Social Influence

To be nobody-but-yourself — in a world
which is doing its best, night and day, to
make you everybody else — means to
fight the hardest battle which any human
being can fight.

- E.E. Cummings
Social Influence: Mimicry
 Chimpanzees mimic other chimps yawning, as
do humans
 Yawn mimicry occurs across species; dogs yawn
after their owners do (Silva et al, 2012)
 Behavior is contagious
 Obesity, sleep loss, drug use, loneliness,
happiness spread through social networks (friend
groups)
 In the 8 days after Columbine (1999), all states
except Vermont had threats of copycat violence
(PA had 60 threats)
 Social Influence
How easy is it for YOU to maintain your
independence in the face of others?
 Asch's study of "line judging”
(Conformity)
 Participants made errors in 35% of
the judgments.
 Overall 75% of the participants
made at least one error.
 Factors that increase or decrease
Conformity
1. Unanimity (↑)
 Greatest pressure – unanimous
 1 dissenter drops conformity sharply

2. Commitment (↓)
 Public commitments reduce likelihood of later
conformity.
 “I’m voting for Maria.” Then all your friends

say otherwise. You stick with your initial

commitment.
Factors that Increase/Decrease
Conformity
3. Collectivist (↑) and Individualistic (↓) societies
 122 studies, 17 cultures
 Collectivist (Japan, Norway) MORE
conformity
 Individualistic (USA, France) LESS
conformity

4. Higher status, authority (↑)

 When authority figure is doctor, police, etc.
 High social status (“popular” kids)
WHY Conform?
1. Informational social influence
 Being right (correct)
 Groups provide information
2. Normative social influence
 Being accepted
 Importance of belonging (to a group)

 We think that WE conform to be right

(informational) and OTHERS conform to be
accepted (normative). (Pronin et al, 2007).
 Compliance
 responding to direct social pressure
 Everyday examples of Obedience to Autho
rity
 Milgram Experiment
 67% shocked to end (450 volts)
 Results not due to “personality” (i.e., not “bad,”
sadistic people as measured by personality tests beforehand)
 Replicated in several (western) countries and
as recently as 2009
How Obedience In Everyday Life Can
Lead to Immoral Acts
"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any
particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a
terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the
destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and
they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with
fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people
have the resources needed to resist authority.”
- Stanley Milgram, 1974

“Cruelty does not require devilish villains. All it

takes is ordinary people corrupted by an evil
situation.”
- David Myers
Changes in the SITUATION will
change (reduce) Obedience
 Reduce PRESTIGE of the location: 48%
complied

 PROXIMITY: Teacher can SEE learner: 40%

 Teacher puts learner’s arm on shock plate: 30%

 REMOVE AUTHORITY FIGURE from situation

(phoned orders): < 24%

 REDUCE LEGITIMACY of the authority figure:

20%
 Person vs. Situation Debate in
Social Psychology
 Do we humans engage in behavior due to “the
PERSON that we are” or due to ”the SITUATIONS”
that we find ourselves in?

 Of course, the shorthand answer is “both.”

 Milgram: Ss tested after the fact; 40 who complied

(450 volts), 40 who didn’t
 Similar on MMPI personality test
 Significant diff: Complying Ss higher on authoritarian
scale, less intimacy with fathers, admiration for
experimenter
“Foot in the door” (FITD)
phenomenon
 To ponder: If Ss in Milgram asked to
START shocking at 450 volts, would 65%
have complied?
 Unlikely
 Getting to 450 volts involved a “series of
justifications”
 Perhaps how cult membership works

 FITD = agree to a small request now, and

you’ll agree to larger request later
 Exp. Sign petition THEN agree to yard sign
Group-level Conformity

 Hitler’s inner circle?

 Nixon’s close confidantes

(Watergate)

 Challenger explosion?
Groupthink
 Groups perceive themselves as invulnerable.
 blinded by optimism
 Discourage dissent
 Leads individuals to doubt own concerns
 Pressure for consensus
 Mindguards – watchful for dissenting
opinions.
 One solution: designate devil’s advocate