SOCIAL FORCES INFLUENCE HOW WE: THINK SEE FEEL KNOW

SOCIAL FORCES INFLUENCE HOW WE:

THINK

SEE

FEEL

KNOW

Basic Social Psychology Principles:

A) SOCIAL COMPARISON: • SOCIAL REALITY• CONSENUAL VALIDATION

B)SELF-GENERATED REALITY & SELF-FULFILING PROPHECY

C) FUNDEMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR

SOCIAL INFLUENCE:

HOW PEOPLE ARE INFLUENCED BY THE ACTUAL, IMAGINED, OR IMPLIED PRESENCE OF THERES (ALLPORT).

SOCIAL INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE GREAT, GREAT INFLUENCES IN NATURE … TREMENDOUSLY POWERFUL … YET YOU CAN'T SEE IT" (ELLEN BERSCHEID).

THAT SO FEW NOW DARE TO BE ECCENTRIC, MARKS THE CHIEF DANGER OF OUR TIME.

--- JOHN STUART MILL

CONFORMITY QUOTES

“THAT WE HAVE FOUND THE TENDENCY TO CONFORM IN OUR SOCIETY SO STRONG THAT REASONABLY INTELLIGENT AND WELL-MEANING YOUNG PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO CALL WHITE BLACK IS A MATTER OF CONCERN. IT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR WAYS OF EDUCATION AND ABOUT THE VALUES THAT GUIDE OUR CONDUCT.”

--- ASCH, 1955, P. 34

SOCIAL INFLUENCE

INFORMATIVE(e.g., Sherif’s Research)

NORMATIVE (e.g., Asch’s Research)

SHERIF’S AUTOKINETIC STUDIES

ALONE 1 2 3

MOVEMENTIN INCHES

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

SUBJECT 1

SUBJECT 2

SUBJECT 3

NORMALIZATION

1) DIVERSITY OF OPINION (INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES)

2) INFLUENCE OF OTHERS (ESTABLISHMENT OF NORMS)

3) INFLUENCE OF DEVIANT OPINION(S); INNOVATION

FACTORS AFFECTING CONFORMITY

A) PERSONALITY (E.G., SELF-ESTEEM, AUTHORITARIAN)

B) GENDER (TYPE OF TASK)

C) GROUP SIZE (4-PERSON GROUP VS. TWO 2-PERSON GROUPS)

D) GROUP ATTRACTIVENESS

E) GROUP COHESIVENESS

F) COMMITMENT TO ONE’S OPINION

G) SOCIAL SUPPORT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NUMBER OF PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH SUBJECT

60

50

40

30

20

10

% ERRORS

CONFORMITY LEVELS DID NOT INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY AFTER THE GROUP SIZE WAS MORE THAN 4 OR 5 PEOPLE

CONFORMITY LEVELS AS A FUNCTION OF GROUP SIZE

CONFORMITY AS A FUNCTION OF ACCEPTANCE BY A GROUP

HIGH AVERAGE LOW VERY LOW

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

GROUPS PRIOR RATING OF SUBJECTS DESIREABILITY

CONFORMITY WAS GREATEST AMONG PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED THE GROUP RATED THEM AS AVERAGE IN DESIREABILITY

NONE MAGIC PAD PAPER PAPER & HAND IN

COMMITMENT CONDITION

6

5

4

3

2

1

THE GREATER THE LEVEL OF COMMITMENT, THE LESS CONFORMITY IN THE FACE OF GROUP PRESSURE

COMFORMITY AS A FUNCTION OF COMMITMENT TO ONE’S OPINION

A) PUBLIC COMPLIANCE VERSUS PRIVATE INTERNALIZTION

B) CONFORMITY, ANTI-CONFORMITY, & INDEPENDENCE

C) INFLUENCE OF A DEVIATE (KEY IS CONSISTENCY OF OPINION & AVOID BEING SEEN AS RIGID)

OTHER CONFORMITY ISSUES

INFLUENCE OF MILGRAM’S STUDIES

• NUMBER OF REPRINTS IN ANTHOLOGIES

• TV DRAMA (10TH LEVEL)

• MAGAZINE INTERVIEWS (E.G., ESQUIRE, HARPER’S

• 60 MINUTES

• BOOK (OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY)

Public Announcement

We Will Pay You $4.00 For One Hour of Your Time

Persons Needed for a Study of Memory

We will pay five hundred New Haven men to help us complete a scientific study of memory and learning. The study is being at Yale University.

Each person who participates will be paid $4.00 (plus 50 cents carfare) for approximately one hour’s time, We need you for only one hour there are no further obligations. You may choose the time you would like to come(evenings, weekends, or weekdays).

No special training, education, or experience is needed. We want:

Factory workers Businessmen Construction workers

City employees Clerks Salespeople

Laborers Professional people White-collar workers

Barbers Telephone workers Others

All persons must be between the ages of 20 & 50. High school and college students cannot be used.

Source: Adapted From Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, 1974, by Stanley Milgram.

OBEDIENCE QUOTES

“IT IS SURPRISING HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR PEOPLE TO KEEP SITUATIONAL FORCES IN MIND, AS THEY SEEK A TOTALLY PERSONALISTIC INTERPRETATION OF OBEDIENCE, DIVORCED FROM THE SPECIFIC SITUATIONAL PRESSURES ACTING ON THE INDIVIDUAL” (MILGRAM, 1974).

“ANY INTERPRETATION INVOLVING THE ATTACKER’S STRONG SADISTIC IMPULSES IS INADEQUATE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN SUCH KILLINGS IS SADISTTICALLY INCLINED” (KELMAN, & HAMILTON, 1989, p.13, REGARDING THE MY LAI MASSACRE)

EXPERIMENT # VARIATION RESULTS

1-4 

PROXIMITY 

65% OBEDIENCE

5HEART PROBLEM

(PROTESTS AT VARIOUS LEVELS)

65% OBEDIENCE

6PERSONNEL CHANGE

50% OBEDIENCE

7CLOSENESS OF

AUTHORITY22%

OBEDIENCE*

SUMMARY OF MILGRAM’S OBEDIENCE STUDIES

8 FEMALES AS SUBJECTS

65% OBEDIENCE

9 VICTIM'S CONTRACT40%

OBEDIENCE

10INSTITUTIONAL

CONTEXT, MOVE TO DOWNTOWN SITE

48% OBEDIENCE

11 

SUBJECTS CHOOSE LEVEL

38/40 PICKED 15-150

LEVELS

12 LEARNER DEMANDS SHOCK; EXP. SAYS STOP

All STOPPED

13ORDINARY PERSON

GIVES ORDERS20% OBEDIENCE

13AS AS BYSTANDER, 16 REFUSED IN #13; ACCOMPLICE TAKES ROLE OF SHOCKER

69% ALLOWED OBEDIENCE

14 

AUTHORITY AS VICTIM

AT 150 ALL STOP

15 

2 AUTHORITIES; EACH GIVE DIFFERENT

COMMANDS 

18/20 STOP

162 AUTHORITIES - 1

SERVES AS THE VICTIM

65% OBEDIENCE

172 PEERS - ONE

ADMINISTRATOR10%

OBEDIENCE

18PEERS GIVE

SHOCK, S GIVEN A SUPPORT ROLE 

93% REMAINED IN

ROLE

OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE RATES

• SENSE OF URGENCY (TIME PRESSURE)

• NO COMMUNICATION

• STEP BY STEP INCREASES IN SHOCK LEVELS

• STATE OF “AGENCY” (OTHERS ARE RESPONSIBLE)

ETHICAL ISSUES

• USE OF DECEPTION (LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT)

• HARNFUL LONG-TERM EFFECTS TO PARTICIPANTS

• ADEQUACY OF DEBRIEFING

• THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW (USE OF 4TH PROD)

THE 4 PRODS

• PLEASE CONTINUE, OR PLEASE GO ON.

• THE EXPERIMENT REQUIRES THAT YOU GO ON.

• IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT YOU CONTINUE.

• YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE, YOU MUST GO ON.

MILGRAM’S POSITION

• UNDERSTANDING OF CRITICAL PHENOMENON

• INSIGHT OF PARTICIPANTS

• CRITICISM DUE TO NATURE OF FINDINGS

• EVERY EFFORT TO DEBRIEF (PURPOSE OF STUDY, FOLLOW-UP REPORT & QUESTIONNAIRE, PSYCHIATRIC INTERVIEW 1 YEAR ALTER)

• RESULTS UNEXPECTED

• NO HARM TO PARTICIPANTS (ESPECIALLY LONG-TERM; MANY WOULD DO IT AGAIN)

• RECIPROCITY

• SCARCITY

• AUTHORITY

• COMMITMENT

• LIKING

• SOCIAL VALIDATION

SIX UNIVERSAL INFLUENCE PRINCIPLES

STRATEGY PRINCIPLE

POSITIVE MOODS MAKE REQUEST IN A POSITIVE SETTING

INGRATIATION SAY FLATTERING THINGS

FAVORS DO A SMALL FAVOR FOR TARGET

FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR FOLLOW SMALL REQUEST WITH A MUCH LARGER ONE

DOOR IN THE FACE FOLLOW A LARGE REQUEST WITH A SMALLER ONE

LOW-BALL GET COMMITMENT ON FAVORABLE TERMS & CHANGE CONDITIONS

REACTANCE GET COMMITMENT BY LIMITING CHOICE

COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES

He did something that, on the face of it, seems foolish and costly. Each month he sent every one of his more than 13,000 former customers a holiday greeting card containing a printed message. The greeting card changed from month to month (e.G., “Happy new year,” happy thanksgiving”) but the message printed on the face of the card never varied. It read, “I like you.” (Cialdini, 1988, p. 166).

INGRATIATION

Foot in the Door

Procedure: Small 1st request, followed by a larger 2nd request

Key Points:

• 2nd request can be made by a different person

• 2nd request can be on a different issue

• Performing the 1st request is not essential. Agreeing to do it is sufficient

Principle: Commitment (Self-perception)

Door in the Face

Procedure: Very large 1st request (refused), followed by a smaller request.

Key Points:

• Both requests must be made by the same person

• Perception of a concession/negotiation

• Feeling of satisfaction within target

Principle: Reciprocity

That’s Not All

Procedure:

A) Give original cost, then reduce it before the target responds

B) Give original cost, then add something “extra” before the target responds

Principle: Reciprocity