Social Influence: Obedience, Compliance, and Conformity
Social Influence: Obedience, Compliance, and Conformity
Social Influence
Social influence can be direct or indirect and encompasses:
Obedience: A change in behavior due to commands of others
Compliance: Yielding to a direct, explicit appeal meant to produce certain behavior or agreement to a particular point of view.
Conformity: A change in behavior or attitude brought about by a desire to follow the beliefs or standards of others.
Milgram's Obedience Study
Setup: Subject and confederate were told the study was about the effects of punishment on learning. The subject was assigned the role of "teacher," and the confederate was assigned the role of "learner." The subject was instructed to punish the learner for mistakes with electric shocks.
Shock Generator: A sample 15-volt shock was administered to the subject. The shock generator displayed voltages ranging from 15 to 450 volts, with labels indicating the severity of the shock (e.g., "Slight Shock," "Moderate Shock," "Danger: Severe Shock").
Procedure: The teacher was told to increase the shock level by one increment for each mistake made by the learner. The learner was in another room and communicated through an intercom.
Learner's Protests: The learner followed a pre-set schedule of protests, including verbal complaints and claims of a heart condition, as the voltage increased. For example, at 75 volts, the learner would say "Ugh!"; at 150 volts, the learner would shout, "Experimenter! That's all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble."; and at 300 volts, the learner would scream, "I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here."
Experimenter's Prompts: If the subject hesitated or refused to continue, the experimenter used standardized prompts to encourage them to proceed.
Prior Estimations: Before conducting the experiment, Milgram described the setup to others and asked them to predict how far they or others would go. The self-estimates averaged around 135 volts, and it was predicted that no one would go beyond 300 volts.
Milgram Study Results
Actual Study: 63% of participants continued to administer shocks all the way to 450 volts.
Only 25% of participants dropped out by 300 volts.
Martin et al. (1976) Study
Setup: Participants were told the study aimed "to identify people who possess rare ability to hear ultra high-frequency sounds.”
Procedure: Participants were shown a noise apparatus with a dial ranging from 0 to 10. The dial had labels such as "Danger: 2-12% hearing loss reported" at 4 and "Extremely high danger: 50% hearing loss reported” at 8. A schoolteacher served as the experimenter and instructed students to move the dial to the next level and indicate if they heard a sound, even though no sounds were actually delivered. No prods were given.
Martin et al. Results
95% of participants went to level 6.
54% of participants went to level 10.
Compliance
Compliance involves yielding to a direct, explicit appeal meant to produce certain behavior or agreement to a particular point of view.
Cialdini’s 6 Principles of Compliance
Friendship/Liking: People are more likely to comply with requests from people they like (e.g., Mary Kay, Tupperware parties).
Commitment/Consistency: People are more likely to comply with requests that are consistent with their prior commitments (e.g., signing contracts).
Scarcity: People are more likely to comply when they believe something is scarce or limited (e.g., "Last Chance to Buy!").
Reciprocity: People are more likely to comply if they feel they owe something to the requester (e.g., free samples).
Social Validation: People are more likely to comply if they see others doing the same thing (e.g., “Everybody’s Doing It - Don’t Get Left Behind!”).
Authority: People are more likely to comply with requests from authority figures (e.g., “4 out of 5 Dentists Agree…”).
Compliance Strategies
Foot-in-the-Door Technique: Start with a small request, then follow with a larger request.
Door-in-the-Face Technique: Start with a larger request (which is likely to be refused), then follow with a smaller, more reasonable request.
That's Not All Technique: Offer a deal, then add additional incentives to make the offer more appealing.
Lowballing: Get initial agreement, then add additional costs or conditions.
Bait and Switch: Offer an initial attractive option, then make it unavailable and offer a more costly alternative.
Labeling: Assign a label to a person, then make a request consistent with that label.
Foot-in-the-Door Technique
Description: Involves making a small request that is easily agreed to, followed by a larger, related request.
Freedman & Fraser (1966) Experiment
Procedure: Experimenters asked residents to sign a petition (small request). Weeks later, a different experimenter asked if they would put a huge billboard in their yard (large request).
Control Condition: Other residents were only asked the large request to put a huge billboard in their yard.
Freedman & Fraser Results
Dependent Variable (DV): Percentage of people who complied with the large billboard request.
Results:
Agreed to prior small request: 53%
Not solicited for prior small request: 17%
Door-in-the-Face Technique
Description: Involves making a large request, expecting refusal, then making a smaller, more reasonable request.
Cialdini et al. (1975) Experiment
Procedure: Experimenters asked residents if they were willing to spend 2 hours a week for 2 years as “big brothers/sisters.” None agreed.
Second Request: Experimenters followed with a second request: Willing to spend 2 hours just once taking kids to the zoo.
Control Condition: Experimenters only made the second request: Willing to spend 2 hours just once taking kids to the zoo.
Cialdini et al. Results
Dependent Variable (DV): Percentage of people who agreed with the second request.
Results:
Initial large request: 50%
No initial request: 16%
That's Not All Technique
Description: Offering an initial deal and then adding additional incentives before the person can respond.
Lowballing
Description: Gaining initial agreement to a request and then revealing hidden costs or drawbacks.
Cialdini (1978) Experiment
Procedure: Participants were phoned and asked to participate in an interesting experiment.
Conditions:
Control: Told immediately about the 7 am start time.
Lowball: Told about the 7 am start time after they agreed to join.
Cialdini et al. Results
Dependent Variable (DV): Percentage of students who agreed to sign up for the experiment.
Results:
Control condition: 31% (less than 1/4 of these actually showed up)
Lowball condition: 56% (over 1/2 of these showed up)
Bait and Switch
Description: Offering an attractive initial option, then making it unavailable and offering a more costly alternative.
Joule et al. (1989) Experiment
Procedure: Participants were phoned and agreed to participate in an interesting study; they were told they would be paid 6.
** Bait and Switch:** When they arrived, they were told the experiment was canceled. They were then told they could volunteer for a different, uninteresting experiment and offered no money.
Baseline Condition: Earlier, the experimenters described the second study to other subjects to get a baseline level of willingness to participate.
Joule et al. Results
Dependent Variable (DV): Percentage willing to participate.
Results:
Baseline condition: 15%
Bait and switch condition: 47%
Labeling
Description: Assigning a label to a person and then making a request consistent with that label.
Social influence encompasses a range of behaviors and mechanisms that affect how individuals think and act, often categorized into three primary types: obedience, compliance, and conformity.
Social Influence
Obedience: A change in behavior stemming from direct commands or requests from an authority figure. This is distinct from mere compliance, as it involves a higher level of coercion or authority. Historical studies, such as Milgram's Experiment, starkly illustrate obedience, revealing the extent to which people will go to follow authority even against their moral compass.
Compliance: This involves yielding to a direct, explicit appeal, often in the form of a request or demand. Compliance can be driven by social pressure, a desire for approval, or expectations of future interactions. This aspect of social influence highlights the powerful effects of interpersonal relationships on decision-making.
Conformity: A change in behavior or attitude that occurs due to a desire to fit in or adhere to the beliefs or standards of a group. Conformity can happen even without direct requests, as people often align their views in response to social norms. Classic studies, such as Asch's conformity experiments, underscore the strength of group influence on individual judgment.
Milgram's Obedience Study
Setup: The study was structured with two roles: the subject (teacher) and the confederate (learner). The purpose was framed as an investigation into the effects of punishment on learning. The teacher was tasked with administering electric shocks to the learner for incorrect answers, thereby highlighting the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.
Shock Generator: The shock generator had a range displayed from 15 volts to 450 volts, and was labeled with increasingly severe descriptors like "Slight Shock," "Moderate Shock," and "Danger: Severe Shock." This design pushed subjects to confront dramatic moral dilemmas as they administered what they believed to be painful shocks.
Procedure: Participants were instructed to escalate shocks with each mistake by the learner. Although the learner was located in another room, the audible responses and pleas for cessation created a potent psychological environment, testing the limits of obedience.
Learner's Protests: The learner's protests escalated with voltage increases, giving voice to the human cost of the experimentation. For instance, at 75 volts, the learner expressed discomfort, and at 150 volts, they reiterated a serious health concern, pleading to be released. At 300 volts, the learner screamed in agony, which was designed to elicit a compassionate response from the teacher but often did not.
Experimenter's Prompts: Standardized verbal prods were used when subjects hesitated, such as, "Please continue" or "The experiment requires that you continue," demonstrating the power of authority in shaping behavior even in morally dubious contexts.
Prior Estimations: Predictions by individuals prior to the study indicated that most believed they or others would never administer shocks beyond 300 volts, reflecting a significant disconnect between expectations and actual behavior observed during the study.
Milgram Study Results
In the actual study, a staggering 63% of participants administered the maximum shock of 450 volts, despite clear indicators of distress from the learner.
Only 25% decided to stop by the time the voltage reached 300 volts, showcasing the troubling implications of obedience in human behavior.
Martin et al. (1976) Study
Setup: Participants were misled to believe they were taking part in a study to identify individuals with rare auditory capabilities. This manipulation created a context where participants felt compelled to comply with instructions based on false premises.
Procedure: The participants interacted with a device that had an adjustable dial labeled with various danger levels regarding hearing loss. This setup tested compliance under the guise of genuine scientific inquiry. A schoolteacher led the experiment, adding authority and credibility to the request to increase the dial.
Results: The results revealed that 95% of participants manipulated the dial to at least 6, and about 54% moved it to the maximum level of 10, reflecting the influence of authority and perceived pressure in compliance scenarios.
Compliance
Compliance consists of yielding to explicit requests or demands, which can be examined through several principles, including:
Cialdini’s 6 Principles of Compliance
Friendship/Liking: The more one likes another person, the more likely they are to comply with their requests. This is evident in sales scenarios like Mary Kay or Tupperware parties, where personal relationships enhance compliance.
Commitment/Consistency: Individuals have a strong desire to appear consistent in their commitments. Once someone commits to an idea or action, they are more prone to comply with related requests.
Scarcity: The perception of limited opportunities enhances the desirability of an item. Phrases like "Last Chance to Buy!" effectively increase compliance through urgency.
Reciprocity: The social norm of reciprocity suggests that if someone does something for you, you naturally feel compelled to return the favor. Free samples often lead to an increased purchase rate.
Social Validation: Individuals are more likely to comply if they see others doing the same thing, as it suggests a social consensus. When people observe others engaging in a behavior, it increases their likelihood of compliance, seen in marketing strategies emphasizing popularity.
Authority: Individuals are inclined to comply with requests from figures perceived as authoritative. Advertising often leverages endorsements such as “4 out of 5 Dentists Agree…” to enhance compliance.
Compliance Strategies
Foot-in-the-Door Technique: This strategy involves starting with a small, easily accepted request, which paves the way for a larger request later on.
Door-in-the-Face Technique: Initiating a large request, anticipating refusal, and then following up with a more reasonable request demonstrates this technique. By contrast, the smaller request appears more palatable.
That's Not All Technique: An initial offer is presented, and before a decision can be made, additional incentives are introduced, making the deal more enticing.
Lowballing: This technique involves gaining initial agreement to a request, only to later add additional costs or unfavorable details once the subject is committed.
Bait and Switch: Presenting an attractive option that is later made unavailable, replaced by a more costly alternative demonstrates this method effectively.
Labeling: Assigning a label to someone and making a request consistent with that label can significantly enhance compliance, as people tend to act in ways that are congruent with how they are identified.
Foot-in-the-Door Technique
Description: This strategy involves making an initially small request that is easily accepted, followed by a larger, related request. This psychological principle hinges on the desire for consistency in behavior.
Freedman & Fraser (1966) Experiment
Procedure: The methodology involved asking residents to sign a petition (small request) before returning weeks later to solicit them to allow a huge billboard in their yard (large request).
Control Condition: A separate group was only approached with the large request to put a billboard up, without the initial request for a signature.
Results
Agreed to Prior Small Request: 53% of those approached complied with the large request.
Not Solicited for Prior Small Request: Only 17% of those approached complied without prior engagement, indicating the technique's effectiveness.
Door-in-the-Face Technique
Description: A large initial request is made expecting refusal, followed by a smaller, more reasonable request to increase chances of compliance.
Cialdini et al. (1975) Experiment
Procedure: Residents were initially asked if they would dedicate 2 hours a week for 2 years to serve as “big brothers/sisters,” with no volunteers agreeing to this extensive commitment.
Second Request: Subsequently asking if they would spend 2 hours just once to take kids to the zoo served as the smaller request.
Control Condition: A different group was only given the second request without any larger initial request.
Results
Initial Large Request: 50% of participants agreed to the second request after a significant initial ask.
No Initial Request: Only 16% compliance was observed when participants were not presented with the larger request, illustrating the technique's effectiveness.
That's Not All Technique and Lowballing
That's Not All Technique: Offers an initial deal and then adds additional incentives to influence compliance before the individual can respond.
Lowballing: This involves gaining initial agreement to a request and revealing hidden costs or drawbacks post-agreement, demonstrating how psychological commitment can be leveraged to influence decisions.
Cialdini (1978) Experiment
Procedure: Participants were called and invited to a psychological study with an enticing premise.
Conditions: Participants in the control group were informed of a 7 am start time immediately, while the lowball group learned about the early start time only after they agreed to participate.
Results
Control Condition: Only 31% agreed to participate when made aware of the early start time upfront.
Lowball Condition: Conversely, 56% agreed to participate, showcasing the significant increase due to the lowballing technique.
Bait and Switch
Description: This technique involves advertising an attractive offer, then declaring the initial option unavailable and offering a more costly alternative.
Joule et al. (1989) Experiment
Procedure: Participants agreed to a study for a pay of 6. Upon arrival, they were informed the study was canceled and could instead volunteer for a less appealing study with no monetary incentive.
Baseline Condition: Participants were previously approached about another study to establish normal willingness to participate.
Results
Baseline Condition Willingness: Only 15% of individuals showed willingness to participate in the less attractive study.
Bait and Switch Condition: 47% opted to participate when faced with the bait and switch scenario, indicating the effectiveness of this tactic.
Labeling
Description: This final compliance principle revolves around assigning a label or identity to a person and then making a request aligned with that label. This exploits social identity to encourage compliance.
Social influence encompasses a range of behaviors and mechanisms that affect how individuals think and act, often categorized into three primary types: obedience, compliance, and conformity.
Social Influence
Obedience: A change in behavior stemming from direct commands or requests from an authority figure. This is distinct from mere compliance, as it involves a higher level of coercion or authority. Historical studies, such as Milgram's Experiment, starkly illustrate obedience, revealing the extent to which people will go to follow authority even against their moral compass.
Compliance: This involves yielding to a direct, explicit appeal, often in the form of a request or demand. Compliance can be driven by social pressure, a desire for approval, or expectations of future interactions. This aspect of social influence highlights the powerful effects of interpersonal relationships on decision-making.
Conformity: A change in behavior or attitude that occurs due to a desire to fit in or adhere to the beliefs or standards of a group. Conformity can happen even without direct requests, as people often align their views in response to social norms. Classic studies, such as Asch's conformity experiments, underscore the strength of group influence on individual judgment.
Milgram's Obedience Study
Setup: The study was structured with two roles: the subject (teacher) and the confederate (learner). The purpose was framed as an investigation into the effects of punishment on learning. The teacher was tasked with administering electric shocks to the learner for incorrect answers, thereby highlighting the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.
Shock Generator: The shock generator had a range displayed from 15 volts to 450 volts, and was labeled with increasingly severe descriptors like "Slight Shock," "Moderate Shock," and "Danger: Severe Shock." This design pushed subjects to confront dramatic moral dilemmas as they administered what they believed to be painful shocks.
Procedure: Participants were instructed to escalate shocks with each mistake by the learner. Although the learner was located in another room, the audible responses and pleas for cessation created a potent psychological environment, testing the limits of obedience.
Learner's Protests: The learner's protests escalated with voltage increases, giving voice to the human cost of the experimentation. For instance, at 75 volts, the learner expressed discomfort, and at 150 volts, they reiterated a serious health concern, pleading to be released. At 300 volts, the learner screamed in agony, which was designed to elicit a compassionate response from the teacher but often did not.
Experimenter's Prompts: Standardized verbal prods were used when subjects hesitated, such as, "Please continue" or "The experiment requires that you continue," demonstrating the power of authority in shaping behavior even in morally dubious contexts.
Prior Estimations: Predictions by individuals prior to the study indicated that most believed they or others would never administer shocks beyond 300 volts, reflecting a significant disconnect between expectations and actual behavior observed during the study.
Milgram Study Results
In the actual study, a staggering 63% of participants administered the maximum shock of 450 volts, despite clear indicators of distress from the learner.
Only 25% decided to stop by the time the voltage reached 300 volts, showcasing the troubling implications of obedience in human behavior.
Martin et al. (1976) Study
Setup: Participants were misled to believe they were taking part in a study to identify individuals with rare auditory capabilities. This manipulation created a context where participants felt compelled to comply with instructions based on false premises.
Procedure: The participants interacted with a device that had an adjustable dial labeled with various danger levels regarding hearing loss. This setup tested compliance under the guise of genuine scientific inquiry. A schoolteacher led the experiment, adding authority and credibility to the request to increase the dial.
Results: The results revealed that 95% of participants manipulated the dial to at least 6, and about 54% moved it to the maximum level of 10, reflecting the influence of authority and perceived pressure in compliance scenarios.
Compliance
Compliance consists of yielding to explicit requests or demands, which can be examined through several principles, including:
Cialdini’s 6 Principles of Compliance
Friendship/Liking: The more one likes another person, the more likely they are to comply with their requests. This is evident in sales scenarios like Mary Kay or Tupperware parties, where personal relationships enhance compliance.
Commitment/Consistency: Individuals have a strong desire to appear consistent in their commitments. Once someone commits to an idea or action, they are more prone to comply with related requests.
Scarcity: The perception of limited opportunities enhances the desirability of an item. Phrases like "Last Chance to Buy!" effectively increase compliance through urgency.
Reciprocity: The social norm of reciprocity suggests that if someone does something for you, you naturally feel compelled to return the favor. Free samples often lead to an increased purchase rate.
Social Validation: Individuals are more likely to comply if they see others doing the same thing, as it suggests a social consensus. When people observe others engaging in a behavior, it increases their likelihood of compliance, seen in marketing strategies emphasizing popularity.
Authority: Individuals are inclined to comply with requests from figures perceived as authoritative. Advertising often leverages endorsements such as “4 out of 5 Dentists Agree…” to enhance compliance.
Compliance Strategies
Foot-in-the-Door Technique: This strategy involves starting with a small, easily accepted request, which paves the way for a larger request later on.
Door-in-the-Face Technique: Initiating a large request, anticipating refusal, and then following up with a more reasonable request demonstrates this technique. By contrast, the smaller request appears more palatable.
That's Not All Technique: An initial offer is presented, and before a decision can be made, additional incentives are introduced, making the deal more enticing.
Lowballing: This technique involves gaining initial agreement to a request, only to later add additional costs or unfavorable details once the subject is committed.
Bait and Switch: Presenting an attractive option that is later made unavailable, replaced by a more costly alternative demonstrates this method effectively.
Labeling: Assigning a label to someone and making a request consistent with that label can significantly enhance compliance, as people tend to act in ways that are congruent with how they are identified.
Foot-in-the-Door Technique
Description: This strategy involves making an initially small request that is easily accepted, followed by a larger, related request. This psychological principle hinges on the desire for consistency in behavior.
Freedman & Fraser (1966) Experiment
Procedure: The methodology involved asking residents to sign a petition (small request) before returning weeks later to solicit them to allow a huge billboard in their yard (large request).
Control Condition: A separate group was only approached with the large request to put a billboard up, without the initial request for a signature.
Results
Agreed to Prior Small Request: 53% of those approached complied with the large request.
Not Solicited for Prior Small Request: Only 17% of those approached complied without prior engagement, indicating the technique's effectiveness.
Door-in-the-Face Technique
Description: A large initial request is made expecting refusal, followed by a smaller, more reasonable request to increase chances of compliance.
Cialdini et al. (1975) Experiment
Procedure: Residents were initially asked if they would dedicate 2 hours a week for 2 years to serve as “big brothers/sisters,” with no volunteers agreeing to this extensive commitment.
Second Request: Subsequently asking if they would spend 2 hours just once to take kids to the zoo served as the smaller request.
Control Condition: A different group was only given the second request without any larger initial request.
Results
Initial Large Request: 50% of participants agreed to the second request after a significant initial ask.
No Initial Request: Only 16% compliance was observed when participants were not presented with the larger request, illustrating the technique's effectiveness.
That's Not All Technique and Lowballing
That's Not All Technique: Offers an initial deal and then adds additional incentives to influence compliance before the individual can respond.
Lowballing: This involves gaining initial agreement to a request and revealing hidden costs or drawbacks post-agreement, demonstrating how psychological commitment can be leveraged to influence decisions.
Cialdini (1978) Experiment
Procedure: Participants were called and invited to a psychological study with an enticing premise.
Conditions: Participants in the control group were informed of a 7 am start time immediately, while the lowball group learned about the early start time only after they agreed to participate.
Results
Control Condition: Only 31% agreed to participate when made aware of the early start time upfront.
Lowball Condition: Conversely, 56% agreed to participate, showcasing the significant increase due to the lowballing technique.
Bait and Switch
Description: This technique involves advertising an attractive offer, then declaring the initial option unavailable and offering a more costly alternative.
Joule et al. (1989) Experiment
Procedure: Participants agreed to a study for a pay of 6. Upon arrival, they were informed the study was canceled and could instead volunteer for a less appealing study with no monetary incentive.
Baseline Condition: Participants were previously approached about another study to establish normal willingness to participate.
Results
Baseline Condition Willingness: Only 15% of individuals showed willingness to participate in the less attractive study.
Bait and Switch Condition: 47% opted to participate when faced with the bait and switch scenario, indicating the effectiveness of this tactic.
Labeling
Description: This final compliance principle revolves around assigning a label or identity to a person and then making a request aligned with that label. This exploits social identity to encourage compliance.