Week 12 – Conformity, Obedience & Social Influence

Acknowledgment of Country

• Lecturer begins by paying respect to the traditional owners of Country throughout Australia and to Elders ext{past}, ext{present}, ext{emerging}; extends respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Recap of Week 11

• Covered attitudes & heuristics.

  • 3 components of attitudes: cognition, affect, behaviour.

  • Explicit vs implicit attitudes.

  • Special foci: schemas, heuristics, attributions.

• Cognitive dissonance introduced.

• Tutorial exercise: counter-attitudinal advocacy (behaviour → cognitive change).

This Week’s Focus

• Conformity, Obedience, Social Influence (behavioural side of attitudes).

• Objectives:

  • Learn definitions.

  • Understand the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM).

  • Master 4 manipulation tactics: Reciprocity, Liking, Consistency & Commitment, Social Validation (a.k.a. Social Proof).

  • Become able to recognise & guard against them.

Key Definitions

• Social Influence (umbrella term)

  • Effect that words, actions, or mere presence of others have on our thoughts, feelings, behaviours.

• Conformity

  • Behaviour change due to real or imagined influence of others.

  • Classic ref: Asch line study.

• Obedience

  • Behaviour change following direct orders from authority.

  • Classic ref: Milgram shock experiments.

• Distinctions table-style (implicit):

  • Social influence = any attitude component, any source.

  • Conformity = behaviour, any social source.

  • Obedience = behaviour, authority source, direct order.

Everyday Examples

• Neighbours fundraising door-to-door.

• Upselling extras when buying a car (extended warranty, etc.).

• Lecturer bought current jacket via manipulation tactic.

Theoretical Framework: Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

• Dual-process theory: 2 persuasion routes.

  1. Central Route

  • Careful, critical processing of message.

  • Requires motivation, ability, opportunity.

  • Yields more stable attitude change.

  1. Peripheral Route

  • Reliance on heuristics / surface cues.

  • Used when motivation/ability/opportunity are low.

• Continuum, not binary; decisions can involve both.

• Motivated tactician framework parallels ELM (people flexibly choose effort level).

• Manipulation tactics primarily trigger peripheral processing.

Tactics of Manipulation (Overview)

• Core idea: Exploit automatic responses; people act as cognitive misers.

• Classic copier study (Langer et al.)

  • Confederate asks to cut queue:

  • No reason: 60 ext{%} compliance.

  • Real reason ("because I’m in a rush"): 94 ext{%} compliance.

  • Placebo reason ("because I have to make copies"): 93 ext{%}.

  • Word "because" itself cues automatic compliance.

Cialdini’s 6 (now 7) Principles

1. Reciprocity

2. Liking

3. Consistency & Commitment

4. Social Validation / Proof

5. Authority

6. Scarcity

7. Unity (recent addition; not covered).

• Authority & scarcity briefly defined; deep-dive into first four.

Authority

• We defer to perceived experts.

• Suit-wearing jaywalker increases others’ jaywalking.

• Ads: "9/10 dentists recommend…".

Scarcity

• Scarce items ⇒ higher perceived value.

• Reactance Theory: Restricted freedom → strive to regain it.

• Marketing lines: "Limited time only", "Store closing down", McRib limited runs.

• Synergy with Social Proof when scarcity due to high demand.

Reciprocity Principle

Norm Description

• Obligation to repay gifts/favours.

• Applies regardless of:

  • Relationship closeness.

  • Desire for initial favour.

  • Domain/value equivalence.

  • Even promised (undelivered) favours can trigger it.

Classic Study: Regan ( 1971 )

• Participants (N = 81 male Stanford undergrads).

• Task façade: Aesthetics – rating paintings.

• Confederate + 3 conditions:

  1. Favour: Confederate brings participant a 10 ext{¢} Coke unasked.

  2. No Favour.

  3. Irrelevant Favour: Experimenter (not confederate) gives both a Coke.

• Later request: Buy 25 ext{¢} raffle tickets.

• Results:

  • Favour cond. → more tickets (≈ 2 each) → 500 ext{%} return.

• Liking manipulation (pleasant vs unpleasant phone call): Liking only mattered when no favour present.

Cultural Variation

• Hikokoto ( 2016 ): N = 455 Japanese vs North-American students.

  • Japanese reported higher indebtedness, esp. for collectivistic scenarios & help from strangers.

  • Yet collectivists may refuse favours they can’t repay → less reciprocity pressure.

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

• Procedure: Big request → rejection → smaller request (concession).

• Effectiveness hinges on size & perceived sincerity of concession.

• Lecturer’s \$250 jacket reduced to \$150 example.

Classic DITF: Cialdini et al. ( 1975 )

• Participants (N = 72 passers-by).

• Conditions:

  • Control: Only small request (chaperone zoo trip).

  • DITF: 2-yr counselling request ( 0 ext{%} accept) → zoo trip.

  • Exposure: Hear both requests simultaneously (contrast control).

• Compliance:

  • Control: 17 ext{%}.

  • Exposure: 25 ext{%} (contrast effect).

  • DITF: 51 ext{%} ⇒ reciprocity + contrast.

Follow-Up: Miller et al. ( 1976 )

• Measured actual show-up.

  • Small-only: 29 ext{%} agree, 50 ext{%} show-up.

  • DITF: 76 ext{%} agree, 85 ext{%} show-up.

• Psychological mechanism: Heightened responsibility felt.

Liking Principle

• Greater liking → higher compliance.

• Sources of Liking ( 4 Cs-style list):

  1. Contact & Cooperation (mere exposure; joint goals).

  2. Conditioning & Association (positive stimuli paired).

  3. Cut-Looks (Physical Attractiveness).

  4. Commonality (Similarity).

Physical Attractiveness

• Halo Effect: Attractive = assumed intelligent, kind, expert, trustworthy.

• Evidence:

  • Identical report card → attractive child rated brighter.

  • Wage premium; hiring bias; electoral votes ( 1.5–2% for +1σ attractiveness).

  • Kurtzberg et al. ( 1968 ) plastic surgery reduced recidivism.

• Praxmarer ( 2018 ) ad for concentration supplement (N = 842).

  • Attractiveness ↑ ⇒ Expertise/Trust/Liking ↑ ⇒ Persuasion ↑.

  • Effect independent of product involvement (central processing did not eliminate cue use).

Similarity

• We prefer & comply with those who resemble us.

• Berger et al. ( 1977 ): Same-birthday confederate → 62 ext{%} vs 34 ext{%} compliance with 8-page essay feedback.

• Uncommon shared traits (unique fingerprints) strengthen bond (Heider’s unit relationships).

• Minimal cues: Same clothing style, same first name, "I’m a student too" all boost donations.

Mimicry Effects

• Chameleon Effect (Chartrand & Bargh): Unconscious behavioural matching.

  • Confederates rubbing face/ shaking foot → participant copies.

  • Confederate mimics participant → Liking ↑.

• Awareness Study (Kulesza et al., 2020 ): Knowing about mimicry nullifies liking boost.

• Echo Effect (verbal mimicry): Waitstaff repeating orders → higher tips; paraphrasing at currency booth → bigger donations.

Consistency & Commitment Principle

• Socially valued trait; inconsistency evokes perceptions of hypocrisy (e.g., politicians’ flip-flops).

• Internal benefits: Cognitive shortcut; reduces cognitive dissonance.

Foot-in-the-Door (FITD)

• Small request → acceptance → larger request.

• Freedman & Fraser ( 1966 ):

  • All receive large request: Place huge "Drive Carefully" sign.

  • Prior small requests vary: Petition vs small sign; same/different issue/task.

  • Control (no prior): 17 ext{%} compliance.

  • All 4 prior-request groups: 48–76 ext{%} compliance (no sig diff among them).

  • Mechanism: Self-perception – "I’m the kind of person who helps good causes."

Low-Ball Technique

• Agree to great deal → hidden costs revealed.

• Example: \$45{,}000 BMW quote; after test-drive price rises \$2{,}000, yet buyer continues.

• Commitment reinforced by paperwork, ownership imagery, mental justifications.

Bait-and-Switch

• Good deal product advertised → "unavailable" → offered less desirable or pricier alternative.

• Works via commitment to purchase/act, or desire to regain lost contentment.

Individual Differences

• Preference for Consistency (PFC) scale.

  • High Conscientiousness ⇒ PFC ↑.

  • High Openness ⇒ PFC ↓.

• High PFC → stronger FITD compliance; greater dissonance from inconsistency.

FITD vs DITF Recap

Social Validation / Social Proof

• We use others’ behaviour to define correct action, esp. under uncertainty.

• "If many are doing it, it’s probably right."

Evidence & Applications

• Gadagno et al. ( 2012 ) clothing drive blog (N = 249):

  • High-support comments ⇒ volunteers ↑ & hours pledged ↑ vs low-support/control.

• Nightclub queues, tip jars pre-seeded with notes, "Customers also bought…" algorithms, canned laughter, Facebook likes correlate with sales.

Moderators

• Similarity of models → stronger influence (age, gender, demographic match).

• Scarcity synergy: High demand → low availability reinforces persuasion.

Cultural Orientation Study

• Cialdini et al. ( 1999 ): USA (individualistic) vs Poland (collectivistic).

  • Scenario: 40-min questionnaire.

  • Manipulated cue: Own past compliance (Consistency) vs peers’ compliance (Social Proof).

  • Intensity levels: 0/ frac12/1 of time complied.

• Findings:

  • All respond more when intensity high.

  • Polish participants influenced more by social validation.

  • US participants influenced more by consistency.

  • Personal cultural orientation stronger predictor than nationality.

Defensive Strategies

• Increase awareness (as with mimicry study) → disrupt automaticity.

• Ensure motivation, ability, opportunity to process via central route (seek time, info, mental energy).

• Adopt implementation intentions: "If salesperson offers ‘limited deal’, I will request 24-hr cooling-off."

• Recognise red-flag phrases: "Because…", "Act now", "Everyone’s buying", sudden concessions, hidden fees.

Integrative Summary & Exam Tips

• Social influence pervades cognition, affect, behaviour; conformity & obedience are behavioural subsets.

• ELM explains when tactics succeed (peripheral route).

• Master 4 major tactics:

  1. Reciprocity (incl. DITF).

  2. Liking (attractiveness, similarity, mimicry).

  3. Consistency & Commitment (FITD, low-ball, bait-and-switch).

  4. Social Proof (enhanced by similarity & scarcity).

• Recognise auxiliary principles: Authority, Scarcity, Unity.

• Understand cultural & personality moderators (collectivism vs individualism, PFC, Big 5 traits).

• Be prepared to apply concepts to real-life, tutorial, and exam scenarios (e.g., design an intervention, critique an ad).

Connections to Prior & Future Content

• Builds on cognitive dissonance (inconsistency discomfort).

• Links to heuristics & motivated tactician (Week 11).

• Sets stage for later ethics discussions: manipulation vs persuasion, autonomy, informed consent.

Ethical & Practical Implications

• Manipulative use of principles raises autonomy concerns.

• Positive deployment: public health campaigns (e.g., "85 ext{%} of peers vaccinate"), pro-environmental nudges, charitable fundraising.

• Practitioners must weigh effectiveness vs respect for agency.

Quick Numerical Reference

• Copier compliance: 60 ext{%} / 94 ext{%} / 93 ext{%}.

• Regan Coke: <(10 ext{¢}) cost → >(50 ext{¢}) return ( 500 ext{%} ROI).

• DITF zoo study: Control 17 ext{%} vs DITF 51 ext{%}.

• FITD sign study baseline 17 ext{%} vs up to 76 ext{%}.

• Waitress mimicry tips ↑ (exact Δ varies per study).

• Attractiveness vote bonus: 1.5–2 ext{%} per 1σ.

• Cultural study intensity: 0, 0.5, 1 compliance proportions.

End of Week 12 study notes – ensure familiarity with experiments, principles, and real-world applications for upcoming assessments.