more individuals who influence each other; OR several interdependent people who have emotional ties and who interact on a regular basis

entitativity

seeing a group as a meaningful social entity
- more entitativity = more perceived group-ness

factors that perceive whether a group has more entitativity

1. common fate (something bad that happens to family is also something bad that happens to you)
2. similarity (ex: uniforms)
3. permeability (easy to get in/ out?) (ex: can't escape family)
4. shared values (ex: religious affiliations)
(ex: nuclear family = low permeability, high common fate group)

four types of groups

1. intimacy groups
2. talk groups
3. social categories
4. clusters of people

highest entitativity group

intimacy groups (ex: family, friends, gang members)

2nd highest entitativity group

task groups (ex: workplace or social groups)

3rd highest entitativity group

social categories (ex: gender, ethnicity)

lowest entitativity group

clusters of people (ex: line at the bank)

2 factors that motivate us to belong to groups

1. need to belong
2. need to achieve goals

need to belong as motivation for group membership

- fundamental human need
- motivates adherence to intimate groups (and social categories)

need to achieve goals as motivation for group membership

motivates adherence to task groups (and social categories)

2 group processes

1. social facilitation
2. social loafing

social facilitation

performance is improved by the mere presence of others for a simple task

research example of social facilitation

- bikers noted to race faster next to each other vs. just racing against against the clock
- replicated: race to reel-in fishing line in clock vs. against someone
- found people worked faster and did better against other people

mere presence hypothesis

- we become aroused by members of our own species
presence of others -> arousal -> facilitation of "dominant responses" (easier tasks made easier and harder tasks made harder after arousal)
- the presence of co-actors or observers facilitates the performance of easy or well-learned tasks but inhibits the performance of difficult or novel responses

research example of the mere presence hypothesis

how do the presence of other roaches influence them from escaping a maze?
- created simple vs. difficult maze for roaches
- manipulated whether or not roaches up in a viewing center above the mazes
- found easy mazes were easier and hard mazes were harder when other cockroaches were viewing

social loafing

group-induced reduction in individual output when efforts are pooled

2 research examples of social loafing

1. measured 2 people's max output when pulling a rope
- made them pull together after pulling separate, always pulled less hard then max effort when pulling together
2. had participants yell as loud as they could
- then asked to yell as loud as they could with noise-cancelling headphones and blindfolds on in a group (actually confederates)
- 18% reduction in volume with one other person, 25% reduction with many others

why do we do social loafing

diffusion of responsibility

diffusion of responsibility

belief that the presence of others makes one less personally responsible for the outcomes; no accountability

independence

being free from others' control

what does obedient behavior typically imply

a loss of personal freedom, which is typically valued in an individualist society

social power

the force available to the influencer to motivate attitude or behavior change

who tends to have the biggest influence on others' lives?

the very people who often seem to care least about the social consequences of their actions (they have nothing to lose)

autokinetic effect

the fact that when someone stares at a stationary point of light in a darkened room when there is no frame of reference, it appears to move in various directions

pluralistic ignorance

the tendency to think that everyone else is interpreting a situation in a certain way, when in fact they are not

what factors can heighten the activation of social norms

anticipation of a situation and priming (can become habits that occur without conscious attention or monitoring)

ostracism

a social control mechanism at all age levels with a powerful tactic of social influence; when nonconformists are banished from groups

how does being self-aware influence conformity?

being privately self-aware reduces conformity, being publicly self-aware increases conformity

what 2 conditions are open defiance of influence most likely to occur under?

1. when others not involved in the influence attempt are present
2. when the attitude of those exerting the influence makes any subsequent yielding seem like weak-kneed surrender rather than intelligent decision-making

psychological reactance

the tendency to react against and resist attempts to limit one's sense of freedom

anticonformity

opposition to social influence on all occasions, often caused by psychological reactance; often occurs not because someone disagrees with a group's direction, but because by disagreeing they can satisfy their need for personal control

how do people from collectivist cultures perceive in group norms?

they perceive in group norms as universally valid and they feel obligated to obey in group authorities

minority influence

the process by which dissenters produce change within a group

minority slowness effect

the tendency of those who hold a minority opinion to express that opinion less quickly than people who hold the majority opinion

what is the most important factor in determining the effectiveness of minority group influence?

the style of behavior used in presenting nonconforming views; dissenting opinions must be stated consistently and confidently

degree of difference between the minority and the majority

another factor that affects the ability of the minority to influence the majority
- single vs. double minorities

single vs. double minorities

- single minorities: individuals who differ from the majority only in terms of their beliefs
- double minorities: those who differ from the majority in terms of both beliefs and group membership

disadvantage of double minorities

they are perceived as wanting self-interest in their position; arguments more easily discounted

how are minorities most successful in exerting influence on the majority?

when they are arguing for positions that are not too far from the prevailing majority position and when they show a consistent behavioral style (indicates certainty and confidence)

how can minority influence surely fail?

if the minority group argues against evolving social norms and exhibits a rigid style of negotiation with inconsistently held beliefs

divergent thinking

a cognitive process in which one considers a problem from varying perspectives

if minority persuader's views are eventually adopted by the majority, will these new beliefs and attitudes be less or more resistant to change?

the new attitudes and beliefs will be MORE resistant to change

3 factors that help create the proper atmosphere to increase compliance

1. making people feel good
2. doing something for them
3. giving them reasons to comply

what is an effective strategy in securing compliance?

ingratiation

creditors

those who habitually use reciprocity to secure compliance; they keep others in their debt so that they can cash in when necessary

elaboration likelihood model regarding compliance

positive mood, the salience of the reciprocity norm, and the inclusion for reasons why one should grant a request (induce peripheral-route processing of the requester's message)

that's-not-all technique

a two-step compliance technique in which the influencer makes a large request, then immediately offers a discount or bonus before the initial request is refused (alters customer's "anchor point" and obligation to reciprocate a concession of a seemingly unreasonable original price)

what type of people usually secure the best deals?

those who make less reciprocal concessions and who are less concerned with appearing unreasonable

maximization

when detectives imply that they have more evidence than they actually have

minimization

when detectives lead defendants to believe that confessing to a crime would be a way to avoid a harsher punishment

2 false confessions hypotheses

1. false evidence can lead people who are in a heightened state of uncertainty to confess to an act they didn't commit
2. these "false confessors" will internalize the confession and create details in memory consistent with new guilt

is there much evidence that authority figures; ability to secure obedience has diminished in the past 50 years from Milgram's study?

NOPE!