6.3. Notes on Types of Social Influence

Persuasion

• Definition: Persuasion is when someone tries to convince you to change what you believe, feel, or do. (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2020)
• This can happen in many ways: ads, friends, bosses, etc.
• Three main factors that matter in persuasion:
• The source of the communication
  • Credibility matters: a message is more convincing if it comes from someone who seems credible (they know what they’re talking about and can be trusted).
  • Example: health advice about obesity from a respected medical journal is more persuasive than from a gossip magazine. (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2020)
• The content of the communication
  • How persuasive a message is depends on what it says and who’s listening.
  • Positive messages generally work better than negative ones. (O’Keefe & Hoeken, 2021)
  • Framing depends on the audience:
  • One-sided messages (only one side) work better when people know nothing about the topic or already strongly agree.
  • Two-sided messages (presenting both sides, then choosing one) are better for people who are unsure or have mixed feelings. (Kim et al., 2020)
  • Personalization through digital activity: modern advertising uses what we click/search to build profiles and tailor ads to interests and personality.
  • Examples:
    • An anxious person might see phone ads emphasizing safety features.
    • A person who cares about status might see ads emphasizing exclusivity and high-tech appeal.
• The audience/listener
  • Self-esteem effects: people with very low or very high self-esteem are harder to persuade than those with average self-esteem (Rhodes & Wood, 1992).
  • Low self-esteem: may be too anxious to focus.
  • High self-esteem: may be too confident to change their minds.
  • Beyond personality, the situation matters more.
  • Motivation and ability to think clearly (Elaboration Likelihood Model): when people are motivated and able, they evaluate messages carefully; if not, they rely on gut feelings or social cues, which makes them easier to influence. (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)
  • If motivated/able: central route processing (careful evaluation).
  • If not motivated/distracted/not understanding: peripheral route processing (cues and heuristics).
• Connections to real-world relevance: advertising, political messaging, health communications, and organizational messaging rely on understanding source credibility, message content, and audience characteristics to maximize influence.

The Content of the Communication (persuasion-related)

• O’Keefe & Hoeken (2021) emphasize not only what is said but who is listening; messages are shaped by audience characteristics.
• Personalization in digital advertising illustrates how content is tailored to individual profiles to increase persuasiveness.

The Audience (the audience of the communication)

• Self-esteem effects (Rhodes & Wood, 1992): very low or very high self-esteem harder to persuade; average self-esteem more persuadable.
• Motivation and cognitive capacity (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986): when people are motivated and able, they scrutinize messages; otherwise they rely on heuristics.

Conformity

• Definition: Conformity means changing thoughts or behavior to match those of others around you. Unlike compliance, conformity often changes genuine beliefs.

• Majority vs minority influence: most conformity comes from the majority, but a minority can also influence.

• Majority influence

• Solomon Asch (1951) demonstrated strong group pressure on belief: participants judged line lengths with a group giving clearly wrong answers.

  • Result: about one-third of participants gave the same wrong answer as the group (≈ $\frac{1}{3} = 0.333…$ or 33 ext{%} ).
  • Approximately 75 ext{%} of participants conformed at least once. Many reported doubting their own eyes or thinking they misunderstood the task.
  • Those who did not conform still reported discomfort with disagreeing.

• Deutsch & Gerard (1955) repeated the task privately to test whether public pressure was the driver. Conformity dropped but did not disappear: about 23 ext{%} conformed even when responses were private.

• Important factors influencing conformity (beyond mere pressure):

  • Unanimity: When everyone in the group gives the same answer, conformity is higher. If even one person disagrees, conformity falls sharply. In Asch’s study, a dissenting ally reduced conformity from about 33 ext{%} to 5.5 ext{%}. This pattern has been replicated in later studies (Asch, 1955; Naveed, 2013).
  • Group size: Larger groups increase conformity, but mainly when group members are perceived as giving their own opinions; if they are just copying each other, the effect is smaller. (Bond, 2005)
  • Self-categorization: Conformity rises when the group is seen as part of one’s own identity or “in-group” (David & Turner, 1996, 2001); less influence from outsiders.
  • Task difficulty: Harder or more confusing tasks increase conformity, while easy tasks decrease it. (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Lucas et al., 2006; Rosander & Eriksson, 2012)
  • Cultural differences: A large review of $133$ studies found collectivist cultures tend to conform more than individualist cultures; culture can have more influence than group size. (Bond & Smith, 1996)
  • Overall takeaway: people are more likely to follow the crowd when the group is united, large, similar to them, or when they feel unsure, especially in harmony-valuing cultures.

• Minority influence

• A small group or even one person can influence the majority.

• Historical examples show minorities challenging norms (e.g., Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr.) and gradually shifting public opinion. (Moscovici, 1976)

• For minority influence to work: consistency is key across time; minorities are more persuasive when they make personal sacrifices (e.g., acting from principle, not selfish reasons). Nelson Mandela is given as an example (27 years in prison, steadfast for peace and justice).

• Real-life takeaway: majority tends to shape public behavior; minority can shape private thoughts and attitudes (Martin et al., 2003).

Compliance

• Definition: Compliance means going along with a request or rule, even if you don’t actually agree deep down; it changes behavior, not beliefs.
• Examples: paying taxes because law requires it; following airport security instructions even if they don’t seem sensible.
• Three main situational drivers of compliance (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004):
• Liking the person making the request (ingratiation) – being nice or showing interest to increase likelihood of a yes.
• Social pressure to fit in – fear of social sanction or desire to be accepted.
• Feeling obligated or owing something – perceived debt or obligation.
• Ingratiation: getting someone to say yes by being nice to them, complimenting, showing interest (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004).
• Reciprocation: when someone does something for you, you feel you owe them back, which increases compliance likelihood (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004).
• Foot-in-the-door technique: agree to a small request, then more likely to comply with a larger request later. Example: sign a petition, then donate later. (Freedman & Fraser, 1966)
• Door-in-the-face technique: ask for a large request first (likely refused), then a smaller one; the second request is more likely to be approved because it feels like a fair compromise. (Cialdini et al., 1975)

Obedience

• Definition: Obedience means following orders from an authority figure; it often reflects rule-following or fear of punishment rather than genuine belief change. (Milgram, 1963)
• Milgram’s obedience experiments (1963): participants instructed to give electric shocks to a learner for wrong answers; shocks were not real, but the learner acted in pain.
• Result: 65 ext{%} of participants delivered the highest shock level (450 volts) when guided by an authority figure.
• Safer replication by Burger (2009): stopped the procedure at 150 volts; still about 70 ext{%} of participants complied up to that point, especially when the authority figure was in the same room. This shows obedience can persist even when the task seems harmful and authority is nearby.
• Explanations for obedience:
• People may follow to seek rewards, avoid punishment, or believe the authority knows best (sociocultural justification).
• Milgram (1974) proposed two mechanisms:
  • Psychological barriers (binding factors): people begin with small acts of obedience and progressively escalate to more harmful acts (foot-in-the-door effect).
  • Agentic shift: people stop viewing their actions as their own responsibility and see the authority figure as responsible, so they follow orders without guilt.
• Factors that increased obedience in Milgram’s setup:
• The learner being in another room
• The orders coming from an authority figure perceived as powerful (e.g., Yale)
• Absence or weakness of disobedience around
• Sociocultural perspective: obedience is shaped by cultural norms about respecting authority and following rules, though extreme cases reveal the power of situational factors and responsibility shifting.

The Upside of Social Influence

• Social influence is not inherently bad; it can promote harmony, cooperation, and rapid adaptation.
• Examples of positive uses:
• Botvin et al. (1995) showed peer influence in school-based drug prevention programs can be more effective than simply providing health information.
• Influence-based strategies have been used to prevent HIV/AIDS, reduce prejudice, curb aggression, and support environmental protection.
• The effect depends on how influence is used and who is targeted; when done ethically and thoughtfully, it can create beneficial social change.

Reactance: When persuasion backfires

• Psychological reactance: a motivational state that arises when people feel their freedom to choose is being constrained; they react by resisting or doing the opposite of what is being pressured to do. (Jack Brehm, 1966)
• Reactance can occur in various domains: advertising, parenting, politics, health messages.
• Instead of being persuaded, pressure can provoke resistance or rebellious behavior (Miron & Brehm, 2006; Steindl et al., 2015).
• Common manifestations: a shopper feels pressed to buy; a teen resists rules when told to comply.
• Illustrative examples include: a teen told to finish food or a shopper pushed to buy something; a teen ordered to stop eating sweets.
• Concept: people generally feel freer when they perceive choices; pressure to comply reduces perceived freedom, triggering reactance and oppositional behavior. (Brehm, 1966)

Connections and implications

• Throughout social influence literature, the balance between individual autonomy and social influence is central. Situational factors often trump personality traits in predicting obedience or conformity.
• Ethical considerations: researchers and practitioners should consider when and how influence is used, ensuring it respects autonomy and avoids harm.
• Real-world relevance: understanding these processes helps in designing public health campaigns, education policies, workplace management, and social interventions that encourage beneficial behaviors without provoking reactance or harmful obedience.