Social Influence: Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience Study Notes

Social Influence: The methods by which individuals are influenced by others, resulting in behavioral changes based on explicit instructions (compliance/obedience) or perceived expectations (conformity).
Autokinetic Effect (Sherif, 1936): A study on informational social influence using a stationary point of light in a dark environment that appears to move due to lack of reference points. - Participants rated movement alone (Session $1$ ), in groups (Sessions $2-4$ ), and alone again (Session $5$ ). - Results showed that group norms converged (from deviations like $8$ inches or $1$ inch toward a central mean of roughly $3$ inches) and persisted even when participants were alone again, indicating genuine belief change.
The Asch Study (1956): A study on normative social influence using a clearly correct line length task. - Results: $77\%$ of participants conformed to an incorrect unanimous group answer at least once; only $23\%$ never conformed. - Conformity was eliminated if answers were private or if at least one other person gave the correct answer.

Informational Social Influence: Using others as a source of information to disambiguate an environment. Motivated by a desire for accuracy, this leads to genuine belief change (e.g., the Autokinetic effect).
Normative Social Influence: Influencing behavior to gain social acceptance without changing underlying beliefs. This occurs in unambiguous situations (e.g., Asch study) and involves arousal or discomfort.
Social Norms: Socially determined standards for what is typical (Descriptive) or desired (Injunctive). - Descriptive Norms: Perceptions of actual behavior (e.g., "people have littered"). - Injunctive Norms: Perceptions of what should be done (e.g., "people should not litter").
Norm Specificity: Specific norms are more impactful than general ones. - Hotel Study (Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008): Messages stating " $75\%$ of guests who stayed in this room reused towels" were more effective than general environmental messages.
Littering Studies (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1990): - A clean environment with a "lone piece of litter" actually decreased littering (to $3.6\%$ ) compared to a perfectly clean environment ( $10.7\%$ ) because the single piece highlighted the descriptive norm of cleanliness. - Fully littered environments saw significantly higher littering rates ( $26.7\%$ to $45\%$ depending on salience).

Compliance: Changing behavior following an explicit or implicit request.
Copy Machine Study (Langer et al., 1978): Using the word "because" increased compliance from $60\%$ to $85\%-94\%$ , even if the reason was irrelevant (e.g., "because I need to make some copies").
Cialdini’s Six Norms of Influence: 1. Reciprocity: Returning favors (e.g., Kunz & Woolcott, 1976 Christmas card study; Regan, 1971 Coca-Cola study). 2. Social Validation: Following others in uncertain situations. 3. Consistency: Motivated to not appear hypocritical. - Four-Walls Technique: Leading questions to trap someone into a commitment. - Foot-in-the-Door (Freedman & Fraser, 1966): Small request (sticker) leading to large request (lawn sign); compliance rose from $17\%$ to $76\%$ . 4. Liking: Influenced by familiarity, attractiveness, and similarity. 5. Authority: Obeying those with perceived knowledge or power. 6. Scarcity: Valuable things are perceived as rare (e.g., "Limited-time offer" or "While supplies last").

Obedience: Behavioral change resulting from an authority figure's command.
Milgram Study (1961): Examined why individuals obey authority even when harming others. - Procedure: "Teachers" (participants) administered shocks ranging from $15\,V$ to $450\,V$ to "learners" (confederates) for errors. - Results: While psychiatrists predicted less than $1\%$ would go to the maximum voltage, $63\%$ showed complete obedience, administering the highest possible shock ( $450\,V$ ). - $80\%$ continued shocks even after the learner complained of heart problems.

Ostracism: Exclusion from a group, which lowers perceptions of belonging and control.
Cyberball Study (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000): Ostracism manipulated via an online ball-tossing game. Ostracized participants were significantly more likely to conform to incorrect group answers in subsequent tasks (approx. $60\%$ vs. $20\%$ for included participants).
Socially-Induced Pain (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003): fMRI studies showed that social exclusion activates the Anterior Cingulate (Acc), the same brain region associated with physical pain. Acc activity positively correlates with self-reported distress.

Question: How are results from the autokinetic effect study similar to the line study? How are they different? - Response: Both show people following group consensus. They differ in that Sherif's study involved an ambiguous stimulus and led to private belief change (informational), while Asch's involved an unambiguous stimulus and public compliance (normative).
Question: Behind a house in Columbus, OH, there are two dumpsters. One has some trash, the other is empty. Which will residents use? - Discussion: Prediction is difficult without knowing both the injunctive and descriptive norms; however, descriptive norms often suggest people follow the precedent of where trash is already located.
Question: What is an alternative explanation for the Foot-in-the-Door sticker findings? - Discussion: Possibilities include changing the participant's self-perception or attitude toward the cause (safe driving) rather than just a consistency norm.
Question: What type of social influence did the Williams (2000) Cyberball task involve? - Context: The task examined whether ostracism leads to Normative Social Influence.