Gate~vay QUESTIONS

16-1 How does group membership affect individual behavior?

16-2 How do social situations affect how we think about ourselves and others?
16-3 How are attitudes acquired and changed?
16-4 Under what conditions is persuasion most effective, and what is cognitive dissonance?
16-5 What is social influence?
16-6 How does the mere presence of others affect behavior?
16-7 What have social psychologists learned about conformity?
16-8 What factors lead to increased compliance?
16-9 can people be too obedient?
16-10 Is brainwashing actually possible, and is that how people are converted to cult
membership?
16-11 /-low does self-assertion differ from aggression?

Call Them The way You see Them

They see eye to eye on almost everything. What would you expect? They grew up in the same town
and have tJeen the best of friends since childhood . They attended school together, hung out with
the same friends, and even double-dated together. They always joke it was because of their names.
But bring up sports, and Jimarcus and Jim Bob could not be any more different. They almost
always cheer for opposing teams. They are famous among their friends for never seeing a play the
same way. once, when his team stood to gain the advantage, Jimarcus declared a runner clearly
tagged out at second base, while Jim Bob howled that only a dunce would fail to see that the base-
stealing runner arrived well before the baseball. That was years ago, and they still disagree loudly
and often about that play, along with many, many others.
According to Australian psychologist Pascal Molenberghs, Jimarcus and Jim Bob are typical
sports fans. When he scanned the brains of fans watching their teams compete, he found that
fans of opposing teams don't just think differently about what they see, they literally see things
differently (Molenberghs et al., 2013).
Like the rest of us, Jimarcus and Jim Bob are social beings. our behaviors, our thoughts, our
feelings, and even our perceptions are strongly influenced by our social worlds. In this chapter,
we will look at some ways that we think about social situations and the various ways in which we
influence others. we hope that you will find the topics thought-provoking.
~~ Chapter 16
16-1 Humans in a social
context-Mind Your Manners
Gateway QUESTION 16-1:
How does group membership affect individual behavior?
Participation in various groups is a basic fact of social life. How do
groups influence our behavior? Because you are a member of a
group called "psychology class;' it would be wise to find out.
Social psychology is the scientific study of how individuals
behave, think, and feel in social situations-that is, in the pres-
ence, actual or implied, of others. Every day, there is a fascinating
interplay between our own behavior and that of the people
around us. We are born into organized societies. Established
values, expectations, and behavior patterns are present when we
arrive. So, too, is culture, an ongoing pattern of life that is passed
from one generation to the next. To appreciate the impact of
society and culture, think about how you have been affected by
language, marriage customs, concepts of ownership, and sex
roles (Matsumoto & Juang, 2013).
Social Roles
We all belong to many overlapping social groups, and in each, we
occupy a position in the structure of the group. Social roles are pat-
terns of behavior expected of persons in various social positions
(Baumeister & Bushman, 2014). For instance, playing the role of
mother, boss, or student involves different sets of behaviors and
expectations. Some roles are ascribed (they are assigned to a person
or are not under personal control): male or female, son, adolescent,
inmate. Achieved roles are voluntarily attained by special effort:
spouse, teacher, scientist, bandleader, criminal.
What effect does role-playing have on behavior? Roles stream-
line daily interactions by allowing us to anticipate what others
~
~ group. Members of cohesive groups literally stick together: They
- tend to stand or sit close together, they pay more attention to
~ Also, their behavior tends to be closely coordinated (Lin &
~ Peng, 2010). Cohesiveness is the basis for much of the power
Ascribed roles have a powerful impact on social behavior. What kinds of behavior
do you expect from your teachers or your coaches? What behaviors do they expect
from you? What happens if either of you fails to match the other's expectations?
will do. When a person is acting as a doctor, mother, clerk, or
police officer, we expect certain behaviors. However, roles have a
negative side, too.
Survivor and other "reality" television programs offer an inter-
esting, if voyeuristic, look at some of the best and worst aspects of
human behavior. However, such programs have nothing over the
most revealing experiments in social psychology. In an infamous
experiment, Phil Zimbardo at Stanford University paid normal
healthy male college students to play the role of either "prisoners"
or "guards" in a simulated prison (Drury et a!., 2012; Zimbardo,
Haney, & Banks, 1973). Within a few days, the "guards" clamped
down with increasing brutality. In a surprisingly short time, the
fake convicts looked like real prisoners: They were dejected, trau-
matized, passive, and dehumanized. After six days, the experiment
had to be halted.
What had happened? Apparently, the ascribed social roles-
prisoner and guard-were so powerful that in just a few days, the
experiment became "reality" for those involved. We tend to think
of people as inherently good or bad. But students in the Stanford
prison study were randomly assigned to be prisoners or guards.
Clearly, the origins of many destructive human relationships can
be found in destructive roles.
Many people also experience role conflicts, in which two or
more roles make conflicting demands on them (Gordon et a!.,
2012; Valentine, Godkin, & Varca, 2010) . Consider, for exam-
ple, a teacher who must flunk a close friend's son, a mother
who has a demanding full-time job, or a soccer coach whose
daughter is on the team but isn't a very good athlete. Likewise,
the clashing demands of work, family, and school create role
conflicts for many students (Senecal, Julien, & Guay, 2003) .
Role conflicts at work (such as being a good team player versus
being a strong manager) can lead to job burnout and negative
health outcomes (Pomaki, Supeli, & Verhoeven, 2007; Schmidt
eta!., 2014) .
Group Structure, Cohesion, and Norms
Are there other dimensions of group membership? Two important
dimensions of any group are its structure and its cohesiveness
(Forsyth, 2014). Group structure consists of the network of roles,
communication pathways, and power in a group. Organized
groups such as an army or an athletic team have a high degree of
structure. Informal friendship groups may or may not be very
structured.
Group cohesive111ess refers to the degree of attraction among
group members or the strength of their desire to remain in the
one another, and they show more signs of mutual affection.
that groups exert over us. Therapy groups, businesses, sports
teams, and the like seek to increase cohesion because it helps
people work together better (Boyd eta!., 2014; Casey-Campbell
& Martens, 2009). But is it ever better to work alone? See
"Solitude" for some answers.
 social Thinking and Social Influence

CRITICAL THINKING Solitude

wrapped in ever-expanding social

networks, we are never far from other
people. They are always right beside us, just
around the next corner, or only a phone call
or text message away. In our intensely social
world, it is tempting to assume that a person
who is alone is a loser, a loner, a social outcast
or, at the very least, antisocial or shy.
But is this assumption always justified ?
Having read through much of this textbook
(you have been reading this book, right?),
you are likely not surprised to learn that the
answer to this question is, "It depends:'
On the one hand, it is true that some
people are alone because they are socia lly
fearful, self-conscious, shy, or otherwise dis-
like social situations (Coplan & Weeks, 201 0) .
Many of these people are lonely, shy, or both
(Burstein, Ameli-Grillon, & Merikangas, 2011;
Cacioppo & William, 2008). In more extreme
cases, people who shun social interactions
and are troubled by their isolation may even
be diagnosed with a mental disorder such as
agoraphobia.
BRIDGES We have explored
some unhealthy forms of solitude in
earlier chapters. Shyness is discussed
in Chapter 12, Section 12-8, while
agoraphobia is discussed in Chapter 14,
Section 14-8.
On the other hand, it is also true that
some people are alone simply because they
prefer solitude (Coplan & Weeks, 201 0) . In
fact, many of history's most creative and spir-
itual individuals have found insight in their
solitude (Flowers, 2011; Storr, 1988).
But can't I be around people sometimes and
by myself at other times? Why not? Perhaps
we could all benefit from some alone time. This person is alone. But is she lonely? Do
Quiet time for reflection does seem to be you think spending time alone is healthy or
associated with creativity, spiritual growth, unhealthy? Did you know that healthy solitude
problem solving, and self-discovery (Knafo, was on the minds of legislators when they passed
the 1964 Wilderness Act? According to that act,
2012; Long et al., 2003). In our modern, bus-
national parks should serve "to preserve natural
tling world, social contact is a given. Alone conditions, to provide opportunities for solitude,
time (no cell phone or Facebook either)- and to provide a primitive and unconfined type of
now that's another story. recreation" (Shafer & Hammitt, 1995, p. 266).

In-Groups
Cohesiveness is particularly strong for in-groups-groups with
which a person mainly identifies. Very likely, your own in-groups
are defined by a combination of prominent social dimensions,
such as nationality, ethnicity, age, education, religion, income,
political values, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth. In-group
membership helps defme who we are socially. Predictably, we
tend to attribute positive characteristics to our in-group and
negative qualities to out-groups-groups with which we do not
identify. We also tend to exaggerate differences between members
of out-groups and our own groups. This sort of "us and them"
thinking seems to be a basic fact of social life. It also sets the stage
for conflict between groups and for racial and ethnic prejudice-
topics we will explore in the next chapter.
Social status and social Power
In addition to defining roles, a person's social position within
groups affects his or her prestige and dominance in those groups.
Social status refers to the degree to which other group members
respect and admire a person while social power refers to the
degree to which a person possesses the capacity to control the
behavior of other group members (Hays, 2013). A person can be
high in both social status and social power (such as a popular
chief of police), high in one but not the other (such as a famous
actor, who may be accorded high social status while having little
social power), or be low in both (like most homeless people).
Incidentally, men generally prefer social power over status while
women generally prefer social status over power (Hays, 2013) .
While higher social power obviously bestows special privileges,
so too can higher social status (Albrecht & Albrecht, 2011). For
example, in one experiment, a man walked into several bakeries
Social psychology The scientific study of how individuals behave, think, and
feel in social situations.
Culture An ongoing pattern of life, characterizing a society at a given point
in history.
Social role Expected behavior patterns associated with particular social
positions (such as daughter, worker, or student).
Role conflict Trying to occupy two or more roles that make conflicting
demands on behavior.
Group strudure The network of roles, communication pathways, and power
in a group.
Group cohesiveness The degree of attraction among group members or their
commitment to remaining in the group.
In-group A group with which a person identifies.
Out-group A group with which a person does not identify.
Social status The degree of prestige, admiration, and respect accorded to a
member of a group.
Social power The degree to which a group member can control, alter, or
influence the behavior of another group member.
~~ Chapter 16
and asked for a pastry while claiming that he did not have enough
money to pay for it. Half the time he was well dressed, and the rest
of the time he was poorly dressed. If the man was polite when he
asked, he was equally likely to be given a free pastry no matter
how he was dressed (95 percent versus 90 percent). However, if he
was impolite when he asked, he was much less likely to get a pastry
if he was poorly dressed than if he was well dressed (75 percent
versus 20 percent) (Gueguen & Pascual, 2003).
You don't have to be in a bakery for this to work. In most
situations, we are more likely to comply with a request made by a
high-status (well-dressed) person (Gueguen & Lamy, 2012).
Perhaps the better treatment given people with higher social
power or status, even when they are impolite, explains some of
our society's preoccupation with expensive clothes, cars, and
other social power and status symbols.
Norms
We also are greatly affected by group norms (Matsumoto & Juang,
2013). A norm is a widely accepted (but often unspoken) standard
for appropriate behavior. If you have the slightest doubt about the
power of norms, try this test: Walk into a crowded supermarket,
get in a checkout line, and begin singing loudly in your fullest
voice. Are you the 1 person in 100 who could actually do this?
The impact of norms is shown by a classic study of littering.
The question was, "Does the amount of trash in an area affect
littering?" To find out, people were given flyers as they walked
into a public parking garage. As you can see in • Figure 16.1, the
more litter there was on the floor, the more likely people were to
add to it by dropping their flyer. Apparently, seeing that others
had already littered implied a lax norm about whether littering is
acceptable. The moral? The cleaner a public area is kept, the less
likely people are to "trash'' it (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990;
Gockeritz et al., 2010).
How are norms formed? One early study of group norms made
use of a striking illusion called the autokinetic effect. In a
50
"D
<1.>
Q:; 40
_;:
0
..c
~ 30
c:
~ common way that we understand ourselves is by comparing
Q:;
Q._
0 20
<1.>
bD
.r:l
c
<1.>
~ 10
& Social Comparison
2 4 8 But how do you know if you are a good athlete, worker, parent, or
Number of pieces of litter in envi ronment
• Figure 16.1 Results of an experiment on norms concerning littering. Th e
prior existence of litter in a public setting implies that litteri ng is acceptable. This
encou ra ges others to "trash" t he area. (From Cia ldin i, Reno, & Ka llgren, 1990.)
completely darkened room, a stationary pinpoint of light will
appear to drift or move about. (The light is therefore autokinetic,
or "self-moving:') Muzafer Sherif (1906-1988) found that people
give very different estimates of how far the light moves. However,
when two or more people announce their estimates at the same
time, their judgments rapidly converge. This is an example of
social influence, in which one person's behavior is changed by the
actions of others (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). We will return to
social influence later in this chapter. For now, it is enough to note
that a convergence of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors tends to
take place in many groups (Cialdini, 2009).
Norms are often based on our perceptions of what others think
and do. For example, a majority of college students believe that
they are more troubled about excessive drinking on campus than
other students are. Apparently, many students are fooled by this
false norm. Ironically, they help create this false impression by not
speaking up. If disapproving students actually outnumber "party
animals;' then campus norms for acceptable drinking should be
fairly conservative, which is usually not the case (Prentice &
Miller, 1993).
The role of perception in the establishment of social norms
offers a good example of social cognition, the process of thinking
about ourselves and others in a social context (Shook, 2013; Strack
& Forster, 2009). Despite the fact that we are immersed in social
relationships with other people all the time and can freely observe
their behavior, as well as our own, understanding that behavior is
another matter entirely. In the next few sections, we consider some
examples of social cognition. We begin with social comparison and
then move on to consider the process of attribution, one way that
we understand the behavior of other people. Finally, we look at
attitudes and how we form them.
16-2 social Cognition-
Behind our Masks
Gateway QUESlriON 16-2:
How do social situations affect how we think about
ourselves and ott1ers?
The people around us influence not only how we behave, but also
how we think about ourselves and others. For example, one
themselves to others, a process called . . . wait for it . . . social
comparison.
If you want to know how heavy you are, you simply get on a scale.
friend? How do you know if your views on politics, religion, or music
are unusual or widely shared? When there are no objective stan-
dards, the only available yardstick is provided by comparing yourself
with others (Baumeister & Bushman, 2014; Dvash et al., 2010).
 social Thinking and Social Influence

which we compare ourselves to a person who ranks higher on

some dimension, are sometimes used for self-improvement. One
way that Wendy can learn to improve her tennis skills is to
compare herself with players who are only a little better than she
is (Huguet et al., 2001) .
In general, social comparison theory holds that desires for self-
evaluation, self-protection, and self-enhancement provide motives
for associating with others. In doing so, they influence which
groups we join.
c
0
·;;;
Let's shift gears now to examine another form of social cogni-
tion. Vonda just insulted Sutchai. But why? Why did Nick change
~==::...IIII I
~
his college major? Why does Kirti talk so fast when she's around
~

~
w
0
men? In answering such questions, we attribute people's behavior
to various causes. Whether we are right or wrong about the causes
High school class reunions are notorious for the rampant social comparisons that
of their behavior, our conclusions affect how we act. To learn how
they often encourage. Apparently, it's hard to resist comparing yourself with for-
mer classmates to see how you are doing in life.
we fill in the "person behind the mask;' let's explore the making of
attributions.

Social psychologist Leon Festinger (1919-1989) theorized

that group membership fills needs for social comparison- Attribution Theory
comparing your own actions, feelings, opinions, or abilities to
Every day we must guess how people will act, often from small
those of others. Have you ever "compared notes" with other
shreds of evidence. We do this through a form of social cogni-
students after taking an exam? ("How did you do?" "Wasn't
tion called attribution. As we observe others, we make infer-
that last question hard?") If you have, you were satisfying a
ences about them. For example, two people enter a restaurant
need for social comparison (Festinger, 1957; Johnson &
and order different meals. Nell tastes her food and then salts it.
Lammers, 2012).
Bert salts his food before he tastes it. How would you explain
Typically, we don't make social comparisons randomly or on
their behavior? In Nell's case, you might assume that the food
some absolute scale. Meaningful evaluations are based on com-
needed salt. If so, you have attributed her actions to an external
paring yourself with people of similar backgrounds, abilities,
cause (one that lies outside a person). With Bert, you might be
and circumstances (Stapel & Marx, 2007). To illustrate, let's ask
more inclined to conclude that he must really like salt. If so, the
a student named Wendy if she is a good tennis player. If Wendy
cause of his behavior is internal. Internal causes, such as
compares herself with a professional, the answer will be no. But
needs, personality traits, and Bert's taste for salt, lie within the
this tells us little about her relative ability. Within her tennis
person.
group, Wendy is regarded as an excellent player. On a fair scale
of comparison, Wendy knows that she is good, and she takes
pride in her tennis skills. In the same way, thinking of yourself BRIDGES Attributing bodily arousal to various sources
as successful, talented, responsible, or fairly paid depends
can also have a large impact on emotions. See Chapter 10,
entirely on whom you choose for comparison. Thus, a desire for
Section 10-1 0.
social comparison provides a motive for associating with others
and influences which groups we join (Franzoi & Klaiber, 2007;
Johnson & Stapel, 2010) .
In addition to providing information, social comparisons may, Norm A w idely accepted (but often unspoken) standard of conduct for
at times, be made in ways that reflect desires for self-protection or appropriate behavio r.
Autokinetic effect The apparent movement of a stationary pinpo int of light
self-enhancement (Dvash et al., 2010). If you feel threatened, you
displayed in a darkened room.
may make a downward comparison by contrasting yourself with Social cognition The process of th inking about ourselves and others in a
a person who ranks lower on some dimension (Stewart et al., social context.
2013). For example, if you have a part-time job and your employer Social comparison Making judgments about ourselves through comparison
cuts your hours, you mf!y comfort yourself by thinking about a with others.
Downward comparison Comparing yourself with a person who ranks lower
friend who just lost a job.
than you on some d imension.
What about upward comparisons? Do they occur, too? As Upward comparison Comparing yourself with a person who ranks higher
Wendy's tennis playing suggests, comparing yourself with people than you on some dimension.
of much greater ability will probably just make you feel bad Attribution The process of making inferences about the causes of one's own
(Normand & Croizet, 2013; Tyler & Feldman, 2006). For example, behavior, and t hat of others.
External cause A cause of behavior that is assumed to lie outside a person.
when women compare their bodies with those of beautiful women
Internal cause A cause of behav ior assumed to lie w ithi n a person-for
in the media, their dissatisfaction with their own bodies increases instance, a need, preference, or personality trait.
(Tiggemann & Polivy, 2010) . However, upward comparisons, in
II Chapter 16

Self-Handicapping-Smoke Screen for Fai lure

Have you ever known someone who
got drunk before taking an exam or ma lki ng
a speech? Why would a person risk failure
in this way? Often, the reason lies in 5ielf-
handicapping (arranging to perform under
conditions that impair performance) . By
providing an excuse for poor performance,
self-hand icapping makes people feel better
in situations where they might fail (McCrea
& Hirt, 2011).
What if a person succeeds while "handi-
capped" ? Well, then, so much the better.
The pe rson's self-image then gets a boost
because she or he succeeded under con-
ditions that normally lower performance
(Kimble & Hirt, 2005).
Do you believe that "you either have it
or you don't" where ability is concemed?
If so, you may be particularly prone to :self-
hand icapping. By working with a handicap,
people can avoid any chance of discovering
that they "don't have it!" For instance, college
athletes often protect their self-esteem by
practicing Jess before important games or
events (Kuczka & Treasure, 2005; Ntoumanis,
Taylor, & Standage, 201 0) . That way, if they
don't do well, they have an excuse for their
poor performance.
Dr inking alcohol is one of the most
popular-and dangerous-self-handicapping
strategies . A person who is drunk can
attribute failure to being "loaded," while
accepting success if it occurs . Examples
of using alcohol for self-handicapping
include being d runk for school exams,
job interviews, or an important first date.
A person who gets drunk at such times
should be aware that coping with anxi-
ety in this way can lead to serious alcohol
abuse (Zuckerman &Tsa i, 2005).
Any time you set up excuses for a poor
performance, you are se lf- hand icappin g.
Other examples of self- handicappin g
include making a half-hea rted effort, claim-
ing to be ill, and procrast inating (McCrea &
Hirt, 2011 ). Incidentally, men are more likely
than women to self-hand icap (Kimble &
Hirt, 2005).
Most of us have used self-handicapping
at times. Indeed, life wo uld be harsh if we
d idn't sometimes give ourselves a brea k
from accepting full respo nsibility for suc-
cess or failure. Self-ha ndicapping is mainly
a problem when it becomes habitua l. When
it does, it t ypically leads t o poorer perfor-
mance, lower self-est eem, poor adjustment,
and poor health (Sch w ing er et al., 2014;
Zuckerman & Tsai, 2005). So watch out for
self-handicapping, but t ry not to be too hard
on yourself.

What effects do such interpretations have? It is difficult to fully
understand social behavior without considering the attributions
that we make. For instance, let's say that Tam, who is in one of
your classes, seems to avoid you. You see Tam at a market. Do you
say hello to him? It could depend on how you have explained
Tam's actions to yourself. Have you assumed his avoidance is
caused by shyness? Coincidence? Dislike? Many factors affect
such judgments. Let's examine a few.
Making Attributions
According to Harold Kelley (1921- 2003 )., one of the originators of
attribution theory, when we make attributions, we are sensitive to
how consistent and distinctive a person's behavior is (Kelley, 1967).
A person's behavior is consistent if it changes very little when we
observe it on many different occasions. The first time that Tam
avoided you, he might have just been in a bad mood that day.
However, if Tam consistently avoids you, it's not likely that he is in
a bad mood every time. That rules out coincidence. Still, Tam's
avoidance could mean he is shy, not that he dislikes you. That's
why distinctiveness is also important. When we watch other
people, distinctiveness refers to noting that their behavior occurs
only under specific circumstances. If you notice that Tam seems
to avoid other people too, you may conclude that he is shy or
unfriendly. If his avoidance is consistently and distinctively linked
only with you, you will probably assume that he dislikes you. You
could be wrong, of course, but your behavior toward him will
change just the same.
To deduce causes, we typically take into account the behavior of
the actor (the person of interest), the object that the person's action
is directed toward, and the setting (social or physical environment)
in which the action occurs (Kelley, 1967). Imagine, fo r example,
that someone compliments you on your taste in clothes. If you are
at a picnic, you may attribute this compliment to what you are
wearing (the "object"), unless, of course, you're wearing your worst
"grubbies:' If you are, you may simply assume that the person (or
"actor") is friendly or tactful (or sarcastic). However, if you are in
a clothing store and a salesperson compliments you, you will prob-
ably attribute the compliment to the setting. It's still possible that
the salesperson actually likes what you are wearing. Nevertheless,
when we make attributions, we are very sensitive to the situational
demands affecting other people's behavior. Situational demands
are pressures to behave in certain ways in particular settings and
social situations. If you see Tam at a funeral and he is quiet and
polite, it will tell you little about his motives and personality traits.
The situation demands such behavior.
When situational demands are strong, we tend to discount
(downgrade) internal causes as a way of explaining a person's
behavior. Actually, this is true any time when strong external
causes for behavior are present. For example, you have probably
discounted the motives of professional athletes who praise shaving
creams, hair tonics, deodorants, and the like. Obviously, the large
sums of money that they receive fully explain their endorsements.
It's not necessary to assume that they actually like the potions they
sell. ("Self-Handicapping" discusses a related phenomenon.)
Yet another factor affecting attribution is consensus (or
agreement). When many people act alike (i.e., there is a consen -
sus in their behavior), it implies that their behavior is externally
caused. For example, if millions of people go to see the latest

Hollywood blockbuster, we tend to say that the movie is good. If
someone you know goes to see a movie six times when others
are staying away in droves, the tendency is to assume that the
person likes "that type of movie:'
Actor and Observer
Let's say that at the last five parties you've attended, you've seen a
woman named Macy. Based on this, you assume that Macy likes
to socialize. You see Macy at yet another gathering and mention
that she seems to like parties. She says, ''Actually, I hate these par-
ties, but I get invited to play my tuba at them. My music teacher
says I need to practice in front of an audience, so I keep attending
these dumb events. Want to hear a Sousa march?"
We seldom know the real reasons for others' actions. That's
why we tend to infer causes from circumstances. However, in
doing so, we often make mistakes like the one with Macy. The
most common error is to attribute the actions of others to internal
causes (Riggio & Garcia, 2009; Watson, 2008). This mistake is
called the fundamental attribution error. We tend to think that
the actions of others have internal causes even if in reality they are
caused by external forces or circumstances. One amusing example
of this error is the tendency of people to attribute the actions of
actors playing a role to their personalities rather than the obvious
external cause (that they are playing a character) (Tal-Or &
Papirman, 2007).
Where our own behavior is concerned, we are more likely to
think that external causes explain our actions. In other words, an
actor- observer bias is present in how we explain behavior. As
observers, we attribute the behavior of others to their wants,
In 2013, Tom Hanks was the most trusted person in the United States, according
to a Reader's Digest poll, ranking above many politicians, judges, religious leaders,
and sports figures. Is Tom Hanks actually that trustworthy? Or is it that he has
played many trustworthy cliaracters in popular films? We are more prone than
you might think to attribute t o actors the personality traits of the characters they
play (Tal-Or & Papirman, 2007).
Social Thinking and Social Influence
motives, and personality traits (this is the fundamental attribution
error). As actors, however, we tend to find external explanations
for our own behavior (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2013;
Gordon & Kaplar, 2002). No doubt you chose your major in school
because of what it has to offer. Other students choose their majors
because of the kind of people they are. Other people who don't
leave tips in restaurants are cheapskates. If you don't leave a tip, it's
because the service was bad. And, of course, other people are
always late because they are irresponsible. You are late because you
were held up by events beyond your control.
As you can see, attribution theory summarizes how we think
about ourselves and others, including the errors that we tend to
make.
Knowledge Builder
Social Behavior and Cognition
RECITE
1. Social psychology is the study of how people behave in _ _ __
2. Male, female, and ado lescent are examples of roles.
3. Social status refers to a set of expected behaviors associated with a
social position. Tor F?
4. Social comparisons are made pretty much at random. Tor F?
5. When situational demands are weak, we tend to attribute a person's
actions to intern al causes. Tor F?
6. The fundamental attribution error is to attribute the actions of oth-
ers to internal causes. Tor F?
REFLECT
Think Critically
7. The Stanford prison experiment also illustrates a major concept of
personality theory (Chapter 12), especially social learning theory.
Can you name it?
Self-Reflect
What are the most prominent roles you play? Do they give you any social
status or social power? Which are achieved and which are ascribed? How
do they affect your behavior? What conflicts do they create?
How has social comparison affected your behavior? Has it influenced
who you associate with?
Think of a time when your attributions were affected by consistency
and distinctiveness. Did situational demands also affect your judgments?
Have you ever engaged in self-handicapping ?Try to relate the concept
to a specific example.
How often do you commit the fundamental attribution error? Again,
try to think of a specific personal example that illustrates the concept.
'Sl!eJll eUOSJad Aq ue4l J<34leJ SUO!lenl!S
Aq paJuaniJU! AlfiUOJlS ual!o S! J0!11e4aq le4l eap! a4lS! li'L 1 '91'5 ~ '17
~ '£ paqpJse ·z SJ<34lO JO aJuasaJd a4l JO suo!lenl!S 1epos • L :sJaMsuv
Self-handicapping Arranging to perform under conditions that usually
impair performance, so as to have an excuse for a poor showing.
Situational demands Unstated expectations th at define desirable or
appropriate behavior in various settings and socia l situations.
Fundamental attribution error The tendency to attribute the behavior of
others to intern al causes (personality, likes, and so forth) .
Actor-observer bias The tendency to attribute the behavior of others to
internal causes while attributing one's own behavior to external causes
(situations and circumstances).
Ill Chapter 16

16-3 Attitudes-Belief +
Emotion + Action
Gateway QUESTIONS 16-3:
How are attitudes acquired and changed?

What is your attitude toward affirmative action, euthanasia, environ-

mental groups, the situation in the Middle East, the death penalty,
legalized abortion, junk food, or psychology? Your answers, which
are often influenced by social situations, can have far- reaching effects
on your behavior. Attitudes are intimately woven into our actions
and views of the world. Our tastes, friendships, votes, preferences,
goals, and behavior in many other situations are all touched by atti-
tudes (Baumeister & Bushman, 2014). Let's see how attitudes are
Attitudes are an important dimension of social behavior. Attitudes are often greatly
formed and changed. influenced by the attitudes of parents and the groups to which they belong.
What, specifically, is an attitude? An attitude is a mixture of
belief and emotion that predisposes a person to respond to other
people, objects, or groups in a positive or negative way. Attitudes
summarize your evaluation of objects (Bohner & Dickel, 2010). Forming Attitudes
As a result, they predict or direct future actions.
How do people acquire attitudes? Attitudes are acquired in several
"Your attitude is showing;' is sometimes said. Actually, atti-
basic ways. Sometimes attitudes come from direct contact (personal
tudes are expressed through beliefs, emotions, and actions. The
experience) with the object of the attitude-such as opposing pollu-
belief component of an attitude is what you believe about a
tion when a nearby factory ruins your favorite river (Ajzen, 2005).
particular object or issue. The emotional component consists of
Some attitudes are simply formed through chance conditioning
your feelings toward the attitudinal object. The action compo-
(learning that takes place by luck or coincidence) (Albarracin,
nent refers to your actions toward various people, objects, or
Johnson, & Zanna, 2005). Let's say, for instance, that you have had
institutions. Consider, for example, your attitude toward gun
three encounters in your lifetime with psychologists. If all three were
control. You will have beliefs about whether gun control would
negative, you might take an unduly dim view of psychology. In the
affect rates of crime or violence. You will respond emotionally to
same way, people often develop strong attitudes toward cities, foods,
guns, finding them either attractive and desirable or threatening
or parts of the country on the basis of one or two unusually good or
and destructive. And you will have a tendency to seek out or
bad experiences (Ledgerwood & Trope, 2010).
avoid gun ownership. The action component of your attitude
Attitudes also are learned through interaction with others-that
may well include support of organizations that urge or oppose
is, through discussion with people holding a particular attitude.
gun control. As you can see, attitudes orient us to the social
For instance, if three of your good friends are volunteers at a local
world. In doing so, they prepare us to act in certain ways (Forgas,
recycling center and you talk with them about their beliefs,
Cooper, & Crano, 2010; Jackson, 2011). (For another example,
you may well come to favor recycling, too. More generally, there is
see • Figure 16.2.)
little doubt that many of our
attitudes are influenced by
group membership. In most
Issue: Affirmative Action groups, pressures to conform
shape our attitudes, just as
Bt·licf wmpom•nt Belief component they do our behavior. Child
Rc";!orc•s just1c c• Unf.1ir to !l1.1j01it y rearing (the effects of parental
Providl'' c•qu.J I opportunit y Rl'Vl'rsc dl scrimin,Jtion
values, beliefs, and practices)
also affects attitudes (Bartram,
Emotional component Emotional component 2006; Guidetti et al., 2012).
Optimism Anger For example, if both parents
belong to the same political
g> party, chances are that their
Action component Action component
Vote for affirmative act1on Vote aga111s! aif1rmative act1on ~ children will belong to that
Donate to groups that support Donate to groups that oppose ~ party as adults.
aff1nnative act ion atf1rma tive act1on 8 Finally, there is no doubt
© that attitudes are influenced

• Figure 16.2 Elements of positive and negative attitudes toward affirmative action. by the media, such as

newspapers, television, and the Internet (Mahler, Beckerley, &
Vogel, 2010). Every day, we are coaxed, persuaded, and skillfully
manipulated by messages in mass media. Young people today
spend at least 50 hours a week immersed in media, such as
television, video games, movies, the Internet, music, and print
(Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010) . The information thus
channeled into homes has a powerful impact. For instance,
frequent television viewers mistrust others and overestimate their
own chances of being harmed. This suggests that a steady diet of
television violence leads some people to develop a mean worldview,
in which they regard the world as a dangerous and threatening
place (Nellis & Savage, 2012).
BRIDGES For more on media and observational ..
learning, see Chapter 6, Section 6-10.
Attitudes and Behavior
Why are some attitudes acted on, whereas others are not? To answer
this question, let's consider an example. Assume that a woman
named Lorraine knows that automobiles are expensive to operate
and add to air pollution. Besides, she hates smog. Why would
Lorraine continue to drive to work every day? It is probably
because the immediate consequences of our actions weigh heavily
on the choices we make. No matter what Lorraine's attitude may be,
it is difficult for her to resist the immediate convenience of driving.
Our expectations of how others will evaluate our actions also
are important. Lorraine may resist taking public transit to work
for fear that her coworkers will be critical of her environmental
stand. By taking this factor into account, researchers have been
able to predict family planning choices, alcohol use by teenagers,
reenlistment in the National Guard, voting on a nuclear power
plant initiative, and so forth (Cialdini, 2009) . Finally, we must not
overlook the effects of longstanding habits (Oskamp & Schultz,
2005). Let's say that after years of driving to work Lorraine finally
vows to shift to public transit. Two months later, it would not be
unusual if she found herself driving again because of habit, despite
her good intentions.
In short, there are often large differences between attitudes and
behavior-particularly between privately held attitudes and public
behavior (Johnson & Boynton, 2010). However, barriers to action
typically fall when a person holds an attitude with conviction. If
you have conviction about an issue, it evokes strong feelings, you
think about it and discuss it often, and you are knowledgeable
about it (Rucker et al., 2014). Attitudes held with passionate
conviction often lead to major changes in personal behavior
(Oskamp & Schultz, 2005).
Attitude Measurement
How are attitudes measured? Attitudes can be measured in several
ways. In an open-ended interview, people are asked to freely
express their attitudes toward a particular issue. For example, a
person might be asked, "What do you think about freedom of
Social Thinking and Social Influence ~~
speech on college campuses?" Attitudes toward social groups can
be measured with a social distance scale. On such scales, people
say how willing they are to admit members of a group to various
levels of social closeness (Brown, 2011). These levels might include
"would exclude from my country;' "would rent a room to:' or
"would admit to marriage in my familY:' If a person has negative
attitudes toward a group, she or he will prefer to remain socially
distant from members of the group (Boyle, Blood, & Blood, 2009).
Attitude scales are a widely used measure. Attitude scales
consist of statements expressing various possible views on an
issue (for example, "Socialized medicine would destroy health
care in this country" or "This country needs a national health
care program"). People might respond to such statements on a
5-point scale, ranking it from "strongly agree" to "strongly dis-
agree:' By combining scores on all items, we can learn whether a
person accepts or rejects a particular issue. When used in public
polls, attitude scales provide useful information about the feelings
of large segments of the population.
16-4 Attitude Change-Why
the seekers went Public
Gateway QUESTION 16-4:
Under what conditions is persuasion most effective,
and what is cognitive dissonance?
Although attitudes are fairly stable, they do change (Forgas,
Cooper, & Crano, 2010; Izuma, 2013). Some attitude change can
be understood in terms of a reference group- any group that an
individual uses as a standard for social comparison. It is not
necessary to have face-to -face contact with other people for them
to be a reference group. It depends instead on with whom you
identify or whose attitudes and values you care about (Ajzen,
2005; Larimer et al. , 2011).
In the 1930s, Theodore Newcomb studied real-life attitude
change among students at Bennington College (Alwin, Cohen, &
Newcomb, 1991). Most students came from conservative homes,
but Bennington was a very liberal school. Newcomb found that
most students shifted significantly toward more liberal attitudes
Attitude A learned tendency to respo nd to people, obj ects, or inst it ut ions
in a positive or negative way.
Belief component What a person t hinks or believes about the object of
an attitude.
Emotional component One's feelings toward the object of an attitude.
Action component How one tends to act toward t he obj ect of an attitude.
Open-ended interview An interview in w hich persons are allowed to freely
state t heir views.
Social distance scale A rating of t he degree to w hich a person wou ld be
wil ling t o have cont act w ith a member of another group.
Attitude scale A collection of attitudinal statements w ith w hich respondents
indicate agreement or disagreement.
Reference group Any group t hat an individ ual uses as a standard for soci al
compa ri son.
II Chapter 16

4. The message also provides a clear course of action that

will, if followed, reduce fear or produce personally desirable
results.
5. The message states clear-cut conclusions.
6. The message is backed up by facts and statistics.
7. The message is repeated as frequently as possible.
8. Both sides of the argument are presented, in the case of a
E
well-informed audience.
8 9. Only one side of the argument is presented, in the case of a
J:l
iii poorly informed audience.
~
~ As we have just seen, we sometimes change our attitudes in
~
r--...,;;;:.~,. ~ response to external persuasion (Gass & Seiter, 2014). Sometimes,
j however, the internal process of cognitive dissonance also can lead
: to attitude change.

Do you exercise regularly? like students in the BennHngton study, your inclination
to exercise is probably influenced by the exercise halbits of your reference groups
(Ajzen, 2005; Terry & Hogg, 1996).
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
What happens if people act in ways that are inconsistent with their
attitudes or self-images? Cognitions are thoughts. Dissonance means
during their four years at Bennington. Those who didn't change
clashing. The influential theory of cognitive dissonance states
kept their parents and hometown friends as primary reference
that contradicting or clashing thoughts cause discomfort-that is,
groups. Those who did change identified primarily with the cam-
we have a need for consistency in our thoughts, perceptions, and
pus community. Notice that all students could count the college
images of ourselves (Cooper, 2007; Festinger, 1957). Inconsistency,
and their families as membership groups. However, one group or
then, can motivate people to make their thoughts or attitudes
the other tended to become their point of reference.
agree with their actions (Gawronski, 2012) .

Persuasion
What about advertising and other direct attempts to change atti-
tudes? Are they effective? Persuasion is any deliberate attempt to
change attitudes or beliefs through information and arguments
(Gass & Seiter, 2014; Perloff, 2010). Businesses, politicians, and
others who seek to persuade us obviously believe that attitudes
can be changed. Billions ofdollars are spent yearly on advertising
in the United States and Canada alone. Persuasion can range from
the daily blitz of media commercials to personal discussion
among friends. In most cases, the success or failure of persuasion
can be understood if we consider the communicator, the message,
and the audience.
At a community meeting, let's say thalt you have a chance to
promote an issue important to you (for or against building a new
mall nearby, for instance). Whom should you choose to make the
presentation, and how should that person present it? Research
suggests that attitude change is encouraged when certain condi-
tions are met. You should have little trouble seeing how the fol-
lowing principles are applied to sell everything from underarm
deodorants to presidents (Aronson, 2012; Oskamp & Schultz,
2005; Perloff, 2010):
1. The communicator is likable, expressive, trustworthy, an
expert on the topic, and similar to the audience in some
respect.
2. The communicator appears to have nothing to gain if the
audience accepts the message.
Persuasion. Are you likely to be swayed by this group's message? Successful
3. The message appeals to emotions, particularly to fear or persuasion is related to characteristics of the communicator, the message, and
anxiety. the audience.
 Social Thinking and social infl uence

For example, smokers are told on every pack that cigarettes
endanger their lives. They light up and smoke anyway. How do
they resolve the tension between this information and their
actions? They could quit smoking, but it may be easier to
convince themselves that smoking is not really so dangerous.
To do this, a smoker might seek examples of heavy smokers
who have lived long lives, spend time with other smokers, and
avoid information about the link between smoking and cancer;
or he or she might just suppress thoughts of the health
consequences altogether (Kneer, Glock,. & Rieger, 2012).
According to cognitive dissonance theory, we also tend to
reject new information that contradicts ideas that we already
hold. We're all guilty of this "don't bother me with the facts, my
mind is made up" strategy at times.
A famous example of cognitive dissonance in action involves a
woman named Mrs. Keech, who claimed she was in communica-
tion with beings on a planet called Clarion (Festinger, 1957). The
messages foretold the destruction of North America. Mrs. Keech
and her followers, the Seekers, were to be rescued by a flying
saucer. The news media became involved and reported on the
proceedings. When nothing happened, thte Seekers suffered a
bitter and embarrassing disappointment.
Did the group break up then? Amazingly; instead of breaking
up, the Seekers became more convinced than ever before that
they were right. Mrs. Keech announced that she had received a
new message explaining that the Seekers had saved the world.
Before, the Seekers were uninterested in persuading other
people that the world was coming to an end. Now they called
newspapers and radio stations to convince others of their
accomplishment.
Why did their belief in Mrs. Keech's messages increase after the
world failed to end? Why did the group suddenly become interested
in convincing others that they were right? Cognitive dissonance
theory explains that after publicly committing themselves to their
beliefs, they had a strong need to maintain consistency (Tavris &
Aronson, 2007). In effect, convincing others was a way of adding
proof that they were correct (• Table 16.1).
Cognitive dissonance also underlies attempts to convince our-
selves that we've done the right thing. Here's an example that you
may recognize: As romantic partners become better acquainted,
they sooner or later begin to notice things they don't like about
each other. How do they reduce the cognitive dissonance and
doubts caused by their partners' shortcomings? Basically, they
create stories that change their partners' faults into virtues: He
seems cheap, but he's really frugal; she seems egotistical, but she's
really self-confident; he's not stubborn, he just has integrity; she's
not undependable, she's a free spirit; and so on (Murray &
Holmes, 1993).
Making choices often causes dissonance. Have you ever noticed
how, once you've made a choice, it can be irksome to notice some-
thing positive about a rejected alternative (I should have bought
the blue shirt; it had nicer buttons)? Welcome to buyer's regret
(Godoy et al., 2010). To minimize such dissonance, we tend to
emphasize positive aspects of what we choose, while downgrading
other alternatives. Thus, you are more likely to think that your
college courses will be good after you have registered than you did
before making a commitment.
Acting contrary to one's attitudes doesn't always bring about
change. How does cognitive dissonance explain that? The amount
of justification for acting contrary to your attitudes and beliefs
affects how much dissonance you feel. (Justification is the degree
to which a person's actions are explained by rewards or other
circumstances.) In a classic study, college students did an
extremely boring task (turning wooden pegs on a board) for a
long time. Afterward, they were asked to help lure others into the
experiment by pretending that the task was interesting and
enjoyable. Students paid $20 for lying to others did not change
their own negative opinion of the task: "That was really boring!"
Those who were paid only $1 later rated the task as "pleasant"
and "interesting:' How can we explain these results? Apparently,
students paid $20 experienced no dissonance. These students
could reassure themselves that anybody would tell a little white
Persuasion A deliberate attempt to change attitudes or beliefs with
information and arguments.
Cognitive dissonance An uncomfortable clash between self-image,
thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, or perceptions and one's behavior.

• TABLE 16.1 Strategies for Reducing Cognitive Dissonance

LeShawn, who is a college student, has always thought of himself as an environmental activist. Recently, LeShawn "inherited" a car from his parents, who were
replacing the family "barge." In the past, LeShawn !biked or used public transportation to get around. His parents' old car is an antiquated gas-guzzler, but he
has begun to drive it every day. How might LeShawn reduce the cognitive dissonance created by the clash between his environmentalism and his use of an
inefficient automobile?
Strategy Example
Change your attitude "Cars are not really a major environmental problem:·
Add consonant thoughts. "This is an old car, so keeping it on the road makes good use of the resources that were consumed when it was
manufactured:'
Change the importance of the dissonant "It's more important for me to support the environmental movement politically than it is to worry about how I
thoughts. 1get to school and work:'
Reduce the amount of perceived choice. "My schedule has become too hectic. I really can't afford to bike or take the bus anymore:·
Change your behavior. "I'm only going to use the car when it's impossible to bike or take the bus:·

Source: Franzoi, 2002. . ._

 Chapter 16
TrueState . . . .
of Affairs
Conflicting . . . .
Behavior
Dissonance . . . .
Aroused
Result . . . .
• Figure 16.3 Cognitive dissonance. Summary of the Festinger and
Carlsmith (1 959) study from the viewpoint of a person experiencing cognitive
dissonance. (Source: Franzoi, 2002)
lie for $20. Those paid $1 were faced with the conflicting
thoughts: "I lied" and "I had no good reason to do it:' Rather than
admit to themselves that they had lied, these students changed
their attitude toward what they had done (Festinger & Carlsmith,
1959; see • Figure 16.3).
Knowledge Builder
Attitudes and Attitude Change
RECITE
1. Attitudes have three components,
________________ ,and ________________
2. Which of the following is associated with attitude formation?
a. group membership b. mass media c. chance conditioning
d. child rearing e. all of the preceding f. a and d only
3. Because of the immediate consequences of actions, behavior con-
trary to one's stated attitudes is often enacted. Tor F?
4. Items such as "would exclude from my country" or"would admit to
marriage in my family" are found in which attitude measure?
a. a reference group scale b. a social distance scale c. an attitude
scale d. an open-ended interview
5. In presenting a persuasive message, it is best to give both sides of
the argument if the audience is already well informed on the topic.
Tor F?
6. Much attitude change is related to a desire to avoid clashing or con-
tradictory thoughts, an idea summarized by _______________
________________ theory.
REFLECT
Think Critically
7. Students entering a college gym are asked to sign a banner promot-
ing water conservation. Later, the students shower at the gym. What
effect would you expect signing the banner to have on how long
students stay in the shower? • form of social influence is coercion, or changing behavior because
8. Cognitive dissonance theory predicts that false confessions obtained
during brainwashing are not likely to bring about lasting changes in
attitudes. Why?
Self-Reflect
Describe an attitude that is important to you. What are its three components?
Which of the various sources of attitudes best explain your own
attitudes?
Who belongs to your most important reference group?
Imagine that you would like to persuade voters to support an initia-
tive to preserve a small wilderness area by converting it to a park.
Using research on persuasion as a guide, what could you do to be more
effective?
How would you explain cognitive dissonance theory to a person who
knows nothing about it?
'SJ<l!Jaq J<l4 JO S!4 P!Pl!JlUO)
ll!4l SlU<lW<lll!lS S<l>tl!W JaUOS!Jd e ua4M paleaD S! <J)Ul!UOSS!P aA!l!U60)
<llll!l 'llnsaJ e sv ·suO!Pl! 4)ns JOJ UO!ll!)!J!lsnf 6uoJlS S! aJa4l asne)as ·s
·uosuoJV lO!II3 lS!60I04)ASd 1epos Aq auop ApnlS e U! paAJasqo llnsaJ
<l4l AIPl!Xa S! S!41 ' UO!ll!AJasuo) J<lll!M JO lJOddns passaJdxa Ap!Jqnd
J!<l4l4l!M lU<llS!SUO) aq Ol SJ<lM04S J<llJ04S <l)jl!lii!M J<lUUl!q <l4l U6!S
04M SlUapnlS ll!4l SP!P<lJd AJO<l4l <J)Ul!UOSS!P aA!l!U60) "L <J)Ul!UOSS!P
<lA!l!U6Q) "91'S q "li' 1 "£a"(: UO!Pl! 'll!UO!lOWa 'Ja!Jaq "l !SJ&MSUV
16-5 social Influence-
Follow the Leader
Gateway QUESTION 16-5:
What is social influence?
No topic lies nearer the heart of social psychology than social
influence-changes in behavior induced by the actions of oth-
ers. When people interact, they almost always affect one anoth-
er's behavior (Baer, Cialdini, & Lueth, 2012; Kassin, Fein, &
Markus, 2014). For example, in a classic sidewalk experiment,
various numbers of people stood on a busy New York City
street. On cue, they all looked at a sixth-floor window across
the street. A camera recorded how many passersby also stopped
to stare. The larger the influencing group, the more people were
swayed to join in staring at the window (Milgram, Bickman, &
Berkowitz, 1969).
Are there different kinds of social influence? Social influence
ranges from milder to stronger. The gentlest form of social influ-
ence is mere presence (changing behavior just because other peo-
ple are nearby). We conform when we spontaneously change our
behavior to bring it into agreement with others. Compliance is a
more directed form of social influence. We comply when we
change our behavior in response to another person who has little
or no social power or authority. Obedience is an even stronger
form of social influence. We obey when we change our behavior
in direct response to the demands of an authority. The strongest
you are forced to.
 Social Thinking and Social Influence II
16-6 Mere Presence-Just
Because You Are ThE~re
Gateway QUESTION 16-6:
How does the mere presence of others affect behavior?

Suppose that you just happened to be alone in a room, picking

your nose. (We know, none of us would do that, right?) Would
you continue if a stranger entered the room? Mere presence refers
to the tendency for people to change their behavior just because
of the presence of other people. (You would quit picking your ~u

nose, wouldn't you?) Let's explore some of the ways that mere
presence can induce us to modify our behavior.

social Facilitation and Loafing

>
Imagine that you are pedaling your bike when another rider pulls 19

up beside you. Will you pick up your pace? Slow down? Completely The use of space in public places is governed by unspoken norms, or "rules;'
ignore the other rider? In 1898, psychologist Norman Triplett's about what is appropriate.
investigation of just such a social situation was the first published
social psychology experiment (Strubbe, 2005). According to
(Novelli, Drury, & Reicher, 2010). Basically, personal space
Triplett, you are more likely to speed up. This is social facilitation,
extends 'T' or "me" boundaries past the skin to the immediate
the tendency to perform better when in the presence of others
environment. Personal space also is illustrated by the fact that
(Cole, Barrett, & Griffiths, 2011).
many train commuters prefer to stand up if it means that they can
Does mere presence always improve performance? No. If you are
avoid sitting too close to strangers (Evans & Wener, 2007). The
confident in your abilities, your behavior will most likely be
systematic study of norms concerning the use of personal space is
facilitated in the presence of others. If you are not, your perfor-
called proxemics (prok-SEE-miks) (Harrigan, 2005). Such norms
mance is more likely to be impaired (Uziel, 2007). Another classic
may explain why people who feel offended by another person
study focused on college students shooting pool at a student
sometimes say, "Get out of my face:'
union. Good players who were confident (sharks?) normally
Would approaching "too close" work with a good friend? Possibly
made 71 percent of their shots. Their accuracy improved to
not. Norms governing comfortable or acceptable distances vary
80 percent when others were watching them. Less confident, aver-
according to relationships as well as activities. Hall (1966) identi-
age players (marks?) who normally made 36 percent of their shots
fied four basic zones: intimate, personal, social, and public distance
dropped to 25 percent accuracy when someone was watching
(• Figure 16.4).
them (Michaels et al., 1982).
Social loafmg is another consequence of having other people
nearby. People tend to work less hard (loaf) when they are part of a
group than they do when they are solely responsible for their work
Spatial Norms
(Ferrari & Pychyl, 2012; Najdowski, 2010). In one study, people Cultural differences also affect spatial norms (Beaulieu, 2004). In
playing tug-of-war while blindfolded pulled harder if they thought many Middle Eastern countries, people hold their faces only
they were competing alone. When they thought others were on inches apart while talking. In Western Europe, the English sit
their team, they made less of an effort (Ingham eta!., 1974).

Social influence Changes in a person's behavior induced by the presence

Personal Space
The next time that you are talking with an acquaintance, move in
closer and watch the reaction. Most people show signs of discomfort
and step back to reestablish their original distance. Those who hold
their ground may turn to the side, look away, or position an arm in
front of themselves as a barrier. If you persistently edge toward your
subjects, it should be easy to move them back several feet.
In this case, your mere (and close) presence amounted to an
invasion of that person's personal space, an area surrounding the
body that is regarded as private and subj<ect to personal control
or actions of others.
Mere presence The tendency for people to change their behavior just
because of the presence of other people.
Social facilitation The tendency to perform better when in the presence
of others.
Social loafing The tendency of people to work less hard when part of a
group than when they are solely responsible for their work.
Personal space An area surrounding the body that is regarded as private
and subject to personal control.
Proxemics Systematic study of the human use of space, particularly in
social settings.
~~ Chapter 16
Intimate Personal Social
(0-1 .5) (1 .5-4) (4-12)
closer together when conversing than do the French. The Dutch,
on the other hand, sit farther apart than the French (Remland,
Jones, & Brinkman, 1991). The following distances apply to face -
to-face interactions in North America:
1. Intimate distance. For the majority of people, the most
private and exclusive space extends about 18 inches out from
the skin. Entry within this space (face to face) is reserved
for special people or special circumstances. Lovemaking,
comforting others, and cuddling children all take place
within this space.
2. Personal distance. This is the distance maintained in
comfortable interaction with friends. It extends from about
18 inches to 4 feet from the body. Personal distance basically
keeps people within "arm's length" of each other.
3. Social distance. Impersonal business and casual social
gatherings take place in a range of about 4-12 feet. This
distance eliminates most touching, and it formalizes
conversation by requiring greater voice projection.
"Important people" in many business offices use the
imposing width of their desks to maintain social distance.
(A big smelly cigar helps, too.)
4. Public distance. This is the distance at which formal
interactions occur (about 12 feet or more from the body).
When people are separated by more than 12 feet, they
look "flat;' and they must raise their voices to speak to one
another. Formal speeches, lectures, business meetings, and
the like are conducted at public distance.
Because spatial behavior is very consistent, you can learn
about your relationship to others by observing the distance
that you comfortably hold between yourselves. But remember
to be aware of cultural differences. When two people of differ-
ent nationalities have different norms for personal space,
an amusing "dance" may occur. Both are likely to be uncom-
fortable when talking. One tries to move closer and the other
keeps moving back. This can lead to misunderstandings in
which one person feels that the other is being too familiar, yet
at the same time, the person moving closer feels rejected
(Beaulieu, 2004).
Whereas mere presence can influence our behavior in a variety
of ways, conformity involves a more specific response to the pres-
ence of others.
• Figure 16.4 Spatial zones. Typical spatial zones
(in feet) for face -to-face interactions in North America.
Often, we must stand within intimate distance of others
in crowds, buses, subways, elevators, and other public
places. At such times, privacy is maintained by avoiding
eye contact, by standing shou lder to shou lder or back to
back, and by positioning a purse, bag, package, or coat as
a barrier to spatial intrusion.
Pub li c
(12+)
16-7 conformity-Don't
Stand out
Gateway QUESTION 16-7:
What have social psychologists learned about conformity?
We show conformity when we bring our behavior into agreement
with the actions, norms, or values of others in the absence of any
direct pressure. When Harry met Sally, they fell in love and were
not shy about expressing themselves around campus. Increasingly,
Sally noticed other students staring at her and Harry when they
were, well, expressing their love. Although they never made a
conscious decision to conform, in another week, their publicly
intimate moments were a thing of the past. Perhaps the most basic
of all group norms is, as Harry and Sally discovered, "Thou shalt
conform:' Like it or not, life is filled with instances of conformity
(Baron, Byrne, & Branscombe, 2012; Suhay, 2014).
As mentioned earlier, all groups have unspoken norms. The
broadest norms, defined by society as a whole, establish "normal"
or acceptable behavior in most situations. Comparing hairstyles,
habits of speech, dress, eating habits, and social customs in two or
more cultures makes it clear that we all conform to social norms.
In fact, a degree of uniformity is necessary if we are to interact
Conformity is a subtle dimension of daily life. Notice the similarities in the clothing
worn by this group of friends.
 Social Thinking and Social Influence

CRITICAL THINKING Groupthink-Agreement at Any Cost

Yale psychologist Irving Janis (1918-1990) •

first proposed the concept of groupthink in an
attempt to understand a series of disastrous
decisions made by government officials (Janis,
1989, 2007) . The core of groupthink is mis-
guided loyalty-an urge by decision makers
to maintain each other's approval, even at the
cost of critical thinking (Singer, 2005). Group
members are hesitant to "rock the boat,"
question sloppy thinking, or tolerate alterna-
tive views. This self-censorship leads people
to believe that they agree more than they
actually do (Matusitz & Breen, 2012; Mintz
et al., 201 0).
Groupthink has been blamed for contrib-
ut ing to many crises, such as the invasion
and occupation of Iraq and the Co lumbia
space shuttle disaster in 2003 (Houghton,
2008; Post, 2011; Schafer & Crichlow, 201 0) .
More recently, groupthink has been impli-
cated in the failure of Penn State University
Invite a group member or outside per-
son to play devil's advocate. Make it
~
6
clear that group members will be held
accountable for decisions.
~ • Encourage open inquiry and a search
l for alternate solutions.
~ In addition, Janis suggested that a
~"second-chance" meeting should be held
~ to reevaluate important decisions-that is,
administrators to deal appropriately with a each decision should be reached twice.
longstanding pattern of child sexual abuse In fairness to our decision makers, it
by then-Penn State football coach Gerry is worth noting that the presence of too
Sandusky (Wagner, 2013). many alternatives can lead to deadlock,
To prevent groupthink, group leaders which can delay taking necessary action
should take the following steps (Janis, 2007; (Kowert, 2002). Regardless, in an age
Schafer & Crichlow, 201 0): clouded by the threat of war, global warm -
ing, and terrorism, even stronger solutions
• Define each group member's role as a
to the problem of groupthink would be
"critical evaluator:'
welcome. Perhaps we should form a group
• Avoid revealing any personal prefer-
ences in the beginning. State the to think about it!
problem factually, without bias.

comfortably. Imagine being totally unable to anticipate the actions
of others. In stores, schools, and homes, this would be frustrating
and disturbing. On the highways, it would be lethal.
The Asch Experiment
How strong are group pressures for conformity? One of the first exper-
iments on conformity was staged by Solomon Asch (1907-1996).
To fully appreciate it, imagine yourself as a participant. Assume that
you are seated at a table with six other students. Your task is actually
quite simple: You are shown three lines on a card, and you must
select the line that matches a "standard" line (• Figure 16.5).
As the testing begins, each person announces an answer for the
first card. When your turn comes, you agree with the others. "This
isn't hard at all;' you say to yourself. For several more trials, your
answers agree with those of the group. Then comes a shock. All
six people announce that line 1 matches the standard, and you
were about to say line 2 matches. Suddenly, you feel alone and
upset. You nervously look at the lines again. The room falls silent.
Everyone seems to be staring at you. The experimenter awaits
your answer. Do you yield to the group?
0
c
·~
."l
~--------------~ !
(a) . (1) (2) (3) <"l
Standard Line Comparison Lines @
• Figure 16.5 Stimuli used in Asch's conformity experiments.
In this study, the other "students" were all actors who gave the
wrong answer on about a third of the trials to create group pres-
sure (Asch, 1956). Real students conformed to the group on about
one-third of the critical trials. Of those tested, 75 percent yielded
at least once. People who were tested alone erred in less than
1 percent of their judgments. Clearly, those who yielded to group
pressures were denying what their eyes told them.
Are some people more susceptible to group pressures than others?
People with high needs for structure or certainty are more likely to
conform. So are people who are anxious, low in self-confidence, or
concerned with the approval of others. People who live in cultures
that emphasize group cooperation (such as many Asian cultures)
also are more likely to conform (Bond & Smith, 1996; Fu et al., 2007).
In addition to personal characteristics, certain situations tend
to encourage conformity-sometimes with disastrous results.
"Groupthink-Agreement at Any Cost" offers a p rime example.
Intimate distance The most private space immediately surroundi ng the
body (up to about 18 inches from the skin).
Personal distance The distance maintained when interacting with close
friends (about 18 inches to 4 feet from the body).
Social distance The distance at wh ich impersonal interaction takes place
(about 4-12 feet from the body).
Public distance The distance at which forma l interactiOns, such as giving a
speech, occur (about 12 feet or more from the body) .
Conformity Bringing one's behavior into agreement or harmony with norms or
with the behavior of others in a group in the absence of any direct pressure.
Groupthink A compulsion by members of decision-making groups to
mainta in agreement, even at the cost of critical th inking.
~~ Chapter 16

Group Factors in Conformity

Have you ever been part of a group that seemed to make a bad decision
How do groups enforce norms? In most groups, we have been because of groupthink? How could the group have avoided its mistake?
rewarded with acceptance and approval for conformity and
"J!l04JAsd Jo 'paqmlS!P 'am?Z!q AlawaJlXa se paA!aJJad aq Al<l:>t!l AJaA PI nOM
threatened with rejection or ridicule for nonconformity. These JO!A1?4aq II?!JOS fiU!UJaJUOJ SWJOU awos lSI?<llll? MOllO! lOU P!P 04M UOSJad
reactions are called group sanctions. Negative sanctions range v •t. :>tU!4ldnoJ6 ·g suo,pues ·s :J•t 1·E :l ·z aJuaniJU! 1epos • L :sJaMsuv
from laughter, staring, or social disapproval to complete rejection
or formal exclusion. If you've ever felt the sudden chill of
disapproval by others, you understand the power of group
sanctions-just as Harry and Sally did.
The more important group membership is to a person, the
more he or she will be influenced by other group members. The
16-8 compliance-A Foot
risk of being rejected can be a threat to our sense of personal in the Door
identity (Baer, Cialdini, & Lueth, 2012). That's why the Asch
experiments are impressive. Because these were only temporary Gateway QUESTION 16-8:
groups, sanctions were informal and rejection had no lasting
What factors lead to increased compliance?
importance. Just the same, the power of the group was evident.
What other factors, besides importance of the group, affect the
Pressures to "fit in" and conform are usually indirect. In contrast,
degree of conformity? In the sidewalk experiment described
the term compliance refers to situations in which one person
previously, we noted that large groups had more influence. In
bends to the requests of another person who has little or no
Asch's face -to-face groups, the size of the majority also made a
authority (Cialdini, 2009). These more direct pressures to comply
difference, but a surprisingly small one. Even more important
are quite common. You passively comply when, for example, you
than the size of the majority is its unanimity (total agreement).
suffer, without protest, someone smoking near you in a nonsmok-
Having at least one person in your corner can greatly reduce
ing zone or talking loudly while you are trying to study in the
pressures to conform. If you can find at least one other person
library. You actively comply when, for example, you hand over
who sees things as you do (no matter how weird), you can be
your cell phone to a stranger who asks to borrow it to make a call
relatively secure in your opposition to other viewpoints.
or lend money to a coworker who requests it to buy a cappuccino.
Incidentally, the Internet now makes it much easier to find that
What determines whether a person will comply with a request?
other like-minded person.
Many factors could be listed, but three stand out as especially
interesting (Cialdini & Griskevicius, 2010). We are more likely to
comply with a request if it does three things:
Knowledge Builder
1. Comes from someone we know rather than a stranger
social Influence, Mere Presence, 2. Is consistent with our previous actions
and Conformity 3. Allows us to reciprocate a prior gift, favor, or service
RECITE These factors allow us to better understand several strategies
1. The effect that one person's behavior has on another is called
that can be used to gain compliance. Because strangers must work
2. The mere presence of others always improves performance. Tor F?
harder to gain compliance, salespeople depend heavily on appeal-
3. Conformity is a normal aspect of social life. Tor F? ing to your tendency to be consistent and to reciprocate.
4. Participants in Solomon Asch's conformity study yielded on about
75 percent of the critical trials. Tor F?
5. Nonconformity is punished by negative group _ _ _ __
The Foot-in-the-Door Effect
6. Janis used the term to describe a compulsion People who sell door to door have long recognized that once they
among decision-making groups to maintain an illusion of unanimity. get a foot in the door, a sale is almost a sure thing. To state the
foot-in-the-door effect more formally, a person who first agrees
REFLECT
to a small request is later more likely, to be consistent, to comply
Think Critically
with a larger demand (Pascual et al., 2013). For instance, if some-
7. Would it be possible to be completely nonconforming (that is, to
not conform to any group norms)? one asked you to put a large, ugly sign in your front yard to pro-
Self-Reflect
mote safe driving, you would probably refuse. If, however, you had
How do you feel about participating in group projects at college? Have first agreed to put a small sign in your window, you would later be
you ever encountered a social loafer? (You were never one, right?) How did much more likely to allow the big sign in your yard.
you react?
Identify a recent time when you conformed in some way. How did
norms, group pressure, sanctions, and unanimity contribute to your ten-
The Door-in-the-Face Effect
dency to conform? Let's say that a neighbor comes to your door and asks you to feed
What group sanctions have you experienced? What sanctions have his dogs, water his plants, and mow his yard while he is out of
you applied to others? town for a month. This is quite a major request-one that most
people would probably turn down. Feeling only slightly guilty, you

Would you be willing to help this young woman retrieve an item off a high shelf?
What if she subsequently asked you to carry her purchases out to her car? If you
did, you might have fallen victim to the foot-in-the-door effect. (That is, unless
you were attracted to her and were trying to get your own foot in the door!)
tell your neighbor that you're sorry, but you can't help him. Now,
what if the same neighbor returns the next day and asks if you
would at least pick up his mail while he is gone. Chances are very
good that you would honor this request, even if you might have
originally turned it down, too.
Psychologist Robert Cialdini coined the term door-in-the-face
effect to describe the tendency for a person who has refused a
major request to agree to a smaller request. In other words, after a
person has turned down a major request ("slammed the door in
your face"), he or she may be more willing to comply with a lesser
demand. This strategy works because a person who abandons a
large request appears to have given up something. In response,
many people feel that they must reciprocate by giving in to the
smaller request (Cialdini, 2009; Gueguen, Jacob, & Meineri, 2011).
In fact, a good way to get another person to comply with a request
is to first do a small favor for the person.
The Lowba/1 Technique
Anyone who has purchased an automobile will recognize a third
way of inducing compliance. Automobile dealers are notorious for
convincing customers to buy cars by offering "lowball" prices that
undercut the competition. The dealer first gets the customer to
Social Thinking and Social Influence ~~~
agree to buy at an attractively low price. Then, once the customer
is committed, various techniques are used to bump the price up
before the sale is concluded.
The lowball technique consists of getting a person committed
to act and then making the terms of acting less desirable (Gueguen,
Pascual, & Dagot, 2002). In this case, because you have already
complied with a large request, it would be inconsistent to deny the
follow-on, smaller additional request. Here's another example:
A fellow student asks to borrow $25 for a day. This seems
reasonable, and you agree. However, once you have given your
classmate the money, he explains that it would be easier to repay
you after payday, in two weeks. If you agree, you've succumbed to
the lowball technique. Here's another example: Let's say that you
ask someone to give you a ride to school in the morning. Only
after the person has agreed do you tell her that you have to be there
at 6 a.m.
In the next section, we will investigate obedience. You've prob-
ably seen a bumper sticker that says "Question authority:' Actu-
ally, that's not bad advice if it means "Think criticallY:' However,
obedience to authority is a normal part of social life. But what are
the limits of obedience? When is it appropriate to resist authority?
These are essential questions about how we are affected by social
influence based on authority.
16-9 Obedience-would You
Electrocute a Stranger?
Gateway QUESTION 16-9:
can people be too obedient?
If ordered to do so, would you shock a man with a heart condition
who is screaming and asking to be released? Certainly, few people
would obey. Or would they? In Nazi Germany, obedient soldiers
(who were once average citizens) helped slaughter more than
6 million people in concentration camps. Do such inhumane acts
reflect deep character flaws? Are they the acts of heartless psycho-
paths or crazed killers? Or are they simply the result of obedience
to authority? These are questions that puzzled social psychologist
Stanley Milgram (1965) when he began a provocative series of
studies on obedience, a special type of conformity to the demands
of an authority.
Group sanctions Rewards and punishments (such as approval or disapproval)
administered by groups to enforce conformity among members.
Compliance Bending to the requests of a person who has little or no
authority or other form of social power.
Foot-in-the-door effect The tendency for a person who has first complied
with a small request to be more likely later to fulfill a larger request.
Door-in-the-face effect The tendency for a person who has refused a major
request to subsequently be more likely to comply with a minor request.
Lowball technique A strategy in which commitment is gained first to
reasonable or desirable terms, which are then made less reasonable or
desirable.
Obedience Conformity to the demands of an authority.
~~ Chapter 16
How did Milgram study obedience? As was true of the Asch
experiments, Milgram's research is best appreciated by imagining
yourself as a participant. Place yourself in the following situation.
Milgram's Obedience studies
Imagine answering a newspaper ad to take part in a "learning"
experiment at Yale University. When you arrive, a coin is flipped
and a second participant, a pleasant-looking man in his fifties, is
designated the "learner:' By chance, you have become the "teacher:'
Your task is to read a list of word pairs. The learner's task is to
memorize them. You are to punish him with an electric shock
each time he makes a mistake. The learner is taken to an adjacent
room, and you watch as he is seated in an "electric chair" apparatus.
Electrodes are attached to his wrists. You are then escorted to your
position in front of a "shock generator:' On this device is a row of
30 switches marked from 15 to 450 volts. Corresponding labels
range from "Slight Shock" to "Extreme Intensity Shock'' and,
finally, "Danger: Severe Shock:' Your instructions are to shock the
learner each time he makes a mistake. You must begin with
15 volts and then move one switch (15 volts) higher for each addi-
tional mistake (• Figure 16.6).
The experiment begins, and the learner soon makes his first
error. You flip a switch. More mistakes. Rapidly, you reach the
75-volt level. The learner moans after each shock. At 100 volts,
he complains that he has a heart condition. At 150 volts, he says
he no longer wants to continue and demands to be released. At
300 volts, he screams and says he no longer can give answers.
At some point, you begin to protest to the experimenter. "That
man has a heart condition;' you say. "''m not going to kill that
man:' The experimenter says, "Please continue:' Another shock
and another scream from the learner, and you say, "You mean I've
got to keep going up the scale? No, sir. I'm not going to give him
450 volts!" The experimenter says, "The experiment requires that
you continue:' For a time, the learner refuses to answer any more
questions and screams with each shock. Then he falls chillingly
silent for the rest of the experiment (Milgram, 1965; Perry, 2013).
• Figure 16.6 Milgram's
obedience study. Scenes from
Stanley Milgram's study of
obedience: the "shock genera-
tor," strapping a "learner" into
his chair, and a "teacher" being
told to administer a severe
shock to the learner.
Shock level
10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90100
Percentage of subjects obey in g
command at each shock leve l
e Figure 16.7 Results of Milgram's obedience experiment. On ly a minority
of participants refused to provide shocks, even at the most extreme intensities. The
first substantia l drop in obedience occurred at the 300-volt level (Mi lgram, 1963).
It's hard to believe many people would do this. What happened?
Milgram also doubted that many people would obey his orders.
When he polled a group of psychiatrists before the experiment,
they predicted that less than 1 percent of those tested would obey.
The astounding fact is that 65 percent obeyed completely, going
all the way to the 450-volt level. Virtually no one stopped short of
300 volts ("Severe Shock") (• Figure 16.7).
Was the learner injured? The "learner" was actually an actor
who turned a tape recorder on and off in the shock room. No
shocks were ever administered, but the dilemma for the "teacher"
was quite real. Participants protested, sweated, trembled, stuttered,
bit their lips, and laughed nervously. Clearly they were disturbed
by what they were doing. Nevertheless, most obeyed the experi-
menter's orders (for a dissenting view, see Perry, 2013) .
Milgram's Follow-Up
Why did so many people obey? Some have suggested that the
prestige of Yale University added to participants' willingness to
obey. Could it be that they assumed the professor running the
experiment would not really allow anyone to be hurt? To test this
possibility, the study was rerun in a shabby office building in
nearby Bridgeport, Connecticut. Under these conditions, fewer
people obeyed (48 percent), but the reduction was relatively
minor.
Milgram was disturbed by the willingness of people to knuckle
under to authority and senselessly shock someone. In later
experiments, he tried to reduce obedience. He found that the
distance between the teacher and the learner was important.
When participants were in the same room as the learner,
only 40 percent obeyed fully. When they were face to face
with the learner and were required to force his hand down
on a simulated "shock plate;' only 30 percent obeyed
(• Figure 16.8). Distance from the authority also had an
effect. When the experimenter gave his orders over the
phone, only 22 percent obeyed. You may doubt that Milgram's
study of obedience applies to you. If so, take a moment to
read "Bark Like a Dog:'
 social Thinking and social Influence ~~

DISCOVERING
PSYCHOLOGY Bark Like a Dog
Imagine your response to the following
events. On the first day of class, your psychol-
ogy professor begins to establish the basic
rules of behavior for the course. Draw a line
under the first instruction you think that you
would refuse to carry out.
1. Seats are assigned, and you are told to
move to a new location.
2. You are told not to talk during class.
3. Your professor tells you that you must
have permission to leave early.
4. You are told to bring your textbook to
class at all times.
5. Your professor tells you to use only a
pencil for taking notes.
6. You are directed to take off your watch.
7. The professor tells you to keep both
hands on your desktop at all times.
8. You are instructed to keep both of your
feet flat on the floor.
9. You are told to stand up and clap your
hands three times.
10. Your professor says, "Stick a finger in
each ear and bark like a dog:'
At what point would you stop obey-
ing such orders? In reality, you might find
yourself obeying a legitimate author-
ity long after that person's demands had
become unreasonable (Aronson, Wilson, &
Akert, 2013). What would happen, though,
if a few students resisted orders early in the
sequence? Would that help free others to
disobey? For an answer, return to the dis-
cussion of Milgram's experiment for some
final remarks.

Implications orders to do things that they know are dishonest, unethical, or

Surely people wouldn't act the same way if Milgram conducted his
research today, right? Don't be so sure. Psychologist Jerry Burger of
Santa Clara University recently partially replicated Milgram's
study and obtained very similar results (Burger, 2009). Milgram's
research raises nagging questions about our willingness to com-
mit antisocial or inhumane acts commanded by a "legitimate
authority:' The excuse so often given by war criminals-"I was
only following orders" -takes on new meaning in this light.
Milgram suggested that when directions come from an authority,
people rationalize that they are not personally responsible for
their actions. In locales as diverse as Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia,
Vietnam, Darfur, Sri Lanka, and Iraq, the tragic result has been
"sanctioned massacres" of chilling proportions.
Even in everyday life, crimes of obedience are common
(Zimbardo, 2007). In order to keep their jobs, many people obey
harmful (Hinrichs, 2007).
Isn't that an overly negative view of obedience? Obedience to
authority is obviously necessary and desirable in many circum-
stances. Just the same, as C. P. Snow (1961) observed, "When you
think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more
hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience
than in the name of rebellion:' With this in mind, let's end on a
more positive note. In one of his experiments, Milgram found that
group support can greatly reduce destructive obedience. When
real participants saw two other "teachers" (both actors) resist
orders and walk out of the experiment, only 10 percent continued
to obey. Thus, a personal act of courage or moral fortitude by one
or two members of a group may free others to disobey misguided
or unjust authority.

16-10 coercion-Brainwashing
and Cults
CJ)
c Gateway QUESTION 16-10:
2--
Q_ Is brainwashing actually possible, and is that how people
E
0
u are converted to cult membership?
Q)
CJ)

c"'
Q) We close this section on social influence by examining some
0!
8: forms of coercion, the most extreme type of social influence.
You are being subjected to coercion if you are forced to change
your beliefs or your behavior against your will (Baumeister &
Bushman, 2014; Moghaddam, 2013).
"Learner" "Learner" "Learner"
heard seen touched

• Figure 16.8 Obedience a~· a function of physical distance. Physical distance Coercion Being forced to change your beliefs or your behavior against
from the "learner" had a significant effect on the percentage of participants obeying your will.
orders.
~~ Chapter 16

If you're a history enthusiast, you may associate brainwashing

with techniques used by the Communist Chinese on prisoners dur-
ing the Korean War (Jowett, 2006). Through various types of
"thought reform;' the Chinese were able to coerce some prisoners to
sign false confessions. The mass murder/suicide at Jonestown, the
Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, the Heaven's Gate group suicide
in San Diego, and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda movement have
heightened public interest in coerced attitude and behavior change.

Brainwashing
How does brainwashing differ from other persuasive techniques? As
we have noted, advertisers, politicians, educators, religious orga-
nizations, and others actively seek to alter attitudes and opinions.
To an extent, their persuasive efforts resemble brainwashing, but
there is an important difference: Brainwashing, or forced attitude
change, requires a captive audience. If you are offended by a tele-
vision commercial, you can tune it out. Prisoners are completely
at the mercy of their captors. Complete control over the environ-
ment allows a degree of psychological manipulation that would be
impossible in a normal setting.
How does captivity facilitate coercion? Brainwashing typically
begins by making the target person feel completely helpless.
Physical and psychological abuse, lack of sleep, humiliation, and
isolation serve to unfreeze, or loosen, former values and beliefs.
When exhaustion, pressure, and fear become unbearable, change
occurs as the person begins to abandon former beliefs. Prisoners
who reach the breaking point may sign a false confession or coop-
erate to gain relief. When they do, they are suddenly rewarded
with praise, privileges, food, or rest. From that point on, a mixture
of hope and fear plus pressures to conform serve to refreeze
(solidify) new attitudes (Taylor, 2004).
How permanent are changes coerced by brainwashing? In most
cases, the dramatic shift in attitudes brought about by brain-
washing is temporary. Most "converted" prisoners who returned
to the United States after the Korean War eventually reverted to
their original beliefs. Nevertheless, brainwashing can be power-
ful, as shown by the success of cults in recruiting new members.
Cults
Exhorted by their leader, some 900 members of the Reverend Jim
Jones's People's Temple picked up paper cups and drank purple
Flavor-Aid laced with the deadly poison cyanide. Some even
forced their own children to join in. Psychologically, the mass
suicide at Jonestown in 1978 i~ not so incredible as it might seem
(Dein & Littlewood, 2005; Moore, 2009). The inhabitants of
Jonestown were isolated in the jungles of Guyana, intimidated by
guards, and lulled with sedatives. They also were cut off from
friends and relatives and totally accustomed to obeying rigid rules
of conduct, which primed them for Jones's final "loyalty test:' Of
greater psychological interest is the question of how people reach
such a state of commitment and dependency (Galanter, 2013).
Why do people join groups such as the People's Temple? The
People's Temple was a classic example of a cult, an authoritarian
Aftermath of the mass suicide of over 900 people at Jonestown. How do cultlike
groups recruit new devotees?
group in which the leader's personality is more important than
the beliefs that she or he preaches. Cult members give their
allegiance to this person, who is regarded as infallible, and they
follow his or her dictates without question. Almost always, cult
members are victimized by their leaders in one way or another
(Kent, 2010) .
For example, in April 1993, David Koresh and members of
his Branch Davidian group perished in a fire at their Waco,
Texas, compound. Like Jim Jones had done years before in
Jonestown, Koresh took nearly total control of his followers'
lives. He told them what to eat, dictated sexual mores, and had
errant followers paddled. Followers were persuaded to surren-
der money, property, and even their children and wives. Like
Jones, Koresh also took mistresses and had children out of
wedlock. And like other cult leaders, Jones and Koresh
demanded absolute loyalty and obedience to themselves and to
their cult, with tragic results.
Psychologist and pioneering brainwashing expert Margaret
Singer (1921-2003) studied and aided hundreds of former cult
members. Her interviews reveal that in recruiting new members,
cults use a powerful blend of guilt, manipulation, isolation, decep-
tion, fear, and escalating commitment. In this respect, cults
employ high-pressure indoctrination techniques not unlike those
used in brainwashing (Singer, 2003; Singer & Addis, 1992).
Recruitment
Some people studied by Singer were seriously distressed when
they joined a cult. Most, however, were simply undergoing a
period of mild depression, indecision, or alienation from family
and friends (Hunter, 1998). Cult members try to catch potential

converts at a time of need-especially when a sense of belonging
will be attractive to converts. For instance, many people were
approached just after a romance had broken up, when they were
struggling with exams, or when they were trying to become
independent from their families (Sirkin, 1990). At such times,
people are easily persuaded that joining the group is all they need
to do to be happy again (Hunter, 1998). Adolescents are especially
vulnerable to recruitment into cults as they may be seeking a
cause to conform to as a replacement for the parental authority
they are rebelling against (Richmond, 2004). Many of the
techniques described here are used by pimps to recruit vulnerable
women into prostitution (Kennedy et al., 2007).
BRIDGES
People suffering from identity confusion,
which is common during adolescence, are more susceptible to
recruitment by coercive groups. See Chapter 3, Section 3-7.
Conversion
How is conversion achieved? Often it begins with intense displays of
affection and understanding ("love bombing"). Next comes isolation
from non-cult members and drills, discipline, and rituals (all-night
meditation or continuous chanting, for instance). These rituals wear
down physical and emotional resistance, discourage critical think-
ing, and generate feelings of commitment (Langone, 2002).
Many cults make clever use of the foot-in-the-door technique
(described previously). At first, recruits make small commitments
(to stay after a meeting, for example). Then, larger commitments
are encouraged (to stay an extra day, to call in sick at work, and so
forth). Making a major commitment is usually the final step. The
new devotee signs over a bank account or property to the group,
moves in with the group, and so forth. Making such major public
commitments creates a powerful cognitive dissonance. Before
long, it becomes virtually impossible for converts to admit that
they have made a mistake.
Once in the group, members are cut off from family and
friends (former reference groups), and the cult can control the
flow and interpretation of information to them. Members are
isolated from their former value systems and social structures.
Conversion is complete when they come to think of themselves
more as group members than as individuals. At this point, obedi-
ence is nearly total (Coates, 2012; Wexler, 1995).
Why do people stay in cults? Most former members mention
guilt and fear as the main reasons for not leaving when they
wished they could. Most had been reduced to childlike depen-
dency on the group for meeting all their daily needs (Singer,
2003). After they leave, many former cult members suffer from
anxiety, panic attacks, and emotional disturbances much like
posttraumatic stress disorder (West, 1993).
Implications
Behind the "throne" from which Jim Jones ruled Jonestown was
a sign bearing these words: "Those who do not remember the
past are condemned to repeat it:' Sadly, another cult-related
tragedy occurred in 2001. The terrorist attacks on the United
States were carried out by followers of cult leader Osama bin
Social Thinking and Social Influence
Laden (Olsson, 2007, 2008). At his direction, they learned hatred
and contempt for everyone outside their band of true believers.
If there is a lesson to be learned from such destructive cults, it is
this: All true spiritual leaders have taught love and compassion.
They also encourage followers to question their beliefs and to
reach their own conclusions about how to live. In contrast,
destructive cults show how dangerous it is to trade personal
independence and critical thinking for security (Cowan &
Bromley, 2008; Goldberg, 2001).
A Look Ahead
In the upcoming discussion of "Psychology in Action;' we will
return to the problem of passive behavior to learn how you can
better handle difficult social situations. Be assertive, and read on.
Knowledge Builder
compliance, Obedience, and Coercion
RECITE
1. The term compliance refers to situations in which a person voluntarily
goes along w ith with commands made by a person who has authority.
Tor F?
2. Obedience in Milgram's experiments was related to
a. distance between learner and teacher b. distance between exper-
imenter and teacher c. obedience of other teachers d. all of these
3. Obedience is conformity to the commands of a(n) _ _ _ __
4. By repeating his obed ience experiment in a downtown office
bu ilding, Milgram demonstrated that the prestige of Yale University
was the main reason for participants' willingness to obey in the
original experiment. Tor F?
5. Brainwashing differs from other persuasive attempts in
that brainwashing requires a(n) _ _ _ _ _ _ __
6. Attitude changes brought about by brainwashing are usually
permanent. Tor F?
REFLECT
Think Critically
7. Modern warfare allows killing to take place impersonally and at a
distance. How does this relate to Milgram's experiments?
Self-Reflect
Return to the description of various types of social power. Can you think of a
setting in which you have (to a greater or lesser degree) each type of power?
You would like to persuade people to donate to a deserving charity. How,
specifically, could you use compliance techniques to get people to donate?
Are you surprised that so many people obeyed orders in Milgram's
experiments? Do you think that you would have obeyed? How actively do
you question authority?
To what extent are governments entitled to use coercion to modify the
attitudes or behavior of individuals?
·pelUOJ 1euosJad WOJJ pa11owaJ pue aJuelS!P e le S! W!P!II a4l ua4M
uewn4 Ja4lOUe II PI Ol SJapJO MOIIOJ Ol UOSJad e JOJ Ja!Sea S! l! le4l SlSa66ns
4JJeasaJ s,weJ61!W ·uaaDs oap111 e uo sa6ew! dn 6U!U!1 ,{q auoawos 6U!IIP1
pue leqwOJ pue4-0l-pue4 U! auoawos 6U!11!l1 uaaMlaq aJuaJaJJ!P 6!q e
S! aJa41' L ::1 '9 aJua,pne a!l!ldeJ ·s ::1 '17 Al!J04lne 'E p "Z ::1 • L :sJaMsuv
Brainwashing Eng ineered or forced attitude change involving a captive
audience.
Cult A group t hat professes great devotion to some person and fo ll ows that
person almost w ithout question; cu lt members are typica lly victim ized
by their leaders in various ways.
 Chapter 16
-- - _l:...__,
Psychology 1 ~sse litiveness-stand
Gateway QUESTION 16-11:
How does self-assertion differ from
aggression?
Most of us have been rewarded, first as
children and later as adults, for compliant,
obedient, or "good" behavior. Perhaps this
is why so many people find it difficult to
assert themselves (Hauck, 2011). Or per-
haps not asserting yourself is related to
anxiety about "making a scene" or feeling
disliked by others. Whatever the causes,
some people suffer tremendous anguish in
any situation requiring poise, self-confi-
dence, or self-assertion. Have you ever
done any of the following?
• Hesitated to question an error on a
restaurant bill because you were afraid
of making a scene
• Backed out of asking for a raise or a
change in working conditions
• Said yes when you wanted to say no
• Been afraid to question a grade that
seemed unfair
If you have ever had difficulty asserting
yourself in similar situations, it might be
worth practicing how to be self-assertive
(Tavakoli et aL, 2009; Wolpe, 1974). The
first step is to convince yourself of three
basic rights: You have the right to refuse, to
request, and to right a wrong. Self-assertion
involves standing up for these rights by
speaking out in your own behalf.
Is self-assertion just getting things your
own way? Not at alL A basic distinction
_§
!"
>: plav the scene with a friend. Be sure to have
~ /
Associated Press photographer Jeff Widener snapped
this timeless photo of a lone protester literally stand-
ing up in his own behalf while he halted a column
of tanks during the 1989 pro-democracy rallies in
Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China. How many of us
would find the courage to assert ourselves against
such direct expressions of authority?
up for Your Rights
-"J~ :,.,'
• TABLE 16.2 comparison of Assertive. Aggressive.
and Nonassertive Behavior
Actor Receiver of Behavior
Nonassertive Self-denying, inhibited, hurt, and anxious; lets Feels sympathy, guilt, or con-
behavior others make choices; goals not achieved tempt for actor; achieves
goals at actor's expense
Aggressive Achieves goals at others' expense; expresses Feels hurt, defensive, humili-
behavior feelings, but hurts others; chooses for others ated, or taken advantage of;
or puts them down does not meet own needs
Assertive Self-enhancing; acts in own best interests; Needs respected and feelings
behavior expresses feelings; respects rights of others; expressed; may achieve
goals usually achieved; self-respect maintained goal; self-worth maintained
can be made between self-assertion and Is that all there is to it? No. Another
aggressive behavior. Self-assertion is a important principle is overlearning (prac-
direct, honest expression of feelings and tice that continues after initial mastery of a
desires. It is not exclusively self-serving. skill). When you rehearse or role-play asser-
People who are nonassertive are usually tive behavior, it is essential to continue to
patient to a fault. Sometimes their pent-up practice until your responses become almost
anger explodes with unexpected fury, automatic. This helps prevent you from get-
which can damage relationships. In con- ting flustered in the actual situation.
trast to assertive behavior, aggression One more technique that you may find
involves hurting another person or achiev- useful is the broken record. This is a self-
ing one's goals at the expense of another. assertion technique involving repeating a
Aggression does not take into account the request until it is acknowledged. (In ancient
feelings or rights of others. It is an attempt times, when people played phonograph
to get one's own way no matter what records, the needle sometimes got "stuck in a
Assertion techniques emphasize firmness, groove:' When this happened, part of a song
not attack C• Table 16.2). might repeat over and over. Hence, the term
broken record refers to repeating yourself.)
Repetition is also a good way to prevent
Practicing Assertiveness assertion from becoming aggression.
The basic idea is that each assertive action As an illustration, let's say that you are
is practiced until it can be repeated even returning a pair of shoes to a store. After
under stress. For example, let's say that it two wearings, the shoes fell apart, but you
really angers you when a store clerk waits bought them two months ago and no
on several people who arrived after you did. longer have a receipt. The broken record
To improve your assertiveness in this situa- could sound something like this:
tion, you would begin by rehearsing the
Customer: I would like to have these shoes
dialogue, posture, and gestures that you replaced.
i'l, would use to confront the clerk or the other
Clerk: Do you have a receipt?
customer. Working in front of a mirror can
Customer: No, but I bought them here, and
::: be very helpfuL If possible, you should role- since they are defective, I would li ke to have you
replace them.
your friend take the part of a really aggres- Clerk: I can't do that without a receipt.
sive or irresponsible clerk, as well as a coop- Customer: I understand that, but I want them
erative one. Rehearsal and role-playing also replaced.
-should be used when you expect a possible Clerk: Well, if you'll come back this afternoon
confrontation with someone-for example, and talk to the manager.
if you are going to ask for a raise, challenge Customer: I've brought these shoes in because
a grade, or confront a landlord. they are defective.

Clerk: Well, I'm not authorized to replace them .
Customer: Yes, well, if you'll replace these, I'll be
on my way.
Notice that the customer did not attack
the clerk or create an angry confrontation.
Simple persistence is often all that is neces-
sary for successful self-assertion.
How would I respond assertively to a
put-down? Responding assertively to ver-
bal aggression (a "put-down") is a real
challenge. The tendency is to respond
aggressively, which usually makes things
worse. A good way to respond to a put-
down uses the following steps: ( 1) If you
are wrong, admit it; (2) acknowledge the
person's feelings; (3) assert yourself about
the other person's aggression; (4) briskly
end the interchange.
Psychologists Robert Alberti and Michael
Emmons (2008) offer an example of how to
use the four steps. Let's say that you acciden-
tally bump into someone. The person
responds angrily, "Damn it! Why don't you
watch where you're going! You fool, you
could have hurt me!" A good response would
be to say, "''m sorry I bumped into you.
I didn't do it intentionally. It's obvious you're
upset, but I don't like your calling me names,
or yelling. I can get your point without that:'
Now, what if someone insults you indi-
rectly ("I love your taste in clothes, it's so
'folksY:")? Alberti and Emmons suggest
you ask for a clarification ("What are you
trying to say?"). This will force the person
to take responsibility for the aggression. It
can also provide an opportunity to change
the way that the person interacts with you:
"If you really don't like what I'm wearing,
I'd like to know it. I'm not always sure I like
the things I buy, and I value your opinion:'
Social Thinking and Social Influence
II
To summarize, self-assertion does not
supply instant poise, confidence, or self-
assurance. However, it is a way of combat-
ing anxieties associated with life in an
impersonal and sometimes intimidating
society (Sarkova et al., 2013) . If you are
interested in more information, you can
consult a book titled Your Perfect Right by
Alberti and Emmons (2008).
Self-assertion A direct, honest expression of
feelings and desires.
Aggression Hurting another person or achieving
one's goals at the expense of another person.
Overlearning Learning or practice that
continues after initial mastery of a skill.
Broken record A self-assertion technique
involving repeating a request until it is
acknowledged.

Knowledge Builder

Self-Assertion
RECITE
1. In assertiveness training, people learn techniques for getting their
way in social situations and angry interchanges. Tor F?
2. Nonassertive behavior causes hurt, anxiety, and self-denial in the
actor, and sympathy, guilt, or contempt in the receiver. Tor F?
3. Overlearning should be avoided when rehearsing assertive behaviors.
Tor F?
4. The "broken record" must be avoided, because it is a basic non assertive
behavior. Tor F?
REFLECT
Think Critically
5. When practicing self-assertion, do you think it would be better to
improvise your own responses or imitate those of a person skilled in
self-assertion?
Self-Reflect
Pick a specific instance when you could have been more assertive. How
would you handle the situation if it occurs again?
Think of a specific instance when you were angry and acted aggressively.
How could you have handled the situation through self-assertion instead of
aggression?
·suOJl2nlJS llnJ!:IJ!P a1pue4 A<l4l M04 6UJ4Jl2M J;q 101
2 UJ2ill U2J no}; 'UOSJad paJnSS2-jl<lS pue <l11JlJ<lSS2 U2 MOU>i nOA Jl '(l66l
'Jadd!)l) sasuodsaJ UMO JnOA 6UJSJIIOJdW! U24l <liiJP<l:IJ<l <lJOW SJ lilPOW
aAJlJasse ue 6UJl2lJWJ 1241 punoJ J;pn1s auo ·s ~ '17 ~ 'E l'Z ~ • L :sJaMsuv

16-1 How does group membership affect destructive roles may override individual motives
individual behavior? for behavior. When two or more contradictory roles
are held, role conflict may occur.
16-1-1 Social psychology studies humans as social animals
16-1-3 Group structure refers to the organization of roles,
enmeshed in complex networks of social and cultural
communication pathways, and power within a group.
contexts. Membership in groups and social situations
Group cohesiveness is basically the degree of attrac-
in general strongly influence how people behave,
tion among group members.
think, and feel.
16-1-4 Positions within groups typically carry higher or lower
16-1-2 Social roles; which may be achieved or ascribed,
levels of social power and/or social status. High social
define one's position in groups and particular
power and/or status is associated with special privi-
behavior patterns associated with those social
leges and respect.
roles. The Stanford prison experiment showed that
~~~ Chapter 16
16-1-5 Norms are standards of conduct enforced (formally or
informally) by groups. The autokinetic effect has been
used to demonstrate that norms form rapidly, even in
temporary groups.
16-2 How do social situations affect how we
think about ourselves and others?
16-2-1 Social comparison theory holds that we affiliate to
evaluate our actions, feelings, and abilities. Social
comparisons are also made for purposes of self-
protection and self-enhancement.
16-2-2 Attribution theory is concerned with how we make
inferences about behavior. A variety of factors affect
attribution, including consistency, distinctiveness,
situational demands, and consensus.
16-2-3 Self-handicapping involves arranging excuses for poor
performance as a way to protect one's self-image or
self-esteem.
16-2-4 The fundamental attribution error is to ascribe the
actions of others to internal causes. Because of actor-
observer differences, we tend to attribute our own
behavior to external causes.
16-3 How are attitudes acquired and changed?
16-3-1 Attitudes are learned dispositions made up of a belief
component, an emotional component, and an action
component.
16-3-2 Attitudes may be formed by direct contact, interaction
with others, child-rearing practices, and group pres-
sures. Peer group influences, reference group member-
ship, the media, and chance conditioning also appear
to be important in attitude formation .
16-3-3 Attitudes are typically measured with techniques
such as open-ended interviews, social distance
scales, and attitude scales. Attitudes expressed in
these ways do not always correspond to actual
behavior.
16-4 Under what conditions is persuasion
most effective, and what is cognitive
dissonance?
16-4-1 Changing reference groups can change attitudes.
16-4-2 Effective persuasion occurs when characteristics of
the communicator, the message, and the audience
are well-matched. In general, a likable and believable
communicator who repeats a credible message that
arouses emotion in the audience and states clear-cut
conclusions will be persuasive.
16-4-3
Maintaining and changing attitudes is closely related
to cognitive dissonance and our need to be consistent
in our thoughts and actions. We are motivated to
reduce dissonance when it qccurs, often by changing
inconsistent beliefs or attitudes.
16-4-4 The amount of reward or justification for one's actions
influences whether dissonance occurs.
16-5 What is social influence?
16-5-1 Social influence refers to alterations in behavior brought
about by the behavior of others. Social influence ranges
from milder (mere influence, conformity, and compli-
ance) to stronger (obedience and coercion).
16-6 How does the mere presence of others
affect behavior?
16-6-1 The mere presence of others may facilitate (or inhibit)
performance.
16-6-2 People may also engage in social loafing, working less
hard when they are part of a group.
16-6-3 The study of personal space is called proxemics. Four
basic spatial zones around each person's body are
intimate distance, personal distance, social distance,
and public distance.
16-7 What have social psychologists learned
about conformity?
16-7-1 Virtually everyone conforms to a variety of broad
social and cultural norms. Conformity pressures also
exist within smaller groups.
16-7-2 The famous Asch experiments demonstrated that
group sanctions encourage conformity.
16-7-3 Groupthink refers to compulsive conformity in group
decision making. Group members who succumb to
groupthink seek to maintain each other's approval,
even at the cost of critical thinking.
16-8 What factors lead to increased compliance?
16-8-1 Compliance with direct requests from a person who has
little or no authority is another means by which behavior
is influenced. Compliance may be active or passive.
16-8-2 Three strategies for gaining compliance are the foot-
in-the-door technique, the door-in-the-face approach,
and the lowball technique.
16-9 can people be too obedient?
16-9-1 Research suggests that people are excessively obedient
to authority.
16-9-2 Obedience in Milgram's studies decreased when the
victim was in the same room, when the victim and
subject were face to face, when the authority figure
was absent, and when others refused to obey.
16-10 Is brainwashing actually possible, and is
that how people are converted to cult
membership?
16-1 0-1 Coercion involves forcing people to change their
beliefs or behavior against their will.
16-10-2 Forced attitude change (brainwashing) is sometimes
used by cults and other coercive groups. Three steps in
brainwashing are unfreezing, changing, and refreezing
attitudes and beliefs.

16-10-3 Many cults recruit new members with high-pressure
indoctrination techniques resembling brainwashing.
Such groups attempt to catch people when they are
vulnerable. Then they combine isolation, displays of
affection, discipline and rituals, intimidation, and
escalating commitment to bring about conversion.
16-11 How does self-assertion differ from
aggression?
16-11-1 Everyone is affected by pressures to conform, comply,
and obey. There are times when it is valuable to know
how to recognize and resist such pressures.
Social Thinking and social Influence II
16-11-2 Self-assertion, as opposed to aggression, involves
clearly stating one's wants and needs to others.
Assertiveness is a valuable alternative to becoming
aggressive (achieving your goals at the expense of
another) or being victimized in social situations.
16-11-3 Learning to be assertive is accomplished by role-
playing, rehearsing assertive actions, overlearning, and
use of specific techniques, such as the "broken record:'