Upload
ross-mclaughlin
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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