PSYC 325 - Chapter 7, Part 1

Chapter Overview

• Title: Social Influence

• Author: Dita Kubin, PhD

• Course: PSYC325 - Winter 2025

Admin Stuff & Class Outline

• Midterm Review Schedule: Potentially starting March 20th.

• Class Topics:

  • Discussion on Conformity

  • Compliance

  • Upcoming Class: Focus on Obedience

Definition of Social Influence

• Social Influence: The effects of real and imagined presence of others on individuals.

• Social influence is pretty automatic

  • “Chameleon Effect” (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999)

  • Eases social interactions

Types of Social Influence

• Conformity: Change in perceptions, opinions, or behavior to align with social/group norms.

• Compliance: Behavioural changes in response to direct requests.

• Obedience: Changes in behaviour derived from commands from authority figures.

Social Norms

• Definition: Shared beliefs/rules regarding proper/improper behaviors.

  • Types: Implicit or explicit.

  • Variability: Context, culture, and time.

• Violating norms can lead to social consequences ranging from awkwardness to hostility.

• Modern statistic: 3 in 10 adults in the US have tattoos, contrasting with 1940s to 80s where they were rare.

Conformity Characteristics

• Tendency of people to change their perceptions, opinions, or behaviour that are consistent or in line with social norms or group norms.

• Generally, we follow norms and find it had to breach them.

• In North America, individuals often identify themselves as nonconformists, but conform to their own subgroup of so-called ‘non-conformists’.

Early Classic Conformity Studies

Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Study (1936)

• Objective: Examine if groups influence individual perception of reality.

• Method: Optical illusion where a stationary point appears to move in darkness.

• Findings: Groups provide guidance in ambiguous situations, leading to conformity in beliefs.

Asch's Line Judgement Task (1951)

• Objective: Assess conformity in responses among participants.

• Setup: 6 confederates and 1 participant; during trials, confederates provide incorrect answers.

  • Trials 1 and 2, confederates give correct answers

  • In trial 3, all confederates give wrong answer

• Findings:

  • 37% participant conformity to incorrect majority.

  • 50% conformed to the majority at least half the time.

  • 75% conformed at least once; 25% never conformed.

• Insights: People felt like they were in an awkward position. People will sometimes conform, even when they are not convinced the group is right, to avoid feeling “conspicuous” and “crazy”, or like a “misfit.”

Reasons for Conformity

• A desire to be right (informational influence)

  • Want to make good and accurate judgements of reality and assume that when others agree on something, they must be right

• Fear of ostracism/rejection (normative influence)

  • Fear the consequence of rejection that follows deviance

Effects of Social Ostracism

• Social rejection results in emotional distress, lower self-esteem, and feelings of loneliness/being hurt/anger.

• Neural imaging evidence suggests that the social pain of rejection activates areas in the brain akin to physical pain.

• Study on Social Rejection: Ball toss experiment indicated that exclusion heightens feelings of distress.

  • Setup

    • Ball toss game

    • You are player 2… just pass the ball around

    • Player 1 and 3 start only passing ball with each other

    • How do you feel?

  • Main Findings

    • People feel badly when left out

    • Social rejection activates areas that activate when physically in pain

    • The greater the felt exclusion, the greater these areas are activated

Distinguishing Types of Conformity

• Private Conformity: Genuine acceptance of reality based on group influence (e.g., true acceptance or conversion)

  • Being truly persuaded that others are correct

• Public Conformity: Superficial change in behaviour without personal acceptance.

  • Politicians telling public what they want to hear

Factors Influencing Conformity

Group Size

• Larger groups impact conformity—optimal effect noticed around four people.

• We also try to assess the number of independent minds in group.

A Focus on (or Strength of) Social Norms

• Awareness and understanding of social norms enhance tendencies to conform.

• Changing perceptions of norms proves effective in altering behaviors.

• Littering Study (Cialdini et al., 1991):

  • Participants walk by clean or littered areas

  • See confederate walk or litter

  • Print ads are placed under windshield wiprs

  • RQ: Do people litter or tak with/put into garbage?

    • More likely to litter in littered area than clean area

    • More likely to litter when confederate littered than just walked

An Ally in Dissent

• Any dissent, whether it validates an individual’s opinion or not, can reduce normative pressures to conform.

• Asch’s follow-up study:

  • Presence of even a single dissenter can significantly reduce conformity pressures by almost 80%.

Gender Differences

• Women historically demonstrated higher conformity compared to men, though context and familiarity are more influential than gender alone.

• Asch’s original Line Judgement study suggests women conform more than men

• Modern studies: familiarity and expertise of topic, not gender, is what affects conformity

  • Although in public vs private situations, women conform more than men

Minority Influence

• People who assert their beliefs against the majority are generally seen as competent and honest, and they are also disliked and roundly rejected

  • Humans see non-conformists as criticizing them, and we don’t like to be criticized

• Historical non-conformist figures (e.g., Joan of Arc, Gandhi, Rosa Parks) exemplify the potential for social change driven by strategies for exerting minority influence.

• Moscovici’s Theory on being a convincing minority voice of dissent:

  • Style of behaviour:

  • Be consistent, unwavering, and forceful

  • Appear flexible and open-minded

    • Stimulates majority members to reexamine their own views

    • Dissenters have more influence when people identify with them and perceive them to be in similar ways that are relevant and desirable

• Hollander’s alternative strategy:

  • First conform to establish credentials as competent insiders, then dissent!

Compliance

Compliance - changing our behaviour in response to direct requests (e.g., can you help me move, pass the salt, please donate to our charity, want to go out on a date).

• People can be disarmed by the simple phrasing of a request

• We mindlessly respond to words without fully processing the information they are supposed to convey

• Photocopier study (Langler et al., 1978):

  • Cond 1. Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the Xerox? (60% agreed)

  • Cond 2. Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the Xerox, because I am in a rush? (94% agreed)

  • Cond 3. Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the Xerox, because I have to make copies? (93% agreed)

The Norm of Reciprocity

• Strong universal social norms of give and take (reciprocity norm)

• Dictates that we treat others as they treat us

• If we are given something, we feel compelled/obligated to give back (Gouldner, 1960)

  • Wait staff writing notes on receipts

  • Uninvited musicians playing at your table

  • Gift giving

• Flowers at Airport Observational Study (Cialdini, 1970s)

  • Hare Krishnas (Eastern religious sect) gave flowers to travelers just arriving who begrudgingly took them

  • Strangers then often donated money, but immediately threw the flowers away

• Shows we are tracking what each person gives

• Compulsion to reciprocate - at least for small favours - is relatively short-lived

• Some people are more wary about reciprocation that others

  • Don’t want to feel indebted

  • Reciprocation wariness varies by culture

Compliance Techniques

1. Foot-in-the-Door Technique (FDT)

   • Starts with a small initial request that targets can’t easily refute (setting the trap)

   • Larger second/later request is more likely to be accepted

     • Drive Safe Study (Freedman & Fraser, 1966)

       • G1: Will you sign a petition for a “Drive Safe in California” campaign? (most agreed)

         G2: Will you place a small sign on your lawn (“Drive Safe”)? (most agreed)

         G3: Will you place a large sign on your lawn (“Drive Safe”)? (less than 20% agreed - but if first asked the one of the other two questions, 55% agreed to put up a large sign)

   • Why?

     • Self-perception theory: people inferring their own attitude based on their own behaviour

     • I signed the petition.. must think it is important… yes I will put up a big sign - putting up a big sign maintains a consistent self-image.

2. Door-in-the-Face Technique (DFT)

   • Starts with a large, unreasonable request

   • Smaller second/later request is more likely to be accepted due to more reasonability

     • Country Youth Counselling Program Study (Cialdini et al., 1975)

       • G1: Would you be willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on trip to zoo? (17% agreed)

         G2: 1st asked: “…willing to counsel juvenile delinquents for 2h/week for next 2 years?” (0% said yes)

         2nd asked: “…willing to chaperone group of juvenile delinquents on trip to zoo?” (50% said yes)

   • Why?

     • Reciprocal concessions: we have norms about concessions

     • Perceptual contrast: second offer seems smaller than when offered alone
       

3. Lowballing

   • After you have agreed to something, coming back and saying the price is a bit higher than originally agreed upon

     • 7am/7pm Extra Credit Study (Cialdini et al., 1978)

       • Phoned students to take part in study for extra credit

       • G1: come at 7am (31% said yes)

       • G2: first asked if they would do a “study” (most say yes), then the students who sai dyes were asked that it was at 7am and if that was ok (56% said yes)

   • Why?

     • Commitment: you have mentally committed to the price/action

4. That’s-Not-All Technique

   • Offering added value or discounts to encourage compliance.

     • Example: Study on cupcakes demonstrating increased sales through added bonuses.

Assertiveness Against Compliance Techniques

• Strategies to resist manipulation include vigilance and recognizing compliance tactics.

• Awareness reduces the effectiveness of compliance strategies.