Chapter Seven
Download
Report
Transcript Chapter Seven
PSY 321
Social Influence: Compliance,
Conformity, & Obedience
Dr. Sanchez
1
Today’s Outline
• Compliance
– Techniques and Experiments
• Conformity
– Techniques and Experiments
• Majority vs. Minority Influence
• Obedience
2
Compliance
• Changes in behavior that are elicited by
direct requests.
3
The Language of Requests
• Talking fast and catching people off guard
can improve compliance rates.
• People can be disarmed by the simple
phrasing of the request.
• How you ask for something can be more
important than what you ask for.
• Langer: We often respond mindlessly to
words without fully processing the information
they are supposed to convey.
4
The language of requests: Experiment
Langer et al., 1978
• IV: Request did or did not include a
reason
o “I have five copies. May I use the Xerox
machine?”
o “I have five copies. May I use the Xerox
machine, because I’m in a rush?”
o “I have five copies. May I use the Xerox
machine, because I have to make copies?”
5
Langer et al. (1978)
Percentage
That Complied
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
No Reason
Reason Given
Irrelevant
Reason
May I Use the Xerox Machine?
6
Breaking the Mindless Routine
(Santos et al. 1994)
80
70
60
Percentage
That Complied
50
40
30
20
10
0
25Cents
17Cents
Spare Change???
7
Norm of Reciprocity
• The powerful norm of reciprocity dictates
that we treat others as they have treated
us.
This norm leads us to feel obligated to repay
for acts of kindness, even when unsolicited.
Example: writing “thank you” on back of
check increases tip
Coca-Cola study
• Norm of reciprocity is relatively short-lived.
8
Sequential Request Strategies:
Foot-in-the-Door Technique
• Person begins with a very small request;
secures agreement; then makes a
separate larger request.
• Why is it effective?
Self-perception theory (Bem)
Consistency
9
Foot-in-the-Door: Experiment
Freedman & Fraser, 1966
• IV: Small request first, or not
• Initial request (small):
– By phone, asked women to complete short survey on
household products
• Intrusive request (big):
– 3 days later, asked women to allow a few men into
the house for 2 hours to rummage through drawers
10
Freedman & Fraser (1966)
60
50
40
Percent That
Complied
30
20
10
0
Intrusive Only
Initial, then Intrusive
Request Made
11
Sequential Request Strategies:
Low-Balling
• Person secures agreement with a request
and then increases the size of that request
by revealing hidden costs.
• Why is it effective?
• Psychology of commitment.
• Sense of obligation to salesperson.
12
Low-balling: Experiment
Cialdini et al., 1978
• Asked intro psych students to participate
in experiment
• IV: low-balling or upfront
– half were told in advance that it would start at
7am;
– half were told after agreeing that it would
start at 7am
13
Cialdini et al. (1978)
60
50
40
Percent That
30
Volunteered
20
10
0
Told 7 a.m. First
Told 7 a.m. Later
14
Sequential Request Strategies:
Door-in-the-Face Technique
• Person begins with a very large request
that will be rejected; then follows that up
with a more moderate request.
• Why is it effective?
– Perceptual contrast?
– Reciprocal concessions?
– Guilt?
15
Door-in-the-Face Technique: Experiment
Cialdini et al., 1975
• IV: Large request first?
• Asked students to volunteer for 2 hrs/week for 2 yrs
to work with juvenile delinquents
• Or no large request first
• Followed by smaller request: Will you escort
juvenile delinquents to zoo?
16
Cialdini et al. (1975)
50
40
Percent That
30
Agreed
20
10
0
Real Request Only
After Declining Initial
Request
Willing to Take Delinquents to the Zoo?
17
Sequential Request Strategies:
That’s Not All, Folks!
• Person begins with a somewhat inflated
request; then immediately decreases the
apparent size of the request by offering a
discount or bonus.
• Why?
– People think they’re getting a deal
18
That’s-Not-All Technique: Experiment
Burger, 1986
• IV: Did the deal get “sweeter”?
– ½ of Ps told cupcakes cost 75 cents
– ½ of Ps first told cupcakes cost $1, then told
the price would be reduced to 75 cents
19
Burger (1986)
80
70
60
50
Sales
40
30
20
10
0
75 Cents
Reduced to 75 cents
Price of Cupcakes
20
Sequential Request Strategies
21
Assertiveness: When People
Say No
• To be able to resist the trap of compliance
techniques, one must:
o Be vigilant.
o Not feel indebted by the norm of reciprocity.
• Compliance techniques work smoothly
only if they are hidden from view.
22
Conformity
• Tendency to change perceptions, opinions,
or behavior in ways that are consistent
with group norms.
23
The Chameleon Effect
24
Conformity: Autokinetic Phenomenon
• Sherif (1935, 1937)
• Study of “norm formation”
• Dark room, pinpoint of light appears 15
feet in front of you
• Asked, “How far did light move?”
• First time, you’re alone
• Subsequent times, you’re with others (this
is the IV)
25
A Classic Case of Suggestibility
26
Conformity: Asch Line-Matching
• P surrounded by 6 confederates
• Asked to judge length of a line
• IV: Confederates give correct or incorrect
answer
27
Line Judgment Task Used in Asch’s
Conformity Studies
Asch, 1955.
28
What Did Asch’s Participants Do?
• Participants went along with the clearly
incorrect majority 37% of the time.
• However, 25% of the participants NEVER
conformed.
• Of the conformists, 50% conformed for at
least half of the critical presentations.
– The rest conformed on an occasional basis.
29
Sherif’s vs. Asch’s Studies
• Sherif: Because of ambiguity, participants
turned to each other for guidance.
– Maybe group was right
• Asch: Found self in awkward position.
– Obvious that group was wrong
30
Why Do People Conform?
• Informational Influence: People conform
because they believe others are correct in
their judgments
– Sherif autokinetic effect
– 2 heads better than one?
– Implications for eyewitness testimonies
31
Why Do People Conform?
• Normative Influence: People conform
because they fear the consequences of
appearing deviant.
– Asch line-matching
– Effects of Ostracism
• Cyberball
• “Minority Slowness Effect”
32
Types of Conformity
• Private Conformity: Changes in both overt
behavior and beliefs.
– Sherif autokinetic effect
– Enduring conformity
• Public Conformity: Superficial change in overt
behavior only.
– Asch line-matching
– If wrote answers privately, effect went away
33
Distinguishing Types of Conformity
From Robert Baron et al., (1996) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915-927. Copyright (c) 1996
by the American Psychological Association. Adapted with permission.
34
Model of the Types of Conformity
35
Majority Influence: Group Size
• Conformity increases with group size -but only up to a point.
• Why?
– Law of “diminishing returns”?
– Perception that others are either in “collusion”
or “spineless sheep”?
36
Majority Influence:
Awareness of Norms
• Conform only when know about and focus
on social norms.
• Often misperceive what is normative.
– Pluralistic ignorance
– 1) members of a group who think that they
have different perceptions, beliefs, or
attitudes from the rest of the group
– 2) adjust their attitude
37
Majority Influence:
Having an Ally in Dissent
• When there was an ally in Asch’s study,
conformity dropped by almost 80%.
• Why does having an ally reduce majority
influence on our behavior?
– Substantially more difficult to stand alone for
one’s convictions than when one is part of
even a tiny minority.
– Any dissent can reduce the normative
pressures to conform.
38
Majority Influence and
Gender Differences
• IV: Masculine, Feminine, or Stereotype
Neutral Q’s
• DV: Percent agreeing w/majority response
• Results?
– Men conformed more to feminine qs
– Women conformed more to masculine qs
– No difference on neutral items
39