Social Influence: Obedience, Compliance, and Conformity
Social Influence: Obedience, Compliance, and Conformity
Introduction
Social influence encompasses how individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are affected by others. It can manifest in various forms, ranging from subtle, indirect influences to direct commands. The core concepts include obedience, compliance, and conformity.
Core Concepts
1. Obedience
Definition: A change in behavior due to the commands of others. It represents the most direct form of social influence.
2. Compliance
Definition: Yielding to a direct, explicit appeal meant to produce certain behavior or agreement to a particular point of view. It involves an active attempt to change behavior but lacks the explicit order found in obedience.
3. Conformity
Definition: A change in behavior or attitude brought about by a desire to follow the beliefs or standards of others. It represents the most indirect form of social influence, often driven by the desire to fit in or be correct.
Milgram's Obedience Study
Overview
Milgram's Obedience Study is a landmark experiment that investigated the extent to which individuals would obey orders from an authority figure, even when those orders conflicted with their conscience.
Procedure
Initial Setup: Subjects were told the study was about the effects of punishment on learning.
Roles: Participants were assigned the role of "teacher," while a confederate (an accomplice of the experimenter) was assigned the role of "learner."
Punishment: The teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks to the learner for every mistake made.
Shock Generator: A shock generator was used with levels ranging from 15 to 450 volts.
Escalation: The teacher was told to increase the shock level with each subsequent mistake.
Communication: The teacher couldn't see the learner but could hear their responses through an intercom.
Experimenter Prompts: If the teacher hesitated or refused to continue, the experimenter used specific prompts to encourage them to proceed.
Learner's Protests (Examples)
The learner's protests escalated as the shock levels increased. Some notable examples include:
75 volts: "Ugh!"
120 volts: "Ugh! Hey, this really hurts."
150 volts: "Ugh!!! Experimenter! That's all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble."
195 volts: "Ugh! Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart's bothering me. Let me out of here! You have no right to keep me here! Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let me out of here! My heart's bothering me. Let me out! Let me out!"
300 volts: "(Agonized scream) I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You can't hold me here. Get me out. Get me out of here."
330 volts: "(Intense and prolonged agonized scream) Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart's bothering me. Let me out, I tell you. (Hysterically) Let me out of here. Let me out of here. You have no right to hold me here. Let me out! Let me out! Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let me out!"
Prior Estimates vs. Actual Results
Prior Estimation: Before the experiment, Milgram asked people to estimate how far they or others would go. Self-estimates averaged around 135 volts, and almost no one expected to go beyond 300 volts.
Actual Study Results: In reality, only 25% of participants dropped out by 300 volts, and a surprising 63% went all the way to 450 volts.
Martin et al. (1976) Study
Overview
Martin et al. (1976) conducted a study exploring obedience in a different context. Participants were led to believe they were identifying people with the ability to hear ultra-high-frequency sounds.
Procedure
Setup: Participants were shown a noise apparatus with a dial ranging from 0 to 10. The dial included labels such as "Danger: 2-12% hearing loss reported" at level 4 and "Extremely high danger: 50% hearing loss reported" at level 8.
Experimenter: A schoolteacher served as the experimenter, instructing students to move the dial to the next level and indicate if they heard a sound (in reality, no sounds were delivered).
Prompts: No specific prompts or prods were given to encourage participants to continue.
Results
95% of participants went to level 6.
54% of participants went all the way to level 10.
Cialdini’s 6 Principles of Compliance
Robert Cialdini identified six key principles that influence compliance:
Friendship/Liking: People are more likely to comply with requests from those they like. Examples include Mary Kay and Tupperware parties, which leverage social connections.
Commitment/Consistency: Once people commit to a position, they are more likely to comply with requests consistent with that position. Signing contracts is a prime example.
Scarcity: Opportunities seem more valuable when they are less available. Phrases like "Last Chance to Buy!" play on this principle.
Reciprocity: People often feel obligated to return favors or concessions. Offering free samples is a common application.
Social Validation: People are more likely to comply if they see others doing the same. The idea of "Everybody's Doing It - Don't Get Left Behind!" taps into this.
Authority: People tend to comply with requests from authority figures. Advertisements often use the line "4 out of 5 Dentists Agree…" to leverage this principle.
Compliance Strategies
1. Foot-in-the-Door Technique
Description: Start with a small request, then follow with a larger request. The initial agreement increases the likelihood of agreeing to the larger request.
2. Door-in-the-Face Technique
Description: Begin with a larger request (that is likely to be refused), then follow with a smaller, more reasonable request. The smaller request is more likely to be accepted after the initial refusal.
3. That's Not All Technique
Description: Offer a deal, and then add additional incentives or bonuses before the person can respond, making the offer more appealing.
4. Lowballing
Description: Get an initial agreement, then increase the cost or change the terms of the deal. People often stick with the agreement even after the terms worsen.
5. Bait and Switch
Description: Offer an attractive initial deal (the "bait"), then make it unavailable and offer a more costly option (the "switch").
6. Labeling
Description: Assign a label to a person, then make a request consistent with that label. People are more likely to act in ways that align with the assigned label.
Studies on Compliance Techniques
Freedman & Fraser (1966): Foot-in-the-Door Technique
Procedure: Residents were initially asked to sign a petition (small request). Nearly all complied.
Later Request: Weeks later, a different experimenter asked if they would put a huge billboard in their yard (large request).
Control: A separate group of new homes was approached only with the large request.
Dependent Variable (DV): % who complied with the large billboard request.
Results:
Agreed to prior small request = 53%
Not solicited for prior small request = 17%
Cialdini et al. (1975): Door-in-the-Face Technique
Initial Request: Experimenters asked residents if they were willing to spend 2 hours a week for 2 years as "big brothers/sisters." None agreed.
Second Request: Experimenter followed up with a smaller request: Willing to spend 2 hours just once taking kids to the zoo?
Control: A separate group was only given the second request.
Dependent Variable (DV): % who agreed with the 2nd request
Results:
Initial large request = 50%
No initial request = 16%
Cialdini (1978): Lowballing
Procedure: Participants were phoned and asked to participate in an interesting experiment.
Conditions:
Control: Told immediately about the 7am start time.
Lowball: Told the start time after they agreed to join.
Dependent Variable (DV): % of students 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)
Joule et al. (1989): Bait and Switch
Procedure: Participants were phoned and agreed to participate in an interesting study; told they would be paid 6.
The Switch: When they arrived, they were told the experiment was canceled but could volunteer for a different, uninteresting experiment with no pay.
Baseline: Earlier, the experimenter described the second study to other subjects to get a baseline level of willingness to participate.
Dependent Variable (DV): % willing to participate
Results:
Baseline condition = 15%
Bait and switch condition = 47%
Importance of Labeling
Labels are self-fulfilling prophecies; If labeled a jerk one is more likely to act like a jerk.
Social influence encompasses how individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are affected by others, which can occur in both subtle, indirect influences and direct commands. It is crucial to understand the spectrum of social influence, particularly under the concepts of obedience, compliance, and conformity, as they distinctly explain how social contexts can compel individuals to behave in certain ways, often contrary to their own beliefs or preferences.
Core Concepts
Obedience
Definition: A change in behavior directly correlating to the commands of an authority figure. It represents one of the most explicit forms of social influence, often involving a perceived power dynamic between the follower and the leader. Obedience can lead to positive or negative outcomes, depending on the nature and intent of the commands issued.
Psychological Mechanism: Individuals often obey authority due to societal conditioning, fear of punishment, or the desire for social acceptance. Experiments demonstrate that under certain conditions, stable individuals can commit acts they normally would reject.
Compliance
Definition: The act of yielding to a direct request from another person. While it denotes an active response, compliance does not necessarily involve a sense of authority; instead, it could stem from personal relationships or social pressure.
Motivating Factors: Individuals often comply due to a variety of factors, including social norms, emotional connections to the requester, or a perceived benefit for themselves.
Conformity
Definition: A change in behavior or attitude that arises from an individual’s alignment with the beliefs or norms of a group. It represents the most indirect form of social influence and is primarily driven by a desire to fit in, avoid conflict, or be perceived as correct.
Types of Conformity:
Normative Social Influence: Conformity based on the desire to be accepted or liked by others.
Informational Social Influence: Conformity that occurs when individuals look to others for guidance on how to behave in ambiguous situations.
Milgram's Obedience Study
Overview
Milgram's Obedience Study remains one of the most significant psychological experiments, exploring the limits of obedience to authority and the moral implications stemming from such behavior. Conducted in the early 1960s, the study aimed to evaluate how far individuals would go in following orders that conflicted with their personal conscience.
Procedure
Initial Setup: Participants were misled into thinking the study focused on learning and punishment.
Roles: They were assigned as "teacher," while a confederate acted as the "learner."
Punishment: The teacher was instructed to administer escalating electric shocks for each mistake made by the learner.
Shock Generator: A device marked with voltage levels ranging from 15 to 450 volts was used, designed to appear legitimate and threatening.
Escalation: The teacher was told to progressively increase the shock level with each mistake, even beyond the point of perceived harm.
Communication: The teacher was isolated from the learner, only hearing responses through an intercom, which heightened the detachment from the consequences of their actions.
Experimenter Prompts: If hesitations arose, the experimenter employed a series of prompts designed to pressure the teacher into continuing, reinforcing the authority of the study's design.
Learner's Protests (Examples)
The learner’s reactions escalated dramatically, adding ethical considerations to the study's design, such as:
Social influence encompasses how individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are affected by others, which can occur in both subtle, indirect influences and direct commands. It is crucial to understand the spectrum of social influence, particularly under the concepts of obedience, compliance, and conformity, as they distinctly explain how social contexts can compel individuals to behave in certain ways, often contrary to their own beliefs or preferences.
Core Concepts
Obedience
Definition: A change in behavior directly correlating to the commands of an authority figure. It represents one of the most explicit forms of social influence, often involving a perceived power dynamic between the follower and the leader. Obedience can lead to positive or negative outcomes, depending on the nature and intent of the commands issued.
Psychological Mechanism: Individuals often obey authority due to societal conditioning, fear of punishment, or the desire for social acceptance. Experiments demonstrate that under certain conditions, stable individuals can commit acts they normally would reject.
Compliance
Definition: The act of yielding to a direct request from another person. While it denotes an active response, compliance does not necessarily involve a sense of authority; instead, it could stem from personal relationships or social pressure.
Motivating Factors: Individuals often comply due to a variety of factors, including social norms, emotional connections to the requester, or a perceived benefit for themselves.
Conformity
Definition: A change in behavior or attitude that arises from an individual’s alignment with the beliefs or norms of a group. It represents the most indirect form of social influence and is primarily driven by a desire to fit in, avoid conflict, or be perceived as correct.
Types of Conformity:
Normative Social Influence: Conformity based on the desire to be accepted or liked by others.
Informational Social Influence: Conformity that occurs when individuals look to others for guidance on how to behave in ambiguous situations.
Milgram's Obedience Study
Overview
Milgram's Obedience Study remains one of the most significant psychological experiments, exploring the limits of obedience to authority and the moral implications stemming from such behavior. Conducted in the early 1960s, the study aimed to evaluate how far individuals would go in following orders that conflicted with their personal conscience.
Procedure
Initial Setup: Participants were misled into thinking the study focused on learning and punishment.
Roles: They were assigned as "teacher," while a confederate acted as the "learner."
Punishment: The teacher was instructed to administer escalating electric shocks for each mistake made by the learner.
Shock Generator: A device marked with voltage levels ranging from 15 to 450 volts was used, designed to appear legitimate and threatening.
Escalation: The teacher was told to progressively increase the shock level with each mistake, even beyond the point of perceived harm.
Communication: The teacher was isolated from the learner, only hearing responses through an intercom, which heightened the detachment from the consequences of their actions.
Experimenter Prompts: If hesitations arose, the experimenter employed a series of prompts designed to pressure the teacher into continuing, reinforcing the authority of the study's design.