Social influence final exam

Principle of authority

we are more likely to comply with requests made by person of high prestige and/or authority

• authority figures may be perceived as providing particularly accurate information

factors influencing authority and compliance

• professional status

  • being the CEO

• organisational status

  • being associated with Harvard

• clothing

  • suits vs. casual clothes

limitations to authority research

1. not always clear if effects are compliance or obediece

2. actual number of compliance studies small

3. processes unclear

   1. thoughtful or non-thoughtful

   2. informational (cialdini) or normative

principle of social proof

the principle that people determine what is correct by finding out what others think is correct

→ informational: we look at others to get information, but we can often interpret the studies either way

Social comparison theory

• If available, people prefer to use objective cues to evaluate

  • In a lot of situations we don’t have objective feedback, e.g. for extraversion

• If not available, people engage in social comparison

  • I go to more parties than other people, I think of myself to be more extraverted

• When socially comparing, people prefer to compare to similar others (aspect of social proof principle)

  • Makes no sense to compare extraversion to my old teacher, I compare to other students

real world examples of social proof

• car dealers target next-door neughbours of recent customers

• salting tip jars

• evangelical ministers use people who sit in the crowd

• advertisers provide testimonials and statements of popularity regarding products

limitations of social proof studies

• not many compliance studies

• underlying processes unclear

  • thoughtful or non-thoughtful

  • informational or normative

Principle of scarcity

the principle that things are seen as more valuable if they are less readily available. If we make it seem scares, people will want it more

typical types of scarcity

1. time

2. amount

reasons for scarcity effects

1. scarcity and value

   1. scarce things seem more valueable. often this is true

2. scarcity for free choice

   1. reactance theory: we are motivated to feel a sense of control over our own lives. when our free will is threatened to be taken away, we act on it

level of thoughtfulness mediates scarcity

• moderate thoughtfulness: scarcity increases thinking (brannon & brock view)

• low thoughtfulness: (low ability and/or motivation) scarcity serves as a simple cue or heuristic (cialdini view)

• high thoughtfulness: (high ability and motivation) scarcity biases people’s thinking about the request, the reason something is scarce will matter and determine if bias is positive or negative

Obedience

changes in behaviour produced by commands of an authority

prod’s used in Milgrim’s experiment

“Please continue (or please go on).”

“The experiment requires that you continue.”

“It is absolutely essential that you continue.”

“You have no other choice; you must go on.”

Factors affecting obedience (in experiment)

• Physical presence and apparent legitimacy of the authority figure

  • Authority figure from Yale

  • Social Impact Theory!

• The victim’s proximity

  • Learner is in the other room. The closer one, the researcher has more influence (social impact theory)

• The absence of another behavioural model

  • There is no other participant, only the researcher

• The experimental procedure

  • Participants were led to feel relieved of personal responsibility for the victim’s welfare

    • Experimenter is in charge

  • Gradual escalation was used

Effects of: Proximity of Victim

• Remote with no voice feedback 65%

• Remote with voice feedback 63%

  • Whether you can hear the person crying out or no doesn’t impact the obedience levels

• Remote with voice (heart condition) 65%

  • As they are setting up, the confederate says they have a heart condition

  • This doesn’t influence obedience levels either

• Same room 40%

  • Social impact theory: immediacy, influences a little more to not go all the way.

• Touch 30%

  • Version of experiment where the learner has to hold their hand on a shock plate, but then the confederate wants to stop, and you have to force their hand on the chock place

Effects of: Characteristics of Authority

• Prestige of Institution (unknown) 48%

  • Little bit of drop in obedience, but not much

• Proximity of Authority (phone) 21%

  • Taking them out of the room drops obedience. Proximity has big influence

• Prestige of Authority (ordinary) 20%

  • Once they explain procedure, then confederate takes over experimenter role. Monitor (confederate) tells you to go on. Authority figure is no more prestigious than you. Obedience drops a lot.

• Conflicting Authority Figures 0%

  • Two experimenters. When learner says they want to stop, one of them says we should stop, and the other says we should continue. Everyone stops

• Learner Demanding Shock 0%

  • When the experimenter wanted to stop but the learner wanted to continue

Effects of: Group versus Individual

• Peer Administers Shock 93%

  • It is not you who presses the button, but there is a confederate who you think is also a participant who is pressing it. You're a ‘accomplice’ to brutality.

• Group Members Rebel 10%

  • The other person is pressing the button, but then they rebel and stop, and they ask you to take over the button pressing. Obedience goes down

Effects of: Participant Characteristics

• Women 65%

  • Baseline experiment.

obedience findings from a social impact theory perspective

the paradigm creates a situation where the target (participant) is caught between two sources of influence:

1. learner = stop doing the behaviour

2. experimenter = continue doing this behaviour

• Strength

  • Experimenter usually has more impact because prestige is usually higher than learner

  • Variations in prestige of experimenter alters impact

    • When it is a normal person, we don't really listen to them

• Immediacy

  • Proximity of learner increases impact moderately

  • Proximity of experimenter increase impact substantially

• Number

  • Adding sources of influence to either side enhances impact of that side

Ethical citicisms of the Milgram experiments

• not true informed consent

  • only knew that it was about learning

  • participants told they could not leave

  • extreme trauma for participants

Methodological citicisms of the Milgram experiments

• Did they really believe they were doing harm?

• Did participants have choice?

• Did participants have responsibility?

• Escalation of shock not realistic?

• No time to reflect on actions outside of situation?

Burger (2009) replication study modifications to Milgrim study

• Stopped study at 150 volts (79% of people who continue beyond 150 go all the way) – to decrease stress to participants

• Two-stage screening by clinical psychologists to eliminate participants who might be adversely affected

• Told 3 times they could discontinue during consent process; told they could stop at any time and still receive payment ($50)

  • Potential altering of the methodology of Milgram

• Sample shock for participant was 15-volts rather than 45-volts as in original study

  • Potential altering of the methodology of Milgram

• Study was run by clinical psychologist who could stop the study if participants showed excessive stress

Burger (2009) procedure

• Condition 1 (Baseline): vocal feedback with heart condition

• Condition 2 (Resistant Confederate): second teacher (confederate) starts the process and participant watches, confederate defies authority at 90-volts, participant instructed to continue procedure

Burger (2009) Results

• Baseline: 70% past 150 volts

  • If he would have ran it to 450, it would be 55% probably.

• Original Milgram Baseline: 83% past 150 volts

  • Not significant difference between the two

• Resistant Confederate: 63% past 150 volts

  • Non-significant drop-off, different from Milgram

• No significant differences across conditions

• Baseline Gender (no difference)

  • Men: 67%

  • Women: 73%

• Resistant Confederate Gender (no difference)

  • Men: 55%

  • Women: 68%

• Personality

  • No significant differences in empathic concern or desire for control when comparing fully obedience to non-obedient participants.

    • Environment is so strong that it overrides an personal factors

Burger et al. (2011) examined transcripts of sessions and interviews with Burger (2009) participants

• Non-Obedient participants were more likely to express personal responsibility than obedient participants during session and debriefing

  • People who had a high sense of personal responsibility were more likely to break off earlier.

• Non-Obedient and Obedient participants did not differ on expressions of concern during session or debriefing

  • Same level of distress!

  • Not the distress you feel, but the responsibility you feel for your actions

• Examined Impact of Prods on Obedience

  • 1st prod: 64% continued

  • 2nd prod 46% continued

  • 3rd prod 11% continued

  • 4th prod 0% continued

    • Standardised prods: script

    • 64% people that initially stop, then get the prod, pushes them to continue

    • If you have refused 3 times, and then the experimenter comes back with the 4th prod, no one went on

• Resistance to final prod: self-perception and/or reactance?

  • Could be them pushing back, or it could be that because they think that because they said no 2 times, they believe that they really aren’t comfortable with continuing the study

Carnahan & McFarland findings (who replies to prison study)

• Prison study applicants were higher than the control study on

  • Machiavellianism

  • Aggressiveness

  • Authoritarianism

  • Narcissism

  • Social Dominance

• Prison study applicants were lower than the control study on

  • Empathy

  • Altruism

ethical criticism of stanford prison experiment

• Extreme trauma to participants

• Study was not terminated sufficiently soon. Went on too long.

• Manipulative behaviour on the part of the researchers in dealing with participants and their families

methodological criticism of stanford prison experiment

• Demand characteristics and/or experimenter expectancy effects

  • So much unregulated interactions with participants and experimenter. Cannot control or protect against this.

• Lack of systematic measurement and/or manipulation of key constructs

  • There were no measures for dehumanisations, deindividuation, isolation… he was interested in this but had no measurements for them.

  • Study was not designed in any way to measure these key constructs.

• Lack of systematic analysis of data

  • There was no data analysis, no tables, no statistical tests.

  • It’s just, here is what we did, here is what happened

  • Sample size is so small that there will probably not be any power.

  • More like an anecdotal thing

• Zimbardo’s interpretations often contradicted even by the data as reported

  • These interpretations don't support his conclusions.

  • The situation is so powerful that it overrides preexisting individual differences. Do what you got to do.

  • High variations of kinds of responses. Hunger strike, going along with it. Sympathetic, tough, sadistic guards.

    • So, there are still individual differences that come through.

recent criticism:

• Some former participants have indicated that the researchers were more actively involved in shaping behaviour. “He egged us on all the time”

• Prison consultant Carlo Prescott alleged to have denounced study. “It wasn’t how Zimbardo said” (accuracy of this claim is disputed) 

• Guard “John Wayne” was merely playing acting (can be construed in many ways)

• Doug Korpi (Prisoner 8612) claims he faked his breakdown (matter of debate, doesn’t fit with other things he did/claimed)

media effects focus on two sources of influence

• news

• political advertising

direct-effects model (hypodermic perspective)

early, anectodal evidence suggested that the media exerted very direct and powerful effects of citizens’ political attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours

limited effects model

subsequent survey research suggested that the media has little impact on changing attitudes, but instead simply reinforces existing values and attitudes.

Powerful effects under limiting conditions perspective

more recently, researchers have come to recognise that the media can have a powerful effect, but only under certain conditions and often indirectly

4 classic types of media social influences

1. Agenda setting

2. Issue priming of presidential evaluations

3. Issue framing

4. Persuasion

agenda setting effect

Empirical finding that extensive news coverage of an issue enhances the extent to which that issue is seen as an important national issue

• Although news coverage of an issue does not necessarily change people’s attitudes about a political issue, it can change the extent to which they see that issue as important

who is more suceptible to agenda setting?

• low education

• those who do not identify with political party

• low interest and involvement in politics

possible explanations for agenda setting

1. issue accessibility

   1. if you ask someone what is important, they will assume the first thing they think of is the most important

   2. presumes people to be non-thoughtful (if we give them stories saying crime is not an issue, they would still mention it as they retreive it easier)

2. relevance

   1. we have to evaluate on two basis

      1. does it elicit negative emotions, yes, then a problem

      2. do others think its important, yes, then a problem

issue priming of presidential evaluations

Empirical finding that increased coverage of an issue enhances the extent to which performance on that issue is used as a basis for overall evaluations of a president

• Although news coverage of an issue does not necessarily change peoples’ assessments of how a president is performing on that issue, it can change the extent to which people use that issue as a basis for their overall evaluations of the president

"We think about what the important issues are and then think about how the president is doing based on this. If trade is important, then we evaluate the prime minister’s performance based on this issue.”

who is most susceptible to priming effects?

• people high in trust in media

  • can facilitate acceptance of information

• people high in political knowledge

  • can facilitate understanding, storage, and retrieval of information from news

issue framing effect

emperical finding that episodic versus thematic news stories can alter viewer’s beliefs regarding responsibility for problems facing the country

• we can focus on individual cases

• we can focus on broader/societal cases

types of issue framing

• episodic framing

• thematic framing

→ episodic framings are more common in major networks for many issues such as crime and terrorism

episodic framing

case study or event-oriented report that depicts public issues in terms of concrete instances (e.g. describing the plight of a sinlgle homeless person)

thematic framing

report that places the issue in a more general or abstract context, thereby focussing more on general outcomes and conditions

what does issue framing have an effect on

1. explanations average citizens generate for these problems

   1. thematic → societal

   2. episodic → personal

2. attitudes towards responses to the problem

   1. e.g.: thematic approach to terrorism, lower support of use of force in response to terrorism

3. assessment of presidential performance

   1. thematic → hold president accountable

   2. episodic → president has nothing to do with it

news and persuasion

Zaller: “past failures to find direct effects in survey data are a result of two factors:

1. a substantial portion of people do not regularly get exposed to the news

2. the news often includes conflicting stories, some stories favouring one side and other stories favouring the opposite side”

→ you need people who are exposed to the news and then you need to cover only one side

when people are exposed to the news and the news coverage strongly favours one side, evidence for substiantial shifts in attitude can be found

campaign advertising effects

1. learning

2. microtargeting

3. push polling

4. attack ads and voter turnout

5. issue ownership

6. agenda control

7. stealing thunder

8. riding-the-wave

learning effects (of campaign advertising)

media critics think that campaign ads don’t have a learning effect, but research measuring political knowledge indicates that people do become more knowledgeable about candidates’ issue stands and political ideology.

• especially in highly competitive races, where support for both is high

agenda control effects (of campaign advertising)

political campaign organisations try to influence the impact of issues by concentrating advertisements/political communications on certain target issues that they think will be advantageous. there has been little research…

• one analysis of suveys concluded that political candidates’ communications plays an important role in the making of the Free Trade Agreement the dominant issue in voters’ evaluations at the expense of other issues

→ it works when both campaigns want the same issues to be the focus of their campaigns

issue-ownership hypothesis (of campaign advertising)

candidates advertising/other communications are most effective when they focus on an issue over which that candidate is seen as having “ownership” by virtue of their social group membership (e.g. political party, gender, race)

• media’s role: candidates get more focus from the media when they are seen to have ownership on the issue

Because of issue ownership, the issues that are prominent in a given election can provide an advantage to one party

issue ownership effects may occur for two reasons

1. source credibility (simple non-thoughtful heuristic)

2. confirmatory bias (biased processing of the message)

   1. with someone who doesn’t have ownership on the issue, we approach it more sceptically. with someone who does have ownership, we look at it more confirmatory

democrats ownership issues

unemployment, social welfare, civil rights

republican ownership issues

crime, taxes, national security

riding-the-wave hypothesis (of campaign advertising)

hypothesis that campaign ads are most effective when focus on issues that are receiving substantial attention in the news. if the news is already focusing, could the ad increase effectiveness if it also focused on this issue?

• no evidence that ads were helped when they were on issues receiving coverage in the news broadcasts

attack ads and voter turnout (of campaign advertising)

attack ads are political ads that primarily concentrate on the flaws of a candidate's opponent rather than the strengths of a candidate

• as the ads become more negative, voter turnout decreased

  • positive: 57% turnout

  • mixed: 52.4% turnout

  • negative: 49.7% turnout

    • differences significant and hold after controlling for other factors

later studies found that it could increase voter turnout, no effect, or curvilinear effect (moderate negative ads increase turnout, but very ads decrease turnout)

3 possible reasons suggested for negative ads decreasing turnout

1. discourage supporters of attacked candidate

   1. driving away the voters of one of the candidates (main idea)

2. make public disenchanted with both candidates

   1. driving the general public away

3. decrease civic duty and perceived legitimacy of the electoral process

microtargeting effect (of campaign advertising)

use of personal information, usually collected from online activities, to guide the person-specific targeting and content of persuasive communications (use of personal information, that allow campaigns to do very personal and specific targeting/ communication)

controversy:

1. ethics of data acquisition

2. accuracy of claims of magnitude and effiicacy

it works, but probably not as dramatically as sometimes suggested in the media.

microtargeting mechanics

• identify members of the other party who might be influenced to change sides or not vote

• identify members of own party in need of bolstering to resist negative influence and be motivated to vote

• identify specific type of message likely to be successful

  • specific issue of focus

  • specific framing of issue to fit personality

stealing thunder (of campaign advertising)

tactic of revealing incriminating information about oneself (or a person one is representing) before someone else reveals it in order to minimize the damage of that information

reasons stealing thunder might work

1. credibility: speaking against one’s self-interest can make speaker more credible

2. framing: provide a more positive frame in which to interpret the information

3. scarcity: revealing it makes it seem less scarse (and perhaps less valuable). they aren’t trying to hide it

4. perception: perceive the information to not be damaging if the person is willing to talk about it and admit to it

possible limiting condition for stealing thunder

if information comes out before the person reveals it

possible reasons polls help the loser

winning voters become complacent and dont feel the need to vote anymore. those who were going to vote for the winner will not vote anymore

possible reasons polls help the winner

• losing voters become dispirited and feel that their votes do not matter. those who were going to vote for the loser don’t feel the need to vote

• self-esteem maintenance:

  • voters what to be associated with a winning candidate (Basking In Reflected Glory)

  • voters want to dissociate themselves from a losing candidate (Cutting Off Reflected Failure)

examined voter mobilisation tactics

• more recently, social media

• phone calls

• recorded phone messages from well-known people

• mailings

• face-to-face appeals

  • very effective

    • 7% /10-15% increase in probability of voting

    • for every 12 people contacted, 1 more vote

    • 8 people an hour

democratic approach to voter mobilisation

geographical approach

• political organisations contacted

• they hired people to register voters (paid for each registered voter and paid again if they went to the polls)

• concentrated efforts in traditional areas of democratic support

republican approach to voter mobilisation

social network approach

• created internal organisation within campaign, with a hierarchical structure

• 1.2 million volunteers

• they registered and mobilised people they knew (neighbours, coworkers, church members)

• select people sympathetic to republican views

→ this approach worked best. social dynamics that are implemented are very influential

push pulling (of campaign advertising)

persuasion tactic in which negative information about a candidate’s opponent is introduced to people under the guise of asking survey questions about his information

→ little emperical evidence for this tactics effectiveness

why might push polling work?

• the source is seen as credible (polling organisation)

• persuasive intent of information is disguised

brainwashing

application of social influence tactics (often in combination with one another) that are coercive or extreme in nature

psychological operations (PSYOPS)

the planned use of communications to influence attitudes and behaviour of people, often in preparation for, support of, and consolidation of the application of military force

goals of psyops

• demoralise, disorient, and confuse hostile groups

• unite, inform, influence, and bolster the morale of friendly or neutral groups

• develop cooperative attitudes and behaviour in friendly or neutral targeted groups

levels of psyops

• strategic

• operational

• tactical

strategic level op psyops

use of psyop to achieve broad long-term national goals

• general climate (cold war)

operational level of psyops

use of psyop to achieve midterm goals in support of regional campaign and major theatre operations

• starting at broad level, shaping behaviour over many weeks

tactical level of psyops

use of psyop on the battlefield to achieve specific short-term goals

• can be very small. convincing people to get out of the building

categories of psyops

• white

• grey

• black

white psyop

clearly indicated source of message. maybe even name clearly (NATO)

grey psyop

no indicated source of message

black psyop

falsely indicated source of message. misattribute it to someone else

activities of psyop units

• distribution of leaflets as well as radio/loudspeaker broadcasts to civilian populations regarding impending military actions, how to avoid risk, and availability of relief efforts

• distribution of leaflets, radio broadcasts, and loudspeaker broadcasts to enemy soldiers urging them to surrender and the procedures fordoing so

• direct electronic contact with high ranking enemy military officers and public officials urging them to change sides or provide intelligence

unintended effects of design of leaflets

• red lettering leaflets were avoided because red was seen as singling danger

• leaflets with thought bubbles in comics were confusing

social proof in psyops

• stressing the many nations of coalition

• soldiers who had surrendered were used as communicators

liking and authority in psyops

well known and respected messages sources were used in leaflets

commitment and consistency in psyops

“safe conduct pass” - the mere decision to pickup a leaflet and keep it, or a decision to listen to a broadcast can create an initial commitment that makes later surrender possible