Conformity, Obedience & Social Influence – Comprehensive Study Notes

Acknowledgement of Country

• Lecturer begins by acknowledging the Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia and paying respect to Elders past, present and emerging, including any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people listening.

Recap of Week 11

• Focus last week: Attitudes & Heuristics
  • Three‐component model of attitudes: Cognitions, Affect, Behaviour.
  • Types of attitudes: Explicit vs. Implicit.
  • Specific attitude structures: Schemas, Heuristics, Attributions.
  • Origins of attitudes and Cognitive Dissonance.
  • Tutorial activity: Counter-attitudinal advocacy—behave first, cognitions shift later.

Overview of Week 12

• Theme: Conformity, Obedience & Social Influence—behavioural side of attitudes.
• Objectives: learn how manipulation tactics work, recognise them in daily life, guard against them.
• Structure of lecture:
  1. Definitions (social influence, conformity, obedience)
  2. Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
  3. Four manipulation tactics in depth: Reciprocity, Liking, Consistency & Commitment, Social Validation
  4. Brief mention of Authority and Scarcity
  5. Experiments, real-world examples, cultural/individual differences

Key Definitions

• Social Influence (umbrella term)
  • Effect that others’ words, actions, or mere presence have on our thoughts, feelings & behaviour.
• Conformity
  • Behaviour change due to real or imagined influence of others (no direct order).
  • Classic example: Asch line study—participant gives obvious wrong answer to match unanimous group.
• Obedience
  • Behaviour change in response to direct orders from authority.
  • Classic example: Milgram shock study—experimenter instructs continuation.
• Distinctions
  • Conformity + social influence: any people, direct order not required; obedience: authority + explicit command.
  • Behaviour may change without parallel change in private cognitions/affect.

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

• Dual-process framework—two persuasion routes:
  1. Central Route
  • Careful, effortful thinking about message merits.
  • Likely when high motivation, ability, opportunity.
  • Leads to attitudes that are durable & predictive of behaviour.
  1. Peripheral Route
  • Reliance on heuristics, surface cues (e.g., attractiveness, “because”).
  • Used when low motivation/ability/opportunity.
• Routes form a continuum; decisions often involve both logic & heuristics.
• Link to Motivated Tactician view: we flexibly toggle between effortful and economical cognition.
• Practical implication: Manipulation tactics mostly exploit peripheral route.

Classic “Because” Copier Study (Langer et al.)

• Confederate tries to cut in photocopier queue:
  • No reason: “May I use the copier?” → 60\% comply.
  • Real reason: “…because I’m in a rush” → 94\% comply.
  • Placebo reason: “…because I have to make copies” → 93\% comply.
• Mere presence of the word “because” triggers automatic compliance.

Six (Now Seven) Principles of Influence (Cialdini)

1. Reciprocity
2. Liking
3. Consistency & Commitment
4. Social Validation (Social Proof)
5. Authority
6. Scarcity
7. Unity (recent addition; not covered in depth)

Brief Notes on Authority & Scarcity

• Authority: deference to perceived experts (e.g., dentist in toothpaste ad, suited jaywalker).
• Scarcity: value increases when availability decreases.
  • Reactance Theory: restriction of freedom → desire to re-assert it.
  • Marketing: “Limited time only”, fake closing-down sales, McRib cycles.
  • Works especially well when scarcity is due to high demand, tying in social proof.

Tactic 1 – Reciprocity

Norm of Reciprocity

• Cultural rule: repay gifts, favours, concessions.
• Works even if: stranger, unsolicited gift, different domain, unequal value.

Reagan (1971) “Coke & Raffle” Experiment

• Participant unknowingly paired with confederate.
• Conditions
  1. Favour: confederate buys participant a 10¢ Coke unasked.
  2. No Favour: nothing bought.
  3. Irrelevant Favour: experimenter (not confederate) provides Coke (controls for mood).
• Later confederate asks to buy 25¢ raffle tickets.
• Results: Favour condition → ~2 tickets average (500% ROI for confederate).
• Liking manipulation (pleasant vs. unpleasant phone call): liking mattered only when no favour given; reciprocity overrode liking!

Cultural Variation in Indebtedness (Hikokoto 2016)

• N = 455 Japanese vs. North-American students.
• Japanese reported stronger indebtedness, esp. when help came from stranger & collectivistic scenarios.
• Counter-finding: East Asians may refuse unsolicited aid to avoid debt → lower reciprocity pressure.

Reciprocation via Concessions (Door-in-the-Face)

• Large request → refusal → concession to smaller request → compliance.
• Cialdini et al. (1975)
  • Large: 2-yr counseling; Small: 1-day zoo trip.
  • Compliance: Control 17\% vs. DITF 51\%.
  • Exposure (both options simultaneously) 25\% → shows both contrast & reciprocity operate, but concession is key.
• Miller et al. follow-up: higher actual show-up rates (DITF 85\% vs. control 50\%) → tactic influences behaviour beyond verbal agreement.
• Psychological basis: recipient feels they “won” a compromise, feels responsible to reciprocate.

Tactic 2 – Liking

Why We Like Someone

1. Contact & Cooperation (mere exposure, joint goals)
2. Conditioning & Association (pairing with positive stimuli)
3. Physical Attractiveness
4. Similarity (demographic, attitudinal, behavioural)

Physical Attractiveness

• Halo Effect: infer intelligence, competence, virtue, trustworthiness.
• Outcomes:
  • Better grades (3rd-grade essay study), higher salaries, more votes (AU election: +1.5\text{–}2\% per SD attractiveness).
  • Kurtzberg et al. (1968) plastic-surgery inmates: lower recidivism.
• Praxmara food-supplement ad study: attractiveness ↑ perceived expertise/trustworthiness ↑ persuasion, even when product unrelated to beauty; effect held regardless of high product involvement (central processing didn’t cancel heuristic).

Similarity

• Validates our worldview; especially strong on unique shared traits (Heider’s unit relations).
• Berger et al. same-birthday study: compliance 62\% vs. 34\%.
• Other findings: same name, fingerprint type, clothing style, shared student status → more help/donations.

Mimicry & the Chameleon Effect

• Automatic, unconscious mirroring of postures/gestures increases rapport.
• Chartrand & Bargh (1999): participants mimicked confederate foot-shaking/face-rubbing; when confederate mimicked them, liking ↑.
• Awareness study (Kulesa et al.): knowing about mimicry nullifies effect—education is defence.
• Echo Effect (verbal mimicry): waitstaff repeating orders verbatim ↑ tips; paraphrasing at currency booth ↑ charity donations.

Tactic 3 – Consistency & Commitment

• Social value: consistent people seen as rational, honest; flip-floppers (politicians) seen as hypocritical.
• Personal utility: reduces cognitive load, avoids cognitive dissonance.

Foot-in-the-Door (FITD)

• Small request → compliance → larger related/unrelated request.
• Freedman & Fraser (1966) Palo Alto sign study:
  • Large ugly “Drive Carefully” sign.
  • Prior small requests (petition or small window sign) raised compliance from 17\% (control) to 48\text{–}76\% (varied overlap of issue/task).
  • Similarity of request not necessary; any prior compliance can shift self-perception (self-observation mechanism).
• Real-world: small charity donation → later monthly pledge; email sign-ups leading to bigger asks.

Low-Ball Technique

• Secure commitment with attractive terms → later reveal hidden costs.
• Works via:
  • Written or verbal commitment.
  • Generation of self-justifications during interval (e.g., positive test-drive thoughts).
  • Psychological ownership—hard to retract.
• Examples: car price bumps, airline ticket “fees”.

Bait-and-Switch

• Attractive product out of stock → steer to costlier/less desirable alternative.
• Leverages prior decision to act and desire to restore contentment/maintain consistency with salesperson.

Individual Differences

• Preference for Consistency (PFC) Scale
  • High PFC: ↑ conformity to FITD, ↑ dissonance discomfort.
  • Traits: High conscientiousness ↑ PFC; high openness ↓ PFC.

FITD vs. DITF Summary

• FITD: small→large; mechanism = consistency.
• DITF: large→small; mechanism = reciprocity (concession).
• FITD can escalate indefinitely; DITF must shrink.

Tactic 4 – Social Validation (Social Proof)

• We use others’ behaviour as guide, especially in uncertain/ambiguous contexts.
• Gadagno clothing-drive blog study:
  • High-validation comments → ↑ volunteering hours & willingness.
• Real-world cues:
  • Lines outside clubs, “best-selling” labels, tip jars pre-seeded with notes, canned laughter, FB likes correlate with sales.

Moderators of Social Validation

• Similarity of models → stronger influence (age, gender, status).
• Marketing make testimonials match target demographic; online “Customers also bought…” plays on similarity.

Cultural Differences (Cialdini et al.)

• Individualistic cultures / orientations (e.g., USA): place more weight on own past actions → consistency tactics more persuasive.
• Collectivistic cultures / orientations (e.g., Poland sample): focus on group norms → social validation tactics more persuasive.
• Personal orientation stronger predictor than national label.

Defences Against Manipulation

• Increase awareness & education (e.g., knowing mimicry nullifies effect).
• Engage central processing: seek motivation, information, time.
• Consider whether feelings of debt, liking, need for consistency, or “everyone’s doing it” are rationally relevant.
• Cultural & personality self-knowledge helps anticipate vulnerabilities.

Connections to Other Course Material

• Heuristics (availability, representativeness) reappear as peripheral cues.
• Cognitive Dissonance explains discomfort driving consistency.
• Self-Perception Theory underlies FITD (people infer attitudes from behaviour).
• Reactance overlaps scarcity.
• Motivated Tactician integrates ELM route choice.

Practical / Ethical Implications

• Marketers, fund-raisers, salespeople leverage these tactics—ethical usage vs. deceptive manipulation.
• Important for consumers & citizens to recognise cues, protect autonomy.
• Researchers must ensure informed consent and debriefing when employing such tactics experimentally.

Numerical & Statistical References

• Copier study compliance: 60\% vs. 94\% / 93\%.
• Reagan raffle return: 10¢ gift → 50¢ purchase (500% gain).
• DITF zoo study: Compliance 17\% → 51\%.
• FITD sign study: Control 17\%; up to 76\% with matching small request.
• Attractiveness vote share: +1.5\text{–}2\% per SD.
• Same-birthday compliance: 62\% vs. 34\%.

Final Reminders

• No pre-tutorial tasks this week; after tutorial share real-life examples on forum.
• Complete Moodle prompt questions & attempt next weekly exam.
• Continuously practise note-taking during lecture to capture examinable content.