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