Social Lectures 7-8 Influence, Attitudes, and Persuasions

social influence

refers to the many ways people affect one another

• Involves changes in attitudes and behavior resulting from comments/actions/presence of others

  • conformity

  • compliance

  • obediance

Social learning theory

Many animals, including humans, can learn by watching others (MIRROR NEURONS)

• Chameleon effect: Unconscious mimicry of the nonverbal mannerisms of an interaction partner.

• Chartrand & Bargh (1999): Chameleon effect study

informational influence (conformity)

Other people provide information

• leads to internalization (private acceptance)

normative influence (conformity)

We feel pressure to fit in.

• Leads only to ONLY public compliance (we know that maybe alone we do not agree)

• Such as with the Asch study (no internalization)—-people did maintain privately they know the answer is wrong but publicly they said something else

when do ppl conform?

• group size

• unanimity

• anonymity

• status and expertise

group size

3-4 people for greatest conformity.

• Milgram’s “looking up at nothing” study

• 1 person looking up, 40% of passers-by conformed

• 2-3 people looking up, 60-65% conformed

• 4 people looking up, 80% conformed

unanimity

refers to a situation where everyone in a group agrees—there is complete agreement among group members.

Even 1 dissenter, conformity decreases.

• Asch studies: When 1 person dissented, conformity dropped to 5%

• In Asch's study, participants conformed to a clearly wrong answer more often when the rest of the group gave the same wrong answer (unanimity).
  But when even one other person broke from the group, participants were less likely to conform.

anonymity

means that a person’s identity is hidden—others don’t know who they are or what they did.

Responding in front of group members makes conformity more likely.

• Examples:

  • In online forums, people may say things they’d never say face-to-face (less self-censorship).

  • In psychological studies, participants may give more truthful answers when responses are anonymous.

status and expertise

If group members are high status or experts, more conformity.

conforming (gender and culture)

Culture

• Interdependent cultures - More susceptible to information and normative social influence

Gender

• Women conform more in stereotypically male domains • Men conform more in stereotypically female domains

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger): People dislike inconsistency among their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.

• Common inconsistency: “I’m X kind of person” but “I do/did Y thing”

• Especially strong when identity is threatened

Ways to reduce dissonance:

• Change something (belief, attitude, or behavior)

• Downplay the importance of something

• Add something that resolves inconsistency

Cognitive dissonance part 2

Insufficient justification: Dissonance arises following a behavior that is unjustifiably inconsistent with beliefs or attitudes.

• Resolve by bringing the attitude in line with the behavior.

• Festinger & Carlsmith (1959): Peg-turning study

Post-decisional dissonance: Finalizing a difficult decision often leads to dissonance.

• ex: choosing btwn two job offer—both are desirable to an extent

Effort justification: Reducing dissonance by convincing ourselves that suffering was valuable

• ex: hated movie but justify saying popcorn was good

Persuasion

Intentional efforts to change someone’s attitude, usually in hopes of changing their behavior

Central route processing (elaboration likelihood model)

Thinking systematically and evaluating the arguments, effortful processing; System 2

• Must have motivation and ability to focus on arguments

• Good for long-lasting attitude change

Peripheral route processing (elaboration likelihood model)

Influenced by incidental or irrelevant characteristics

• Effective for unmotivated, tired, or distracted audience

• Also useful when arguments are weak

• ex: carls junior adds

Yale approach to attitude change

“Who says what to whom?”

Who - Speaker effects

What - Message effects

To Whom - Audience effects

approach tells us when persuasion is more likely to occur

the “who” speaker effects

What makes a speaker more persuasive?

Credibility: A combination of expertise and trustworthiness.

Attractiveness: Often physical attractiveness, but also being likeable, well-dressed, etc.

Certainty: Confidence is persuasive (in themselves).

Similarity: We trust people who are similar

exception:

Sleeper effect (also called source forgetting): Delayed impact of a message that occurs when we remember the message but forget the reason for discounting it (the source)

• see gossip abt celeb on magazine and remember it later but not the validity of source—-availability heuristic and persuades to believe gossip about celeb

the “what” message effects

Message Quality/ content of it

• Straightforward, clear, and logical

• Explicitly refute the other side

• Speak against your own self-interest

Vividness: Statistics and facts are often less persuasive than a compelling story.

• Identifiable victim effect

• ex: sad pet shelter ads

the “what” message effects pt 2

Fear appeals: Can increase or decrease persuasion

• Reception-yielding model: Be scary enough to be convincing but not so scary that people tune out.

Best way to use fear appeals:

• Moderate amount of fear (not too much, not too little)

• Include a solution

“to whom” audience effects

Age: Younger people are easiest to persuade

• College students are primary targets for cults

Mood: Good mood is generally better, but could also match the message

Resisting Persuasion: How can we resist persuasion?

• Be forewarned

• Be informed

• Make a public commitment to your position

foot in the door (compliance)

Agree to a small request, more likely to comply later with a larger request.

• Freedman & Fraser (1966): Drive carefully study

• Researchers asked homeowners to place a large, ugly “Drive Carefully” sign in their yard.
  → Only 17% agreed when asked directly.

• But if homeowners were first asked to sign a small petition about safe driving...
  → Later, 76% agreed to the large sign!

door in the face (compliance)

Turn down a large request, more likely to comply with a reasonable request.

• Blood donor study:

• Donate blood for long-term commitment?

• Donate tomorrow? 50% agreed

  • Donate blood tomorrow? 32% agreed

reciprocity (compliance)

The expectation that people will help those who have helped them

appeal to norms (compliance)

• descriptive norms: What are most people ACTUALLY doing?

• prescriptive norms: What SHOULD people be doing?

Milgram 1974 (obedience)

Participants were told to give electric shocks to a “learner” for wrong answers, increasing voltage each time.

• 65% obeyed fully, delivering what they believed was a fatal shock (450 volts).

• They obeyed despite visible stress, simply because an authority figure told them to.

Key Point:
People will follow orders—even harmful ones—when instructed by authority.

altering obedience

Characteristics of the authority figure:

• Strength: Experimenter replaced by a clerk

  • 20% obeyed

• Distance: Experimenter called in by phone

  • 23% obeyed

Characteristics of the situation:

Emotional distance:

• Shock by remote, nearly 100% obeyed

• Hold hand to shock plate, only 30% obeyed

• Someone else flips the switch, 93% obeyed

Institutional authority:

• Office in Bridgeport, CT instead of Yale

  • 48% obeyed

Presence of resisters:

• Two defiant teachers

  • 10% obeyed

resisting obedience: reactance

A motive to protect one’s sense of freedom arises when freedom feels threatened.

• Occurs when we feel someone is trying to limit choices or decisions

• A threat to our freedom

• Example: If an authority figure insists you must do something, you might refuse—not because you disagree, but because you don’t want to be controlled.