SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Social influence - Efforts by one or more persons to change the behavior, attitudes, or
feelings of one or more others (Cialdini, 2000).

 It includes the ways in which individuals change their behaviour to meet the demands of
a social environment.
 It is the change in behaviour change in behaviour that one person causes another,
intentionally or unintentionally, as a result of the way the changed person perceives
themselves in relationship to the influencer, other people and society in general.
 People extort social influence for different reasons. It can be to swindle others, to help
others or to get personal favors from others.
 The means used for inducing such change—for exerting social influence—vary greatly
too ranging from direct personal requests to clever commercials and political
campaigns.
Conformity

 It is a type of social influence in which individuals change their attitudes or behavior to

adhere to existing social norms to be viewed as acceptable or appropriate by a group or
society.
 Conformity refers to pressures to behave in ways consistent with rules indicating how
we should or ought to behave. These rules are known as social norms.
 Social norms are rules indicating how individuals are expected to behave in specific
situations.
 Social influence can be defined as “yielding to group pressures” (Crutchfeild, 1955).
 We can predict with great certainty what people will do due to social norms.
 Greater conformity by most people can be expected compared in contexts where norms
are more obvious, than contexts where norms are uncertain or less clear, about what
action is the “correct” one.
 Social norms can be formal, as in speed limits, rules for playing games or sports, and
dress codes or they can be informal, such as the general rule “Don’t stare at strangers in
public places.”
 In some instances, social norms are stated explicitly and are quite detailed.
Governments generally function through written constitutions and laws; chess and other
games have very specific rules; and signs in many public places. In other situations,
norms may be unspoken or implicit, and, in fact, may have developed in a totally
informal manner. We all recognize such unstated rules as “Don’t make noise during a
concert”.
 Conformity does place restrictions on personal freedom. But, there is a strong basis for
so much conformity: without it, we would quickly find ourselves facing social chaos.
 Sometimes people conform, simply, to “look good” to others—to make a positive
impression on them.
 At work, many employees adopt what are known as facades of conformity—the
appearance of going along with the values and goals of their organizations, even if they
really do not (Hewlin, 2009).
 They often say things they don’t really believe, suppress personal values different form
those of the organization, and keep certain things about themselves confidential.
Descriptive and injunctive social norms

 Descriptive norms are ones that simply describe what most people do in a given
situation.
 They influence behavior by informing us about what is generally seen as effective or
adaptive in that situation.
 Injunctive norms specify what ought to be done—what is approved or disapproved
behavior in a given situation.
 Both kinds of norms can exert strong effects upon our behavior.
 Normative focus theory (e.g., Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990) suggests that norms will
influence behavior only to the extent that they are salient (i.e., relevant, significant) to
the people involved at the time the behavior occurs.
 I.e., people will obey injunctive norms only when they think about them and see them as
relevant to their own actions or behavior. When we do not think about them or view
them as irrelevant, their effects are much weaker, or even nonexistent. This is one
reason why people sometimes disobey even strong injunctive norms. People don’t see
these norms as applying to them.
 Research findings indicate that we do not recognize how much we are influenced.
 People underestimate the impact of social influence on their own actions because in
trying to understand these actions, they tend to focus on internal information rather
than on the overt actions.
 This is called introspection illusion, to refer to the fact that, conformity occurs
nonconsciously, and so escapes our introspection (or notice).
 Conformity may be true to a greater extent in individualistic cultures such as the United
States; in such cultures, people prefer to think of themselves as “lone wolves” in a world
of sheep.
 But in more collectivist societies, such as Japan, conforming has no negative implications
attached to it, and as a result, people may be more willing to admit that they conform
because doing so is seen as a good thing.
Explanation of social influence/ Social roots of conformity
Informational social influence

 Defenition and basics(1)

 It is the social influence based on the desire to be correct, ie, to posses accurate
perceptions of the social world.
 Other people’s actions and opinions define social reality for us, and we use these as a
guide for our own actions and opinions and such reliance is a powerful source of the
tendency to conform.
 It is based on our tendency to depend on others as a source of information about many
aspects of the social world.
 Research evidence suggests that because our motivation to be correct or accurate is
very strong, informational social influence is a powerful source of conformity.
 This is more likely to be true in situations where we are highly uncertain about what is
“correct” or “accurate” than in situations where we have more confidence in our own
ability to make such decisions.
 We conform because we believe that other's introspection of an ambiguous situation is
more accurate than ours and will help us choose an appropriate course of action.
 This can be sometimes helpful but sometimes harmful.
Experiments on informational social influence (2)
Jenness' Bean Jar Experiment (1932)

 Jenness (1932) was the first psychologist to study conformity.  His experiment was an
ambiguous situation involving a glass bottle filled with beans.
 He asked participants individually to estimate how many beans the bottle contained. 
Jenness then put the group in a room with the bottle, and asked them to provide a
group estimate through discussion.
 Participants were then asked to estimate the number on their own again to find whether
their initial estimates had altered based on the influence of the majority.
 Jenness then interviewed the participants individually again, and asked if they would like
to change their original estimates, or stay with the group's estimate.  Almost all changed
their individual guesses to be closer to the group estimate.
Sherif’s Autokinetic Experiment on conformity

 Muzafer Sherif (1935) conducted an experiment with the aim of demonstrating that
people conform to group norms when they are put in an ambiguous (i.e. unclear)
situation.

 Sherif used the autokinetic effect – a small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a
dark room will appear to move, even though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion).

 It was discovered that when participants were individually tested their estimates on how
far the light moved varied considerably (e.g. from 20cm to 80cm). The participants were
then tested in groups of three. Sherif manipulated the composition of the group by
putting together two people whose estimate of the light movement when alone was
very similar, and one person whose estimate was very different.  Each person in the
group had to say aloud how far they thought the light had moved.

 Sherif found that over numerous estimates (trials) of the movement of light, the group
converged to a common estimate.  The person whose estimate of movement was
greatly different to the other two in the group conformed to the view of the other two.

 Sherif said that this showed that people would always tend to conform.  Rather than
make individual judgments they tend to come to a group agreement.
 The results show that when in an ambiguous situation (such as the autokinetic effect), a
person will look to others (who know more / better) for guidance (i.e. adopt the group
norm).  They want to do the right thing, but may lack the appropriate information.
Observing others can provide this information. This is known as informational
conformity.

 This suggests that these effects shows the changes in the beliefs – private acceptance or
commitment in particular in these studies.

 Private acceptance is conforming to other people’s behavior out of a genuine belief that
what they are doing or saying is right.
 Sherif cast doubt in public compliance, however, by asking people to judge the lights
again when alone, they continued to give the group’s answer. So, if there was public
compliance, they would have given their personal first answers.
 Public compliance- conforming to other people’s behavior publicly without necessarily
believing in what they are doing or saying.
Importance of being accurate (3)

 When accuracy is important to a person, then it can lead the person to conform.
 The degree to which eyewitness conform to others when picking suspects out of police
lineups depends on the importance of the task.
 Those who are expected to receive 20 dollars for accurate Identification the correct
most often time when alone, however, when they are with confederates (those who are
assistants of the experimenter). Confederates tells the wrong answer and people, the
subject tends to confirm that.
 They sought information from others and confirmed more, regardless of accuracy as this
was an important situation.
 Herd mentality – The tendency for people's behavior or beliefs to conform to those of
the group which they belong.
When informational conformity backfires (3)

 When one's personal safety is involved, the need for information is accurate and the
behavior if others is very informative.
 Contagion
 It is a basic type of social influence that involves rapid spread of emotions or behaviors
through a crowd.
 Using other people as a source of information -can backfire- if they are misinformed,
then we too will adopt their mistakes and misinterpretations.
 Chameleon effect – Mimicking other people’s mannerisms.
 Wrether effect – Imitative effect of suicidal behavior.
 Mass delusions- A condition affecting a group of persons characterized by excitement or
anxiety, irrational behavior or beliefs or inexplicable symptoms of illness.
 Mass psychogenic illness- The occurrence in a group of people, of similar physical
symptoms even though there was no physical cause.
 A.Tarantism –  A disease once thought to result from the bite of the tarantula spider.
This was associated with melancholy, stupor, madness and an uncontrollable desire to
dance.
 B.Laughter epidemic – Started in Tanzania in 1962, but this kind of psychological
behavior happens particularly among populations experiencing chronic stress. Outbreak
began in a girls’ school and then spread to other communities, with uncontrollable
laughter affecting perhaps 1,000 people, lasting several months, and causing the
temporary closure of 14 schools.
 C.Dancing mania - This phenomenon is also called the dancing plague, or St John's
Dance. People danced involuntarily , moved dramatically untill near the point of total
exhaustion.
 When we observe emotions in others, we tend to physically match their feelings. These
effects occur automatically, and the result is that we come to feel what the other person
is feeling.
 Sometimes we interpret others’ reactions as a source of information about how we
should feel.
 Similarity to other people showing emotion is important in determining our own
reactions.
 If we perceive ourselves as similar to them, then through social comparison processes,
we tend to experience the emotions they are showing.
 If we perceive ourselves as dissimilar to them, then we may experience counter-
contagion—emotions different from or even opposite to theirs.
Generational influence on conformity (4)

 Jacob’s and Campbell, 1961 demonstrated a generational influence, a cultural belief or

norm that transcends the replacement of people.
 They replicated autokinetic experiments done by Sherif and got same results.
 Then the replaced the oldest confederate with new member. The other members
influenced the new member to think the same answer as the previous confederate.
 The results showed that:
 1.Uncertainity promoted conformity
 2.Conformity increased over time
 3.Conformity endured across 8 generations (slowly original members were replaced with
new ones.)
When will people conform to an informational social influence (5)
1.When situation is ambiguous

 Ambiguity is most crucial variable for determining How much people use each other as a
sense of information.
 When you are unsure of the correct response, the appropriate behaviour, or the right
idea, you will be most others, you will be most likely to be influenced by others.
 The more uncertain you are, the more you will rely on others.
2.When the situation is crisis

 In a crisis situation, we usually do not have time to stop and think about exactly which
course of action we should take. we need to act immediately.
 If we feel scared and panicky and are uncertain what to do, it is only natural for us to see
how other people are responding and to do likewise.
 Unfortunately, the people we imitate may also feel the same are not be behaving
rationally.
3.When the other person is expert

 Typically, The more expertise or knowledge a person has, the more valuable he or she
will be as a guide in an ambiguous situation.
 A passenger who sees smoke coming out of an aeroplane engine will probably check the
flight attendants reaction rather than seat mates reaction.
 However experts are not always reliable sources of information.
Resisting informational social influence (6)
1.Remember it is possible to resist illegitimate or inaccurate social informational influence.
2. Have an idea whether the other person know more about what’s going on.
3.Think whether expert is handy, who should know more.
4.Check if the actions of others or experts are sensible.
5.Always keep in mind if you would go against your moral value, if you act like others.
Normative social influence (1)

 Social influence based on the desire to be liked or accepted by other people.

 A successful tactic to get others like people is to appear to be as similar to others as
possible.
 Agreeing with the people around us, and behaving as they do, causes them to like us.
 Parents, teachers, friends, and others often heap praise and approval on us for showing
such similarity.
 One important reason we conform, therefore, is this: we have learned that doing so can
help us win the approval and acceptance we crave.
 Normative social influence involves altering our behavior to meet others’ expectations
or norms.
 Social norms – The implicit and explicit rules a group has for the acceptable behaviors,
values, and beliefs of its members.
 This type of conformity results in public compliance but not necessarily private
acceptance of beliefs and norms.
 Humans have a fundamental human need for social companionship. So, we often
conform inorder to be accepted by others.
 We human beings are by nature a social species.
 Through interactions with others, we receive emotional support, affection, and love, and
we partake of enjoyable experiences.
 Other people are extraordinarily important for our sense of well-being.
 Research on individuals who have been isolated for long periods of time indicates that
being deprived of human contact is stressful and traumatic.
Experiments (2)
1.Asch line judgement studies/ Asch's research on conformity

 Solomon Asch (1951), created a series of perceptual problems, in which participants

were to indicate which of three comparison lines matched a standard line in length.
 Several other people (usually six to eight) were also present during the session, but
unknown to the real participant, all were assistants of the experimenter.
 On certain occasions known as critical trials (12 out of the 18 problems) the
confederates offered answers that were clearly wrong; they unanimously chose the
wrong line as a match for the standard line.
 They stated their answers before the real participants responded. Therefore, on these
critical trials, the people in Asch’s study faced a dilemma.
 The judgments seemed to be very simple ones, so the fact that other people agreed on
an answer different from the one the participants preferred was truly puzzling.
 Result: A large majority of the people in Asch’s research chose conformity. Across
several different studies, fully 76 percent of those tested went along with the group’s
false answers at least once; and overall, they voiced agreement with these errors 37
percent of the time. In contrast, only 5 percent of the participants in a control group,
who responded to the same problems alone, made such errors. Almost 25 percent of
the participants never yielded to the group pressure.
 At the other extreme, some individuals went along with the majority nearly all the time.
 When Asch questioned them, some of these people stated: “I am wrong, they are right”;
they had little confidence in their own judgments. Most, however, said they felt that the
other people present were suffering from an optical illusion or were merely sheep
following the responses of the first person. Yet, when it was their turn, these people,
too, went along with the group.
 They wanted to belong to the group or they didn’t want to be teased by others, even
though they didn’t know eachother.
 Social desirability- Tendency for individuals to report an answer in a way their seem to
be more socially acceptable rather than saying their true answer.
 They knew that the others were wrong (or at least, probably wrong), but they couldn’t
bring themselves to disagree with them.
 In further studies, Asch (1959, 1956) investigated the effects of shattering the group’s
unanimity by having one of the confederates break with the others.
 In one study, this person gave the correct answer, becoming an “ally” of the real
participant; in another study, he chose an answer in between the one given by the group
and the correct one; and in a third, he chose the answer that was even more incorrect
 than that chosen by the majority. In the latter two conditions, in other words, he broke
from the group but still disagreed with the real participants.
 Results indicated that conformity was reduced under all three conditions.
 However, somewhat surprisingly, this reduction was greatest when the dissenting
assistant expressed views even more extreme (and wrong) than the majority.
 Together, these findings suggest that it is the unanimity of the group that is crucial; once
it is broken, no matter how, resisting group pressure becomes much easier.
 There’s one more aspect of Asch’s research that is important to mention. In later
studies, he repeated his basic procedure, but with one important change: Instead of
stating their answers out loud, participants wrote them down on a piece of paper. As
you might guess, conformity dropped sharply because the participants didn’t have to
display the fact that they disagreed with the other people present. This finding points to
the importance of distinguishing between public conformity—doing or saying what
others around us say or do—and private acceptance—actually coming to feel or think as
others do.
2.Zimbardo’s prison experiment

 Zimbardo (1973) predicted that situations make people act the way they do rather than their
disposition.
Experiment
A. Location and Partcipants
 Zimbardo converted the basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock
prison.
 Advertised asking for volunteers to participate in the study of psychological effects of prison life,
to which 75 applicants answered , 24 men judged to be the most physically and mentally stable,
most mature and least involved in antisocial behaviours were chosen as participants (eliminated
candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime or drug
abuse.) They were paid 15 dollars per day to take part in the experiment.
 Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard. There were two
reserves, and one dropped out, finally leaving ten prisoners and 11 guards. Zimbardo disguised
as a prison warden.
B. Deindividuation

 Like every other criminal, they were arrested at their own homes, without warning, and taken to
the local police station. They were fingerprinted, photographed and ‘booked’, they were
blindfolded and driven to the psychology department of Stanford University, where Zimbardo
had had the basement set out as a prison-here the deindividuation process began.
 Prisoners were stripped naked, deloused (get rid of lice in hair), had all their personal
possessions removed and locked away, and were given prison clothes and bedding. They were
issued a uniform, and referred to by their number only. The use of ID numbers - to make
prisoners feel anonymous. Their clothes comprised a smock with their number written on it, but
 no underclothes. They also had a tight nylon cap to cover their hair, and a locked chain around
one ankle.
 All guards were dressed in identical uniforms of khaki, and they carried a whistle around their
neck and a billy club borrowed from the police. Guards wore special sunglasses, to make eye
contact with prisoners impossible.
C. Asserting authority and physical punishment

 Guards began to harass prisoners- At 2:30 A.M. prisoners were awakened from sleep by blasting
whistles for "counts." this was a way to familiarize the prisoners with their numbers, and the
exercising of power by guardsboth prisoners and guards settled into their roles. Prisoners were
taunted with insults and petty orders, they were given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish,
and were generally dehumanized. Push-ups were a common form of physical punishment
D. Asserting Independence

 Rebellion: During the second day of the experiment, the prisoners removed their stocking caps,
ripped off their numbers, and barricaded themselves inside the cells by putting their beds
against the door.
E. Against the independence/ Putting down the rebellion

 The guards retaliated by using a fire extinguisher which shot a stream of skin-chilling carbon
dioxide, and they forced the prisoners away from the doors. Next, the guards broke into each
cell, stripped the prisoners naked and took the beds out. The ringleaders of the prisoner
rebellion were placed into solitary confinement.
F. Special Privileges

 A privilege cell was set up for prisoners least involved in the rebellion- they were given privileges
like giving them back their uniforms and beds and allowing them to wash their hair and brush
their teeth. Privileged prisoners also got to eat special food in front of the others.
 This was to break solidarity among the prisoners.
G. Consequences of the rebellion

 Guards were firmly in control and the prisoners were totally dependent on them. As the
prisoners became more dependent, the guards became more derisive towards them. As the
guards’ contempt for them grew, the prisoners became more submissive. As the prisoners
became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive and assertive.
H. Prisoner #8612

 Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking,
uncontrollable crying, and rage. This person had to be let out.
I. Visit from parents and mass escape plot
 Guards washed the prisoners, had them clean and polish their cells, fed them a big dinner and
played music on the intercom. After the visit, rumour spread of a mass escape plan. After this
rumour, guards again escalated the level of harassment
J. Catholic priest

 While talking to the priest, #819 broke down and began to cry hysterically-They told him they
would get him some food and then take him to see a doctor. However, while this was going on,
one of the guards lined up the other prisoners and had them chant aloud:
 "Prisoner #819 is a bad prisoner. Because of what Prisoner #819 did, my cell is a mess, Mr.
Correctional Officer."
 #819 could hear the chanting and was seen to be sobbing uncontrollably. The psychologists tried
to get him to agree to leave the experiment, but he said he could not leave because the others
had labelled him a bad prisoner.
 Soon, when Zimbardo revealed this was merely an experiment and brought him back to reality,
the prisoner agreed to leave as if nothing had been wrong.
K. An End to the experiment

 Zimbardo (1973) had intended that the experiment should run for two weeks, but on the sixth
day it was terminated, due to the emotional breakdowns of prisoners, and excessive aggression
of the guards. He himself admitted that he was thinking like a prison superintendent than a
psychologist.
Explanation for their behaviour

 Deindividuation is a state when you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you
lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility.
 It explains the guards behaviour. The guards were so sadistic because they did not feel what
happened was down to them personally – it was a group norm.
 The also may have lost their sense of personal identity because of the uniform they wore.
 Also, learned helplessness could explain the prisoner's submission to the guards. The prisoners
learned that whatever they did had little effect on what happened to them. In the mock prison
the unpredictable decisions of the guards led the prisoners to give up responding.
Ethical Issues

 lack of fully informed consent by participants as Zimbardo himself did not know what would
happen in the experiment (it was unpredictable).
 Also, the prisoners did not consent to being 'arrested' at home.
Conclusion

 Zimbardo’s experiment revealed how people will readily conform to the social roles they are
expected to play, esp. if the roles are strongly stereotyped such as prison guards.
 Zimbardo (2007) suggests that it is this tendency to yield to situational pressures—including
conformity to role-based norms— that is responsible for much evil behaviour.
Resisting normative social influence – its consequences (3)

 Recent research found that when participants confirmed to igroups wrong answers, MRI
indicated brain activity in areas for vision and perception it is because they tend to
ponder more on what they have seen and how they perceive it.
 But, then participants choose to give the right answer and disagree with the group
different areas of brain becomes active, the amygdala, an area devoted to negative
emotions, at the right caudate nucleus, an area devoted to modulating social behavior.
Therefore, when they disagree with the group, it produces stress.
 If one disregard the friendship norms of the group by failing to conform to them, two
things would most likely happen:
 The group would try to bring you back to the crowd using increased communication with
you, whether long discussions or teasing comments.
 If the discussions didn’t work your friends would most likely to say negative things about
you and start to withdraw from you.
Types of conformity
1. Compliance
 Direct efforts to get others change their behaviour in a specific way.
 It is the lowest level of conformity.
 Here, people doesn't change their private beliefs but changes their public behaviour.
 It is actually a short term change and it is often the result of normative social influence.
2. Identification
 It is the middle level of conformity.
 Here, A person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs, But only when
they are in the presence of the group.
 This is actually short term change and normally the result of a normative social
influence.
3. Internalization
 Is the deepest level of conformity.
 Here, a person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs.
 This is usually a long term change and often the result of informational social influence.
4. Ingratiation
 it is when we try to get others to like us with flattery, praise and just generally trying to
be likeable.
 Here there is an element of untruth.
 Here, there is altering of ones expression of personal opinions to match the opinions of
another individual.
Factors of conformity
1.Group attractiveness and cohesiveness

 Cohesiveness is the extend to which we are attracted to a particular social group and
want to belong to it.
 The greater the cohesiveness, more we tend to follow the norms of the group.
 The more we value being a member of a group and want to be accepted by the other
members, the more we want to avoid doing anything that will separate us from them.
 Prestigious fraternities and sororities can often exact very high levels of conformity from
would-be members who are very eager to join there highly selective group.
 Similarly, acting and looking like others is often a good way to win their approval.
 The more we like other people an want to belong to the same group as they do and
movie are uncertain of winning their acceptance , the more we tend to conform.
2.Group size

 Asch (1956), found that conformity increase is with group size but only up to about three
or four members beyond that point it appears to level off.
 However later the research has found that conformity tends to increase with group size
up to 8 group members and beyond.
 If one person disagrees in a group conformity levels drop as 80 %.
3.Group Unanimity

 Groups That are unanimous or in total agreement can exert great pressure to conform.
 If there is any disagreement among the members of the group that is trying to create an
influence conformity decreases sharply.
 Even when one person dissent then conformity levels drop from 32% to 5%.
4.Public v/s private response

 When group members have to express their views in front of others, they are most likely
to confirm than if they could do so in private, such as by filling out an opinion survey.
 Asch’s participants, after hearing others respond, were less influenced by group pressure
if they could write answers that only the experimenter would see.
5.Nature of the task

 Tasks or questions that are vague or ambiguous or have no clear answer are easier to
have people conform because people doesn’t know how to behave in such situations.
6.Reactance of a person

 High or low levels of reactance can also affect conformity.

 Reactance is aroused then our ability to choose which behaviour to engage in, is
eliminated or threatened.
 Reactance represents a desire to restore freedom that is being threatened.
 Reactance depends on the importance of the threatened freedom and the perceived
magnitude of the threat.
 Reactance is an unpleasant motivational arousal.
7.Gender

 Women are more likely to conform than men, especially in situations involving
surveillance, But less likely when there is no surveillance.
8.Status or Seniority within the group.

 Senior members feel less pressure to conform.

 junior members of the group, experience strong pressures to conform.
 Higher a person's status, lower the conformity.
Resisting Conformity
1.Desire to be unique

 People has a desire to retain a sense of individuality.

 In a study the need for uniqueness was measured and it was found that individuals high
in need for uniqueness yielded less the majority influence than those in low need for
uniqueness.
 In another study participants who received personality feedback undermining their
feeling of uniqueness agreed less with the majority position.
 Imhoff and Erb (2009) suggested that people have a need for uniqueness and when it is
threatened they will actively resist confirmation pressures to restore their sense of
uniqueness.
2.The Desire to maintain control

 When authority of a person is threatened a person tend to resist conformity more.

 Conformity might be perceived by a person in power as a factor that can undermine
their power, so they tend to conform less.
3.Prior commitment to making a public opinion

 If an individual has a predetermined commitment or decision, then that individual tend

to conform less to group influence.
 Some people tend to have Escalation commitment - human behavior pattern in which
an individual or group facing increasingly negative outcomes from a decision, action or
investment, tend to continue the behavior instead of altering course, tend to conform
less.
 They do not want to accept that already made decision were wrong. They also want to
be consistent in their views and decisions.
4.Time to think and find financial support

 People tend to conform more when there is less time to think about the situation, when
the action should be immediate.
 People who can find more financial support tend less to conform because they perceive
to have less need of conformity to achieve any goal.
Compliance

 Compliance refers to changing one's behaviour due to the direct request or direction of another
person.
 Unlike obedience, compliance does not involve an authority figure forcing the target to do
something; the target chooses to say yes to the request.
 e.g., Buying something because a salesperson makes a pitch and then asks you to make a
purchase.
Underlying principles of Compliance

 Robert Cialdini, based on his study of compliance professionals (includes salespeople,

advertisers, fund-raisers etc) concluded that all techniques of gaining compliance rest on six
underlying principles of compliance:
1.Friendship/liking: We are more willing to comply with requests from friends or from people we
like, than requests from strangers or people we don’t like.
2.Commitment/consistency: Once we have committed ourselves to a position or action, we are
more willing to comply with requests for behaviours that are consistent with this position or action,
than with requests that are inconsistent with it.
3.Scarcity: We value and try to secure, outcomes or objects that are scarce or decreasing in
availability. So, we are more likely to comply with requests that focus on scarcity than ones that
make no reference to this issue. For e.g., end of season sales.
4.Reciprocity: We are generally more willing to comply with a request from someone who has
previously provided a favour or concession to us than to someone who has not- we feel obligated to
pay people back in some way.
5.Social validation: We are more willing to comply with a request for some action if this action is
consistent with what we believe people similar to ourselves are doing (or thinking). We act and
think like others, to be correct/right and for group affiliation.
6.Authority: we are more willing to comply with requests from someone who holds legitimate
authority, or simply appears to hold authority.
Techniques of Compliance
Tactics based on friendship/liking
1.Ingratiation

 It refers to gaining approval from the target in order to gain compliance.

 Many impression management techniques like improving one’s own appearance, emitting many
positive nonverbal cues, and doing small favours for the target people are used for ingratiation.
Types:

 Flattery- Praising others in some manner is one of the best forms. E.g., complimenting the
target’s outfit/fully approving their decisions.
 Self-promotion- informing others about our past accomplishments or positive characteristics
-“I’m really very organized”; or “I’m really easy to get along with”.
 Incidental similarity- Calling attention to small and slightly surprising similarities between them
and ourselves.
 Burger and colleagues: found that people were more likely to agree to a small request (make a
donation to charity) from a stranger when this person appeared to have the same first name or
birthday as they did than when the requester was not similar to them in these ways.
 Tactics based on commitment
1.Foot-in-the-door technique:

 it involves presenting target people with a small request—something so trivial that it is hard for
them to refuse (“Accept this free sample”) and then following up with a second larger request
(buy the whole pack)—the one desired all along.
 The foot-in-the-door technique rests on the principle of consistency: Once we have said “yes” to
the small request, we are more likely to say “yes” to subsequent and larger ones because
refusing these would be inconsistent with our previous behaviour.
 Eg, Freedman and Fraser: Billboard experiment: An Non-profit Organization asked homeowner
Residents of a neighbourhood in Palo Alto to display an intrusive billboard in their garden,
advising the passer-by to drive safely. Only 17% of homeowners agreed.
 Experimenters then repeated their experiment –They went around first asking people to display
a 3 inch sticker carrying the same message. Almost all of the homeowners agreed to this far less
intrusive short message. However, a few weeks later they returned to the households who had
displayed to the 3 inch sticker, this time asking them about the giant billboards. 76% of them
agreed to the billboard this time around.
2.Lowball technique:

 Getting person to make a commitment and then raising the stakes or terms of that
commitment.
 E.g., after the commitment has been made to buy a phone for a reasonable price and then
salesman adding hidden fees that makes the deal less desirable – from rs.500- rs.700 inclusive of
taxes. This technique is used in restaurant bills or product bills.
 Burger and Cornelius- researchers phoned students living in dorms and asked them if they
would contribute $5.00 to a scholarship fund for underprivileged students. There were three
conditions- first was lowball condition- people who contributed would receive a coupon for a
free smoothie at a local juice bar. Then, if the participant agreed to make a donation, she told
them that she had just run out of coupons and couldn’t offer them this incentive. Second was
interrupt condition- made the initial request but before the participants could answer yes or no,
interrupted them and indicated that there were no more coupons for people who donated.
Third condition was control condition- no mention about the incentives. People complied more
in the first condition, where they made a commitment. Thus, making a commitment is vital for
this technique to work.
3.The lure effect:

 Target of a request is first asked to agree to do something they find appealing—for instance,
complete a brief questionnaire for a fairly generous compensation—perhaps $10.00 for 10
minutes of their time. Once agreed, targets were told that they were not needed to
complete the questionnaire but would, instead, perform a very a boring task of copying
letters from one page to another. A large proportion of the participants agreed to continue.
Tactics based on Reciprocity
1.Door in the face technique:

 Opposite of the foot-in-the-door technique where the requester starts with a very large
request and then, after this is rejected, makes a smaller and reasonable request
 Cialdini and his colleagues asked college students: Would the students serve as unpaid
counsellors for juvenile delinquents 2 hours a week for the next 2 years? This was refused. The
experimenters then scaled down their request to a much smaller one— would the same
students take a group of delinquents on a 2-hour trip to the zoo? —fully 50 percent agreed. In
contrast, less than 17 percent of those in a control group agreed to this smaller request.
2.Thats Not All Technique:

 Initial request is followed, before the target person can say “yes” or “no,” by something that
sweetens the deal-a small extra incentive (e.g., a reduction in price, “throwing in” something
additional for the same price)
 This technique succeeds because it is based on the principle of reciprocity: People on the
receiving end of this approach view the “extra” thrown in by the other side as an added
concession, and feel obligated to make a concession themselves.
 e.g., But 1 get 1 free, or reduction sales where the initial price is striked or lowered to more
reasonable price- “these cupcakes are usually sold for 75cents, but I’ll give it to you for 60 cents.
Tactics based on Scarcity
1.Playing Hard to get:

 Suggesting that a certain person/service/product is scarce and hard to obtain.

 E.g., A job seeking candidate tries to appear as if they’re wanted by many companies at the
same time.
2.Deadline Technique:

 Target people are told that they have only limited time to take advantage of some offer or to
obtain some item
 e.g., “Going Out of Business Sales” or “End of Season Sales’ where certain offers or products will
soon disappear
Do compliance Tactics work?

 Research finding by Flynn and Lake suggest that the effectiveness of compliance techniques are
under estimated by people, by 50 percent.
 The requesters under estimate because they focus on the costs of saying “yes”—the time and
discomfort it will cause if the target person agrees. People who are on the receiving side of such
requests under estimate it because they focus on the social costs of saying “no.” Refusing a
request from another person, especially if it is small, puts the refuser in a negative light: they
may appear selfish, rude etc. Such concerns can deter them from refusing, and people seeking
compliance tend to overlook these.
Symbolic social influence
 A type of unintentional social influence where our mental representations or relationships with
our parents, friends or significant others, or their psychological presence, influence us.
 Here mental representations refer to what they prefer, our relationships with them, goals we
seek in these relationships, and how we think they would evaluate us or our current actions.
 Study on grad students by Baldwin, Carrell, and Lopez (1990) found that graduate students
evaluated their own research ideas more negatively after being subliminally exposed to the face
of their scowling department chair.
 Although the graduate students were not aware of having seen him (subliminal), his negative
facial expression exerted significant effects on their evaluations of their own work.
Two mechanisms are involved:
1.Relational Schemas:

 These are mental representations of people with whom we have relationships, and of these
relationships themselves. When relational schemas are activated, the kind of goals relevant
to these people are also activated.
2. Psychological presence of others:

 triggers goals with which that person is associated, that is the goals they want us to achieve.
 Fitzsimons and Bargh Study: people at an airport were approached and asked to think either of
a good friend, or a colleague. Then, they were asked to write down the initials of the person of
whom they were thinking and to answer a series of questions about that person (like
appearance, age etc). Finally, participants were asked if they would be willing to help the
researcher by answering a longer set of questions. More people who thought about a friend
than a co-worker was willing to help because goal of helping was triggered.
Obedience

 Obedience is a form of social influence that involves performing an action under the orders of
an authority figure.
 It is less frequent than compliance (on request) or conformity (due to social pressure), because
orders are often given by authority figures in the from of requests.
 Biggest real-life example: Adolf Eichmann was executed in 1962 for his part in organizing the
Holocaust, in which six million Jewish people, gypsies, communists etc were transported to
death camps and murdered under Nazi control.  At his trial in 1961, Eichmann expressed
surprise at being hated by Jewish people, saying that he had merely obeyed orders, and surely
obeying orders could only be a good thing. He was clinically sane as said by 6 psychiatrists and
led a normal family life. This case intrigued Stanley Milgram.
Milgram’s Study

 Aim of the study was to determine whether individuals would obey commands from a relatively
powerless stranger requiring them to inflict considerable pain on a totally innocent stranger.
The Experiment
 The experimenter informed participants in the study (all males) that they were taking part in a
study of learning/memory and were given four dollars for participation. In Yale University’s
psychology laboratory, a stern experimenter in a lab coat explains that this is a pioneering study
of the effect of punishment on learning. The participants were paired into learner and teacher.
 The experiment requires the “teacher” to teach a list of word pairs such as “fast/car” or
“white/bird”) to “the learner” who had to memorize it, and to punish errors by delivering shocks
of increasing intensity. To assign the roles, they draw slips out of a hat. This process is rigged so
that the experimenter’s confederate (a mild-mannered accountant) says that his slip says
“learner” and is ushered into an adjacent room. The other man (a volunteer who has come in
response to a newspaper ad) is assigned to the role of “teacher.” Teacher takes a mild sample
shock and then looks on as the experimenter straps the learner into a chair and attaches an
electrode to his wrist.
 Experimenter then takes teacher to the main room, and seats him before a “shock generator”
with 30 switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts in 15-volt increments. The switches are labelled
“Slight Shock,” “Very Strong Shock,” “Danger: Severe Shock,” etc. Under the 435- and 450- volt
switches appear “XXX.” The experimenter tells the teacher to “move one level higher on the
shock generator” each time the learner gives a wrong answer. The teacher is also told that the
nonresponses should be treated as wrong answers.
 In reality, the learner never received any shocks during the experiment. The only real shock ever
used was a mild pulse to convince participants that the equipment was real.
 If the participant complies with the experimenter’s requests, he hears the learner grunt at 75,
90, and 105 volts. At 120 volts the learner shouts that the shocks are painful. And at 150 volts he
cries out, “Experimenter, get me out of here! I won’t be in the experiment anymore! I refuse to
go on!” By 270 volts he screams of agony, continuing to insist to be let out. At 300 and 315 volts,
he screams his refusal to answer. After 330 volts he falls silent.
 Grunt – shouts its painful— cries out -- scream of agony—refuses to answer—silent
Prods
Verbal prods to keep the participant going:

 Prod 1: Please continue (or Please go on).

 Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue.
 Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
 Prod 4: You have no other choice; you must go on.
 When predictions went wrong, and the Results
 Milgram described the experiment to 110 psychiatrists, college students, and middle-class
adults, and asked how far they would go and how far others would go. None expected to go
beyond 300 volts. Since self-estimates may reflect self-serving bias, Milgram asked them how far
they thought other people would go. Virtually no one expected anyone to proceed to XXX on
the shock panel.
 In the experiment with 40 men—a mix of 20- to 50-year-olds, 65 percent (26 of them)
progressed all the way to 450 volts. Many participants protested and asked that the session
should be ended. They had powerful reactions of emotional strain like sweating, trembling,
stuttering, lip-biting etc and also asked things like “Is he hurt out there? I don’t want to be
 responsible for anything that happens to him” or “No, I can’t go on with it”, “I don’t see any
sense”.
 However, when ordered to proceed, a majority continued to obey. They continued doing so
even when the victim pounded on the wall as if in protest over the painful shocks (at the 300-
volt level), and then no longer responded, as if he had passed out. His studies seemed to suggest
that ordinary people are willing, although with some reluctance, to harm an innocent stranger if
ordered to do so by someone in authority.
Replication Studies

 Milgram replicated his study a full 18 times, trying to understand the psychology behind what
was happening. The results remained unchanged same as 65 or close to 65 percent even when
the experiment conditions changed.
1.Scripted condition:

 Milgram next made the learner’s protests even more compelling. As the learner was strapped
into the chair, the teacher heard him mention his “slight heart condition” and heard the
experimenter’s reassurance that “although the shocks may be painful, they cause no permanent
tissue damage.” Rather, the participant may also hear the learner shout out about his heart
condition as he is getting the shocks. The learner’s anguished protests were to little avail; of 40
new men in this experiment, 25 (63 percent) fully complied with the experimenter’s demands
2.Change in location:

 When the study was moved from its original location on the campus of Yale University to a run-
down office building in a nearby city, participants’ level of obedience remained virtually
unchanged
3.Women’s study:

 Ten later studies that included women found that women’s compliance rates were similar to
men’s
4.Cross Culture:

 Milgram’s findings were alarmingly general in scope: similar findings were reported in several
different countries (e.g., Jordan, Germany, Australia) and with children as well as adults
5.Recent replication:

 proves that the results are still prevalent: by Burger in 2009 -was more ethically done, to protect
the participants from high stress. This included medical tests on the participants to check for
conditions, and stopping the exp at 150V when they agreed to go on. This study too had similar
results.
Additional Findings

 Milgram varied the conditions to determine the factors that breed obedience.
1.Proximity of the learner/Victim’s distance
 Participants showed most obedience and least compassion when the learners couldn’t be seen
by them. When the learner was in the same room, only 40 percent obeyed to 450 volts.
Compliance dropped further when teachers were required to force the learner’s hand into
contact with a shock plate
 Explanation: This is because Visual cues of someone else’s pain triggers empathic response.
 It is easiest to abuse someone who is distant or depersonalized. Throughout history,
executioners depersonalized those being executed by placing hoods over their heads. The idea
of concrete gas chambers for the genocide of Jews were in fact made by Heinrich Himmler (the
Nazi “architect of genocide”) for a more humane killing- i.e., visual separation of killers and
victims.
 people act most compassionately toward those who are personalized. That is why appeals
(campaigns) for the unborn, for the hungry, or for animal rights are always personalized with a
compelling photograph or description.
 researchers John Lydon and Christine Dunkel-Schetter (1994) study showed that expectant
women expressed more commitment to their pregnancies if they had seen ultrasound pictures
of their fetus that clearly displayed body parts.
2.Closeness of the authority figure

 when the experimenter was in another room or when he was not present the teachers falsely
reported how much shock they were giving the “learner”
 Obedience decreased when the experimenter:
 -left the lab and gave the instructions by telephone
 -was never seen and instructions were left on a tape recorder
 Explanation: people will take a stronger stand when they do not have to encounter an authority
figure face-to-face
3.Legitimacy of the experimenter and prestige of the authority
Legitimacy:

 In another twist on the basic experiment, the experimenter received a rigged telephone call that
required him to leave the laboratory. Before leaving, he said that the “teacher” should just go
ahead. After the experimenter left, another person, who had been assigned a clerical role
(actually a second confederate), assumed command. The clerk “decided” that the shock should
be increased one level for each wrong answer and instructed the teacher accordingly. Now 80
percent of the teachers refused to comply fully.
 The stern apperance and white lab coat of the experimenter aided to obedience.
Prestige of authority:

 Obedience decreased when the study was moved from prestigious Yale University to Bridgeport,
Connecticut and conducted by the modest context of “Research Associates of Bridgeport”. In
this context, When the “learner-has-a-heart-condition” experiment was run with the same
personnel, obedience rate dropped to 48 from the 65 percent in Yale.
4.Group Influence/ Disobedient models
 When 2 other teachers (who were actually confederates of the experimenter) sat with the
participant teacher and disobeyed the experimenter, 90% of the real subjects disobeyed as well.
 Explanation: It is the liberating effect of group influence-when our peers react justifiably against
an unfair practice, we follow their example.
Factors that affect obedience (Burger,2009)
1)Obedience to Authority

 Our culture socializes individuals to obey certain authority figures such as police officers,
teachers, and parents
 the perceived expertise of the experimenter contributed to the participants’ decision to follow
the instructions (Morelli, 1983)
2) A Need for Consistency:

 The well-demonstrated need to act and appear in a consistent manner [think of cognitive
dissonance studies] would have made it difficult for a participant to refuse to press the 195-volt
switch after just pressing the 180-volt switch
 -Interviewee in “Beyond the Shock Machine” says, “If you had to push the 450 volt switch first,
no one would do it”
3)A Change in Self-Perception:

 Agreeing to small requests, such as pressing the low-voltage switches, can change the way
people think about themselves. Participants may have come to see themselves as the kind of
persons who follow the experimenter’s instructions
4)Escalation of Commitment

 “Well, I’m in it this far, might as well go all the way”.

Destructive obedience

 In Social Psychology, destructive obedience refers to compliance with the direct or indirect
orders of a social, military, or moral authority that results in negative outcomes, such as injury
to innocent victims, harm to the community, or the loss of confidence in social institutions.
 Eg, Nazi's behavior and Hutu's killing Tutsi's under obedience.
Why Destructive obedience occurs?
1.People in authority assume responsibility

 Agentic theory: When we act as the agent of someone in authority, we find it easy to deny
personal responsibility for our actions (lack autonomy) - just following orders or just doing our
job. E.g., Nazi soldiers in the war- One guard at his trial in Nuremberg famously quoted he was
not to blame as he was doing as he was told and therefore should not be held accountable.
Most subjects asked who would be responsible-the experimenter stated that he would be
responsible.
 In many situations, the people in authority relieve those who obey of the responsibility for their
own actions. “I was only carrying out orders” is the defense given by people for carrying our
harsh and cruel commands
 This transfer of responsibility can be implicit or explicit
 Implicit- the person in charge is assumed to have the responsibility for what happens.
 Explicit- the authority figure takes up the responsibility.
2.People in authority have visible signs of their status and power

 People in authority often possess visible badges or signs of their status.

 This includes special uniforms, have special titles, and so on. It reminds individuals of the
powerful social norm “Obey the persons in charge”.
 We obey the people in charge who are usually experts, in order to avoid errors.
 In Milgram’s study, the experimenter wore a white lab coat, which suggested that he was a
doctor or someone with authority.
3.Gradual Escalation of orders

 The initial commands are relatively mild and doable. The commands gradually become more
severe, requiring behaviour that is dangerous and objectionable. If a harsh action is asked first,
the target may resist.
 people in authority use the foot-in-the-door technique, asking for small actions first but ever-
larger ones later.
 Milgram’s research started off with only mild and harmless shocks to the victim and as it
continued, moved to harmful levels.
3. Events move at fast pace

 Most events involving destructive obedience move at a very fast pace

 Demonstrations turn into riots, arrests into mass beatings or murder, quite suddenly.
 fast pace of such events gives participants little time for reflection or systematic thought, so
people automatically obey.
 In Milgram’s research; within a few minutes of entering the laboratory, participants found
themselves faced with commands to deliver strong electric shocks to the learner.
Resisting Destructive Obedience

 Individuals exposed to commands from authority figures can be reminded that they—not the
authorities—are responsible for any harm produced.
 individuals can be provided with a clear indication that beyond some point, total submission to
destructive commands is inappropriate.
 Exposing individuals to the actions of disobedient models can be effective.
 Questioning the expertise and motives of the authority figures.
 If the target of influence understands that the motives of the authority are selfish rather than
socially beneficial, then the target, who identifies with the authority’s cause, will defy the
destructive commands.
 Simply knowing about the power of authority figures to command obedience may be helpful.
 Exposure to findings as disturbing as those reported by Milgram can have positive social value
by spreading awareness on how we can be influenced.