INFLUENCE

BY: GALAANG & GINGABO

 social Majority Minority
influence influence influence

interpersonal
processes that increases the sustains
change people’s consensus within the individuality and
thoughts, feelings, or group, innovation.
actions.
MAJORITY
INFLUENCE: THE
POWER OF THE MANY
MAJORITY INFLUENCE - Social pressure
exerted by the larger portion of a group
(the majority), directed toward individual
members and smaller factions within the
group (the minority).

MINORITY INFLUENCE - Social pressure

exerted by a lone individual or smaller
faction of a group (the minority), directed
toward members of the majority.
 CONFORMITY AND
INDEPENDENCE
CONFORMITY A change in one’s actions, emotions, opinions,
judgments, and so on that reduces their discrepancy with these same
types of responses displayed by others.
ASCH SITUATION An experimental procedure developed by Solomon
Asch in his studies of conformity to group opinion. Participants believed
they were making perceptual judgments as part of a group, but the
other members were trained to make deliberate errors on certain trials.
NONCONFORMITY disagreeing with others in the group — also takes
several forms.
 COMPLIANCE (acquiescence)
TYPES OF Change that occurs when the targets of social

CONFIRMITY influence publicly accept the influencer’s position but

privately maintain their original beliefs.

CONVERSION (or privateacceptance)

Members change their position on the issue because
they think the group is correct.

CONGRUENCE (or uniformity)

Members agree with the group from the outset, so
they are not responding to the group’s influence when
they express their position publicly.
 TYPES OF NON CONFIRMITY
Independence (discsent)
Anticonformity (counterconformity)

Members disagree by
Members who display anticonformity
publicly expressing ideas, beliefs, and
express ideas or take actions that are the
judgments that are consistent with their
opposite of whatever the group favors.
personal

standards.

Strategic anticonformity (devil’s

advocate):

Members take a position that opposes that

endorsed by the majority of the members
publically, even though privately they agree
with the majority.
CONFORMITY ACROSS CONTEXTS

1 2 3

Unanimity Strong and Strength in

Weak Numbers
Situations (Up to a Point)
 SOCIAL IMPACT
THEORY
An analysis of social influence, which proposes that
the impact of any source of influence depends upon
the strength, the immediacy, and the number of
people (sources) present (developed by Bibb Latané).
 WHO WILL CONFORM?

1 2 3

Conformity Conformity Conformity

across People across the across Cultures
Sexes and Eras
MINORITY
INFLUENCE: THE
POWER OF THE
FEW
 CONVERSION THEORY
A conceptual analysis of the cognitive and
interpersonal processes that mediate the direct
and indirect impact of a consistent minority on
the majority (developed by Serge Moscovici).
COMPARISON OR VALIDATION?

Validation, in
Comparison contrast, leads to
results in direct private acceptance,
influence as making minorities a
members publicly source of
comply. innovation in
groups.
 Consistency and

Influence
PREDICTING Idiosyncrasy credits
MINORITY The Diligence of
INFLUENCE Dissenters
Decision Rules and
Dissent
 DYNAMIC SOCIAL IMPACT
THEORY
Dynamic social impact theory, as proposed by
Latané (1997) and his colleagues, describes the
processes underlying this give-and-take between the
majority and the minority.
 FOUR BASIC PATTERNS
Continuing
Consolidation. Clustering. Correlation.
diversity.
Over time, the
As the law of social Because of
group members’
As individuals impact suggests, clustering, members
opinions on a
interact with one people are more of minorities are
variety of issues—
another regularly, influenced by their often shielded from
even ones that are
their actions, closest neighbors, the influence
not discussed
attitudes, and so clusters of group attempts of the
openly in the group
opinions become members with majority, and their
—converge, so that
more uniform. similar opinions beliefs continue
their opinions
emerge in groups. within the group.
become correlated.
 SOURCES OF GROUP
INFLUENCE
Many people think of conformity in a negative way. They
assume that people who change to agree with others are so
weak-willed that they lack the inner fortitude to stand up for
their personal beliefs.
This pejorative view, unfortunately, underestimates the
complexity of social influence, for individuals in any group
change their behavior for a variety of reasons.
Conformity is in many cases an automatic, spontaneous
reaction rather than a mindful one.
Conformity is often the most reasonable response in a
situation: When others are well informed but we ourselves are
ignorant, it’s wise to use them as an informational resource.
People often conform because they accept the legitimacy of
the group and its norms.
Conformity is often a means of avoiding criticism, abuse, and
exclusion.
A. IMPLICIT INFLUENCE
Unlike explicit which is the consciously
recognized social influence, implicit influence is
the unnoticed and largely automatic cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral reactions to other
people.
 MIMICRY
People often When, for example, one
deliberately imitate person adopts a particular
each other, but nonverbal display, such as
mimicry involves an crossing his or her arms,
unconscious others nearby often mimic
copying of the it, but without realizing
behavior others are they are doing so
exhibiting. (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013)
MINDLESSNESS
Many group situations are
so routine that members
A state of reduced don’t concentrate on what
cognitive processing they are doing. When
characterized by standing in a line for fast
actions based on habit, food, finding a seat in a
routine, or previously classroom, or voting to
formed discriminations approve the group’s minutes
rather than conscious from the last meeting,
deliberation. people act on the basis of
habit.
B. INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE

Change-promoting interpersonal processes

that are based on the informational value of
the responses of others in the situation.
If you learn that 99 other reasonable people favor
Plan A over Plan B, you will likely adopt Plan A
because “everyone else does.” Behavioral
economists may call going along with the crowd
herding, but they underscore its rational basis:
There is information revealed in the choices other
people make (Raafat, Chater, & Frith, 2009).
SOCIAL COMPARISON
The false consensus effect is
Social comparison common in groups: We assume
theory assumes that we that there is more support for our
sometimes evaluate position than there actually is
the accuracy of our (Krueger & Clement, 1997; Ross,
beliefs and gauge the Greene, & House, 1977).

quality of our False Consensus Effect -

personal attributes by Perceivers’ tendency to assume
comparing ourselves that their beliefs, attributes, and
to other individuals. actions are relatively common and
appropriate in any given situation.
DUAL PROCESS THEORIES OF INFLUENCE

Social comparison
theory assumes that we According to dual
sometimes evaluate process theories of
the accuracy of our
informational influence,
beliefs and gauge the
quality of our we are influenced by
personal attributes by other people’s choices
comparing ourselves for two reasons.
to other individuals.
 First, learning about other’s
WE ARE responses can trigger a
INFLUENCED thoughtful analysis, or
elaboration, of the issues at
BY OTHER hand (Levine & Tindale, 2015;
Martin & Hewstone, 2010).
PEOPLE'S
Second, these direct
CHOICES informational influence
FOR TWO processes are complemented by
less rational, more indirect
REASONS: processes (Moskowitz &
Chaiken, 2001).
INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE OF MINORITIES
Minority influence can also
Minority influence also trigger indirect processes, just
results from both like majority influence does.
direct and indirect Because we are sensitive to shifts
processes. As Moscovici in the group’s general opinion, if
argued, minorities create we notice that the minority
cognitive conflicts that position is gaining ground on the
challenge the status quo majority, then we may all change
of the group and call for a sides as well, creating a cascade: a
reevaluation of issues at rapid opinion shift that flows
hand. throughout the group (Sunstein &
Hastie, 2015).
C. NORMATIVE INFLUENCE
Change-promoting interpersonal processes
based on social norms, standards, and
convention. Because individuals internalize their
group’s norms, they strive to act in ways that are
consistent with those norms.
 Informational influence occurs because others’
responses convey information concerning the
nature of the social setting and how most people
are responding to that setting. Normative
influence, in contrast, occurs when members
tailor their actions and attitudes to match
the norms of the group situation.
 DISSONANCE AND DISSENT
As noted in Chapter
Discovering one has
5, cognitive
managed to wander
dissonance is such
outside of the
an unpleasant state
group’s norms
that people are
generates a negative
motivated to take
reaction that is akin
steps to reduce
to cognitive
dissonance
dissonance.
whenever it occurs.
DISSONANCE AND DISSENT

Dissonance theory originally focused on

how people respond when they hold two
inconsistent cognitions, but researchers
have confirmed that people also
experience dissonance when they discover
that they do not agree with other group
members.
 FOCUS THEORY
Robert Cialdini (2011), in his focus theory of normative conduct,
explains the relationship between informational and
normative influence and two different types of social norms:
descriptive and injunctive.

Focus Theory of Normative Conduct - An explanation of

influence that assumes descriptive and injunctive norms influence
behavior when they are made salient and therefore attended to
(developed by Robert Cialdini).
D. INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE

Change-promoting interpersonal processes

based on group members selectively
encouraging conformity and discouraging or
even punishing nonconformity.
Western societies claim to value nonconformity and independence, but
in most situations dissent is not rewarded. In fact, it is met with
interpersonal influence: social responses that explicitly,
roughly, and sometimes even coercively force others to
conform.
Stanley Schachter (1951) documented interpersonal influence in
his classic “deviant in the group” study. He recruited members to
all-male discussion clubs, but made sure each group included three
confederates trained to enact one of three roles: The deviant always
disagreed with the majority. The slider disagreed initially but
conformed over the course of the discussion. The mode served as
a control; he consistently agreed with the majority.
INFLUENCE AND OSTRACISM
Figure 7.7 summarizes Schachter’s findings. Schachter’s findings highlight
the difference between inclusive and exclusive reactions to
minorities (Levine & Kerr, 2007). Most of the groups displayed an
inclusive reaction to the deviant: Communication between the majority
and the minority was intensive and hostile, but the minority was still
perceived to be a member of the ingroup. If an exclusive reaction
occurred, however, communication with the deviant dwindled along with
overt hostility, and the deviant was perceptually removed from the group
by the members of the majority.
INFLUENCE AND OSTRACISM
An exclusive reaction becomes more likely when group members
think that their group is very heterogeneous, and if the dissenter is
inflexible and the issue is important (Gerard, 1953).

So-called double minorities—individuals who disagree with the group

and also possess one or more other unique qualities that distinguish them
from the rest of the group—are also more likely to face exclusion
(Sampson & Brandon, 1964).
INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
The group members did not just argue with the deviant—they also
rejected the deviant. When Schachter’s participants rated each
other on likeability, the deviant was the sociometric outcast,
whereas the mode was liked the most. The deviant was also
saddled with the undesirable chores of the group; the mode
and slider were assigned more desirable positions. This rejection
was more pronounced in the more cohesive groups.
THE BLACK-SHEEP EFFECT
Social identity processes play a particularly critical role in determining
members’ reactions to deviants and conformists.

Group members find deviants within their midst to be

distressing because they call into question the group’s positive
identity and make hazy the distinctiveness of the ingroup relative to
outgroups. These psychological processes, which are referred to as
subjective group dynamics, will cause individuals to react
negatively to dissenters with whom they share only category
memberships.
THE BLACK-SHEEP EFFECT
Subjective Group Dynamics - Psychological and
interpersonal processes that result from social categorization
and identification processes, including members’ desire to
sustain the positive distinctiveness of the ingroup and the
validity of its shared beliefs. One intriguing consequence of
subjective group dynamics: Ingroup members are sometimes
judged more harshly than outgroup members when they
perform identical behaviors.
THE BLACK-SHEEP EFFECT

A statement that Manchester United played brilliantly will

be tolerated when spoken by a Man U fan, but if an
Arsenal fan expresses such a belief, he or she would be
roundly criticized by other Arsenal fans. This tendency is
termed the black-sheep effect (Marques, 2010).
IDENTITY AND DISSENT
Social identity processes not only influence the group’s reaction to
dissent, but also members’ decisions about conforming or
dissenting. Although individuals who strongly identify with their
group may tend to support its decisions out of misguided loyalty,
social psychologist Dominic Packer’s normative conflict model of
dissent argues that members who are strongly committed to the
group are more, rather than less, likely to dissent.
NORMATIVE CONFLICT MODEL OF THEORY
The normative conflict model predicts that strongly identified
members are likely to challenge group norms when they
experience conflict between norms and important alternate
standards for behavior, in particular when they perceive
norms as being harmful to the group.
E. WHEN INFLUENCE INHIBITS: THE
BYSTANDER EFFECT
Human groups could not form, remain intact, and
achieve their goals if their members did not continually,
and successfully, influence one another. This readiness to
cooperate and conform, however, can cause individuals
to follow when they should lead and comply when they
would be better off resisting.
INHIBITION OF HELPING IN GROUPS
Social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley (1970) offered a
different explanation: Social pressures in the situation, they
suggested, may have interfered with people’s capacity to
respond in a helpful way to the emergency.

According to Latané and Darley’s work, the bystander effect shows

that people are less likely to help when in groups rather than
alone and soon other investigators confirmed these results.
BYSTANDER EFFECT
The tendency for people to help less when they know
others are present and capable of helping. The effect was
initially thought to be the result of apathy and a selfish
unwillingness to get involved, but research suggests a
number of cognitive and social processes, including
diffusion of responsibility and misinterpretation that help is
not needed, contribute to the effect.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND THE BYSTANDER EFFECT
But why do people in groups not help as much as single individuals?
First, emergency situations are usually unfamiliar ones, so
people who witness them do not fully understand what is
happening and how they should respond.
Second, normative influence does not enjoin bystanders to
help strangers.
Third, people feel less responsible when in groups compared
to being alone, and this diffusion of responsibility leaves
bystanders feeling that it is not their responsibility to help.
DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY

A reduction of personal responsibility experienced

by individuals in groups and social collectives
(identified by John Darley and Bibb Latané in their
studies of bystanders’ failures to help someone in need).
 APPLICATION:
UNDERSTANDING JURIES
Groups have served as the final arbiter of guilt and
innocence for centuries. As far back as the eleventh century,
the neighbors of those accused of wrongdoing were asked both
to provide information about the actions of the accused and to
weigh the evidence. Witnesses and experts now provide the
evidence, but the jury remains responsible for weighing the
testimony of each person before rendering a verdict. More than
300,000 juries convene each year in American courtrooms alone
(Hyman & Tarrant, 1975).
A. JURY DYNAMICS
The jury situation is designed to foster
careful decision making and tolerance for
all viewpoints, but at its core, a jury is a
group.
 STORIES, EVIDENCE, AND VERDICTS

Jury researchers Reid

Hastie, Steven Penrod, and
The jury’s approach
Nancy Pennington (1983), in
to the deliberations their story model of jury
depends, in part, on deliberation, noted that
how it structures jurors generally approach
the task. the decision in one of two
ways.
VERDICT DRIVEN EVIDENCE-DRIVEN
They resist making a final
They reach a decision decision on the verdict
about the verdict until they have reviewed all
before deliberation and the available evidence;
cognitively organize then they generate a story
that weaves together the
the evidence into two evidence of the trial and
categories: evidence their own expectations and
that favors a verdict of assumptions about people
guilty and evidence and similar situations in a
that favors a verdict of coherent narrative
(Pennington & Hastie, 1986,
not guilty.
1992).
STORY MODEL
A theory of cognitive processing of trial
information that suggests jurors mentally
organize evidence in coherent, credible
narratives.
 MINORITY INFLUENCE IN JURIES
Minorities can also deadlock
Minorities are not the jury by refusing to conform
powerless, however. to the majority’s verdict,
Even though the
resulting in a hung jury if a
majority tends to
unanimous verdict is required.
prevail in juries, as
The origin of the term “hung
Figure 7.8 suggests, the
jury” is not certain, but it
minority convinces the
majority to change in
matches “most closely to the
about one trial out of meaning of the word hung as
every ten. caught, stuck, or delayed”
(Hans et al., 2003, p. 33).
 STATUS AND INFLUENCE
These juries tended to favor
people of higher
socioeconomic status
Fairly or unfairly, (proprietors and office
people who have high workers) over those of lower
prestige or status are socioeconomic status
more influential than (bluecollar workers) when
low-status members. choosing a foreman, even
though no mention of
occupation was made
(Strodtbeck & Lipinski, 1985).
 STATUS AND INFLUENCE
These inequities, however,
have faded over time. Recent
analyses suggest that race and
In these studies, sex no longer determine
conducted in the influence in juries, but that
1950s, sex and social status remains a potent
race differences were factor; those jurors who are
also apparent in juries. more affluent or well-educated
continue to be more
influential than others (York &
Cornwell, 2006).
B. HOW EFFECTIVE ARE JURIES?
Given what we know about conformity and nonconformity in
groups, should the jury system be modified? Asch’s studies tell us
that people often conform and that even a correct minority often
loses to an incorrect majority. As we have seen, normative,
informational, and interpersonal influence are powerful forces in
groups, and they can quash individuals’ freedom to speak their
minds. Juries are a time-honored tradition, but are they
effective?
SEVERAL BITS OF EVIDENCE THAT PROVIDE PARTIAL SUPPORT FOR THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF JURIES AS DECISION MAKERS.
Jurors seem to take their role very seriously (Gastil, Burkhalter, &
Black, 2007).
Jury members themselves, when asked to rate the quality of their
group’s deliberations, are generally very favorable.
Juries do well when compared with judges’ decisions.
Jurors are hardly unbiased, rational weighers of evidence; the
defendant’s physical appearance, the lawyers’ style of questioning,
and the sequencing of evidence are just a few of the factors that
bias jurors’ decisions (Greene et al., 2004; Greene & Heilbrun,
2014).
 Each of these pro-jury arguments, however, can also be
countered by other, more disquieting data about juries and their
capabilities. In recent years, a number of very high-profile juries
have made decisions that in retrospect appear to have been
based on emotion and prejudice rather than on the thoughtful
analysis of the evidence.

These findings have prompted some to suggest that the jury

system should be abolished, but others favor a more moderate
solution—improving juries by modifying their structure and
dynamics.
C. IMPROVING JURIES
The judicial system is long on tradition, but in recent years,
several innovations have been suggested and even
implemented. Some of these reforms, such as reducing the size
and the decision rules of juries, are designed to improve the
general efficiency of juries and the fairness of their procedures.
Others, such as note taking, help jurors to process the evidence
and testimony that they must consider when reaching their
decision (Bornstein & Greene, 2017; Vidmar & Hans, 2007).
JURY SIZE
Jury experts have suggested that the Supreme Court should
take group dynamics research into consideration before
making its decision. Modifying jury size could influence:
Group structure
Representativeness
Majority influence
Voting
Verdicts
UNANIMITY
Relaxing the requirement for unanimity changes the decision-
making process in juries. Juries that do not have to reach a
unanimous decision render their judgments twice as quickly
and are far less likely to come to a stalemate (Foss, 1981; Kerr
et al., 1976).
Juries that do not need to reach unanimity may not deliberate
sufficiently and make more mistakes—”convictions when the
correct decision is acquittal; acquittals when the correct decision is
conviction” (Saks & Hastie, 1978, pp. 84–85).
PROCEDURAL INNOVATIONS
Some courts also permit jurors to
(1) take notes during the presentation of evidence and use
these notes during deliberation;
(2) submit questions to the court that, after review by judge
and legal counsel, can be considered in summary statements
during the trial or in the presentation of additional evidence; and
(3) discuss the trial among themselves while the trial is ongoing
(Vidmar & Hans, 2007).
VOIR DIRE
The selection of jury members from a pool of potential
participants occurs through a process known as voir dire. Voir dire
—an alteration of the French phrase vrai dire, which means “to speak
truly”—calls for verbal or written questioning of prospective
jurors to uncover any biases or prejudice that may stand in the
way of fairness and impartiality (Kovera & Austin, 2016).
Voir dire is a useful way of identifying highly biased
individuals, but it should not be a means of manipulating the
composition of the jury (Wrightsman, Nietzel, & Fortune, 1998).
POWER

BY: GALLEGO & GABANITE



SOCIAL POWER – THE CAPACITY TO

PRODUCE INTENDED EFFECTS IN
INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS.

 OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY
- IS THE TENDENCY PEOPLE HAVE TO TRY TO PLEASE
THOSE IN CHARGE.
 THE MILGRAM EXPERIMENTS
- STANLEY MILGRAM CARRIED OUT HIS NOW-FAMOUS STUDIES IN
EARLY 1960’S. INTRIGUED BY PEOPLE’S TENDENCY TO DO AS THEY
ARE TOLD, HE TESTED AMERICAN SUBJECTS’ REACTIONS TO AN
EXPERIMENTER WHO ORDERED THEM TO DO SOMETHING THEY
WOULD NORMALLY NOT DO TO HARM A PERSON INNOCENT OF ANY
WRONGDOING.

 THE OBEDIENCE SITUATION

OBEDIENCE – COMPLIANCE WITH AUTHORITATIVE
DIRECTIVES PERTAINING TO A GIVEN SITUATION,
INCLUDING CHANGES IN BEHAVIOR IN RESPONSE
TO INSTRUCTIONS, ORDERS, AND DEMANDS
ISSUED BY THOSE WITH AUTHORITY.
 MILGRAM STUDIED OBEDIENCE BY CREATING
SMALL GROUPS IN HI LABORATORY AT YALE
UNIVERSITY. IN MOST CASES, HE STUDIED THREE
MAN GROUPS: ONE MEMBER IS A VOLUNTEER; ONE
WAS THE EXPERIMENTER WHO IS IN CHARGE OF
THE SESSION; AND ONE APPEARED TO BE
ANOTHER PARTICIPANT BUT WAS IN ACTUALITY
PART OF THE RESEARCH TEAM.
 THE DEMANDS (PRODS)
- MILGRAM SET THE STAGE FOR THE ORDER-GIVING PHASE BY HAVING
THE LEARNER MAKE MISTAKE DELIBERATELY. WHEN THE
PARTICIPANTS BALKED, THE EXPERIMENTER, WOULD USE A
SEQUENCE OF PRODS TO GOAD THEM INTO ACTION:
​PROD 1: “PLEASE CONTINUE.” OR “PLEASE GO ON.”
​PROD 2: “THE EXPERIMENT REQUIRES THAT YOU CONTINUE.”
​PROD 3: “IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE.”
​PROD 4: “YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE; YOU MUST GO ON.”

 MILGRAM’S FINDINGS)
- MILGRAM WAS CERTAIN THAT VERY FEW OF HIS
PARTICIPANTS WOULD CARRY OUT THE
EXPERIMENTER’S ORDERS.

SO HE WAS SURPRISED WHEN 26 OF THE 40 (65%)

INDIVIDUALS WHO SERVED AS TEACHERS IN THE
INITIAL EXPERIMENT ADMINISTERED THE FULL 450
V TO THE PRESUMABLY HELPLESS LEARNER.
 THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE PARTICIPANTS DURING THE SHOCK
PROCEDURE AND THEIR OBVIOUS PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS
REVEALED THAT THEY WERE RELUCTANT TO GO ON BUT FELT
UNABLE TO RESIST THE EXPERIMENTER’S DEMANDS OF OBEDIENCE.
- PERPLEXED, MILGRAM STUDIED OVER 800 PEOPLE IN A SERIES OF
REPLICATIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF HIS ORIGINAL STUDY.
ALTHOUGH HE CONTINUED TO SEARCH FOR THE LIMITS OF
OBEDIENCE, AGAIN AND AGAIN HIS PARTICIPANTS BUCKLED UNDER
THE PRESSURE OF THE EXPERIMENTER’S POWER.
HARM VERSUS RIGHTS
 MILGRAM ADDED ADDITIONAL CUES THAT SIGNALED THE
LEARNER’S SUFFERING AND AN EMOTIONAL ENTREATY FOR
RELEASE. IN THE VOICE-FEEDBACK CONDITION, THE LEARNER’S
SHOUT AND PLEAS (CAREFULLY REHEARSED AND TAPED-
RECORDED) COULD BE HEARD THROUGH THE WALL. AT 75 V, HE
GRUNTED. AT 120 V, HE SHOUTED OUT. PAINFUL CRIES
CONTINUED TO ESCALATE IN INTENSITY UNTIL THE 180 V LEVEL
WHEN HE SHOUTED “I CAN’T STAND PAIN”. THESE CHANGES
DID NOT SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE LEVEL OF OBEDIENCE,
62.5% OF THE PARTICIPANTS STILL OBEYED TO THE 450 V LEVEL.
 SO MILGRAM INCREASED THE POSSIBILITY OF SIGNIFICANT
HARM IN THE HEART-PROBLEM CONDITION. WHEN THE
EXPERIMENTER CONNECTED THE WIRES TO THE LEARNER’S ARM
HE MENTIONED THAT HE HAD A HEART CONDITION AND ASKED
ABOUT COMPLICATIONS. THE EXPERIMENTER SAID THAT THE
SHOCK WOULD CAUSE NO PERMANENT DAMAGE. WHEN
SHOCKED, THE LEARNER’S GROANS AND SHOUTS OF PROTEST
COULD BE HEARD THROUGH THE WALL, AND HE ALSO
REPEATEDLY COMPLAINED THAT HIS HEART WAS BOTHERING
HIM. EVEN WHEN THE LEARNER SOPPED RESPONDING AFTER 330
V, 65% OF THE PARTICIPANTS CONTINUED UNTIL 450 V.
IN THE PROXIMITY CONDITION, THE LEARNER SAT
IN THE SAME ROOM AS THE TEACHER, VOICING THE
SAME COMPLAINTS USED IN THE VOICE-FEEDBACK
CONDITION AND WRITHING WITH PAIN AT EACH
SHOCK. OBEDIENCE DROPPED TO 40%.
 IN MOST EXTREME OF ALL VARIATIONS, THE TOUCH-PROXIMITY
CONDITION, THE LEARNER SAT NEXT TO THE TEACHER AND RECEIVED HIS
SHOCK WHEN HE PUT HIS HAND ON THE SHOCK PLATE. AT 150 V LEVEL, HE
REFUSED TO PUT HIS HAND ON THE SHOCK PLATE, SO THE EXPERIMENTER
GAVE THE TEACHER(PARTICIPANT) AN INSULATED GLOVE AND TOLD HIM TO
PRESS THE LEARNER’S HAND DOWN. STILL 30% OBEYED.
- IN THIS LOW SURVEILLANCE CONDITION, MILGRAM ALSO EXAMINED THE
IMPACT OF INCREASED DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EXPERIMENTER AND THE
TEACHER ON RATES OF OBEDIENCE BY HAVING THE EXPERIMENTER LEAVE
THE ROOM AFTER HE REVIEWED THE PROCEDURE WITH THE
TEACHER(PARTICIPANT).
 25% OF THE PARTICIPANTS STOPPED AS SOON AS
THE LEARNER INSISTED ON RELEASE (THE 150 V
LEVEL). ONLY 20% OF THE PARTICIPANTS WERE
OBEDIENT UNTIL 450 V LEVEL, AND MANY
PARTICIPANTS DISOBEYED BY DECEIVING THE
AUTHORITY THEY ASSURED THE EXPERIMENTER
THAT THEY WERE ADMINISTERING INCREASINGLY
LARGE SHOCKS WITH EACH MISTAKE WHEN THEY
WERE ACTUALLY DELIVERING 15 V.
PRESTIGE AND LEGITIMACY
 OFFICE-BUILDING CONDITION, MILGRAM MOVED THE STUDY TO A
BUILDING LOCATED IN A SHOPPING AREA.

OBEDIENCE DROPPED TO 48%, STILL A SURPRISINGLY LARGE

FIGURE GIVEN THE UNKNOWN CREDENTIALS OF THE STAFF.
IN ORDINARY-MAN VARIATION, HE ADDED A FOURTH MEMBER TO
THE GROUP WHO WAS GIVEN THE TASK OF RECORDING THE SHOCK
LEVELS USED. THE EXPERIMENTER EXPLAINED THE STUDY, AS IN
THE OTHER CONDITIONS, BUT GAVE NO INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT
SHOCK LEVELS BEFORE HE WAS CALLED AWAY.
SO OBEDIENCE DROPPED TO 20%. BUT WHEN THE
PARTICIPANTS REFUSE TO CONTINUE PRESSING
THE SHOCK BUTTON, THE CONFEDERATE STANDS
UP AND BEGAN ADMINISTERING THE SHOCKS. IN
THIS CASE (68.75%) PARTICIPANTS STOOD BY AND
WATCH WITHOUT STOPPING.
 IN AUTHORITY-AS-VICTIM CONDITION, HERE THE
EXPERIMENTER AGREED TO TAKE THE ROLE OF THE LEARNER.
THE EXPERIMENTER TOLERATED THE SHOCKS UP TO 150 V, BUT
THEN HE SHOUTED, “THAT’S ENOUGH, GENTLEMEN!”
BUT IN ALL CASES THE PARTICIPANT RELEASED THE
EXPERIMENTER; OBEDIENCE TO THE ORDINARY PERSON’S
COMMAND TO HARM THE AUTHORITY WAS NIL.
 GROUP EFFECTS
- MILGRAM (1974) STUDIED OBEDIENCE RATHER THAN CONFORMITY,
SINCE THE AUTHORITY DID NOT HIMSELF ENGAGE IN THE ACTION HE
DEMANDED OF THE TEACHER AND THE TEACHER FACED THE POWER
OF THE AUTHORITY ALONE.
- IN THE TWO PEERS REBEL CONDITION, MILGRAM ADDED TWO
MORE CONFEDERATES TO THE SITUATION. ONE READ THE LIST OF
WORDS AND THE AND ONE GAVE VERBAL FEEDBACK TO THE
LEARNER, AND PARTICIPANT PUSHED THE SHOCK BUTTON. THE
SUBJECT SAT BEFORE THE SHOCK MACHINE AND THE OTHER SAT ON
EITHER SIDE.
- IN PEER ADMINISTERS SHOCK CONDITION, THE SUBJECT WAS
GIVEN SUBSIDIARY TASKS, SUCH AS READING THE QUESTIONS AND
GIVING FEEDBACK, BUT HE DID NOT PUSH THE SHOCK BUTTON; A
SECOND SUBJECT, WHO IS VERY COMPLIANT DID SO.
 (THE POWER IN THE MILGRAM SITUATION)
CHALLENGES AND REPLICATIONS – MOST PEOPLE INCLUDING
BOTH EXPERTS AND LAYPERSONS ALIKE, WERE SURPRISED BY
THE LEVEL OF OBEDIENCE MILGRAM DISCOVERED IN HIS
RESEARCH.
THE RIDDLE OF OBEDIENCE – IF MILGRAM’S STUDIES ARE
METHODOLOGICALLY SOUND AND THE OBEDIENCE HE
OBSERVED DOES NOT REFLECT HIS SUBJECTS’ PECULIARITIES,
THEN WHY DID SO MANY OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITY?
 SOCIAL POWER IN GROUPS
BASES OF POWER
POWER BASES - SOURCES OF SOCIAL POWER IN A
GROUP, INCLUDING ONE’S DEGREE OF CONTROL
OVER REWARDS AND PUNISHMENT, AUTHORITY
IN THE GROUP, ATTRACTIVENESS, EXPERTISE AND
ACCESS TO AND CONTROL OVER INFORMATION
NEEDED BY GROUP MEMBERS.
 SIX SOURCES OF POWER
REWARD POWER – POWER BASED ON CONTROL OVER THE DISTRIBUTION OF REWARDS
(BOTH PERSONAL AND IMPERSONAL) GIVEN OR OFFERED TO GROUP MEMBERS.

COERCIVE POWER – POWER BASED ON THE ABILITY TO PUNISH OR THREATEN OTHERS WHO
DO NOT COMPLY WITH REQUESTS OR DEMANDS.

LEGITIMATE POWER – POWER BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL’S SOCIALLY SANCTIONED CLAIM TO

A POSITION OR ROLE THAT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE AND DEMAND COMPLIANCE
WITH HIS OR HER DIRECTIVES.

REFERENT POWER – POWER DERIVED FROM SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN

INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION WITH, ATTRACTION TO, OR RESPECT FOR
ANOTHER PERSON OR GROUP.

EXPERT POWER – POWER BASED ON THE BELIEF THAT AN INDIVIDUAL POSSESSES SUPERIOR
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES.

INFORMATIONAL POWER – POWER BASED ON THE POTENTIAL USE OF INFORMATIONAL

RESOURCES, INCLUDING RATIONAL ARGUMENT, PERSUASION, OR EXPLANATION.
 POWER TACTICS
POWER TACTICS – SPECIFIC STRATEGIES USED TO
INFLUENCE OTHERS, USUALLY TO GAIN A
PARTICULAR OBJECTIVE OR ADVANTAGE.

 TYPES OF TACTICS
HARD AND SOFT TACTICS –
HARD TACTICS ARE MORE COERCIVE THAN SOFT TACTICS THEY LIMIT THE “FREEDOM AN INFLUENCE
RECIPIENT IS ALLOWED IN CHOOSING WHETHER OR NOT TO COMPLY WITH A REQUEST OR A
DEMAND”

SOFT TACTICS EXPLOIT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INFLUENCER AND THE TARGET TO
EXTRACT COMPLIANCE.

DIRECT, RATIONAL AND INDIRECT, NONRATIONAL TACTICS –

RATIONAL TACTICS ARE TACTICS THAT EMPHASIZE REASONING, LOGIC, AND GOOD JUDGMENT

INDIRECT TACTICS ARE UNIQUELY SUBTLE AND DIFFICULT TO DETECT.

NONRATIONAL TACTICS RELY ON EMOTIONALITY AND MISINFORMATION

UNILATERAL AND BILATERAL TACTICS –

BILATERAL TACTICS INCLUDE PERSUASION, DISCUSSION, AND NEGOTIATION.
UNILATERAL TACTICS CAN BE ENACTED WITHOUT THE COOPERATION OF THE TARGET OF INFLUENCE.
FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR TECHNIQUE – INFLUENCING A PERSON BY EXTRACTING COMPLIANCE TO A SMALL
INITIAL REQUEST BEFORE THEN MAKING THE SECOND, MORE SUBSTANTIAL, REQUEST.
 SOCIAL STATUS
IN GROUPS

CLAIMING STATUS
Pecking order - A stable, ordered pattern of individual
variations in prestige, status, and authority among group
members.
 ACHIEVING STATUS
Expectation-States Theory -
An explanation of status
differentiation in groups,
which assumes that group
members allocate status to
group members judged to be
competent at the task at
hand and to group members
who have qualities that the
members think are indicators
of competence and potential.
Specific Status Characteristics -
In status characteristics theory, task-specific
behavioral and personal characteristics that
people consider when estimating the
relative competency, ability, and social value
of themselves and others.
Diffuse Status Characteristic -
In status characteristics theory, general
personal qualities, such as age, race, and
ethnicity, that people consider when
estimating the relative competency, ability,
and social value of themselves and others.

 Status Generalization - The tendency for individuals known to

have achieved or been ascribed authority, respect, and prestige in
one context to enjoy relatively higher status in other, unrelated,
contexts (e.g., a celebrity who exercises influence in a group even
though this diffuse status characteristic is not relevant in the
current group context).

Solo Status - The state of being the only group member who
is a representative of a specific social category in an otherwise
homogenous group (e.g., a man in an all-female group).
 STATUS HIERARCHIES AND STABILITY
Iron Law of Oligarchy - The principle of political and social control that
predicts that, in any group, power is concentrated in the hands of a few
individuals (an oligarchy) who will act in ways that protect and enhance their
power (described by Robert Michels).

Interpersonal Complementarity Hypothesis - The predicted tendency for

certain behaviors to evoke behaviors from others that are congruous with the
initial behavior, with positive behaviors evoking positive behaviors, negative
behaviors evoking negative behaviors, dominant behaviors evoking
submissive behaviors, and submissive behaviors evoking dominant behaviors.
 THE METAMORPHIC EFFECTS OF POWER
Priming Power
Power is, in part, a state of mind—a feeling of authority rather than
authority per se.

The Paradoxical Effects of Power

Social psychologist Dacher Keltner and his colleagues (2003, 2008, 2016),
synthesizing previous analyses of both power and motivation, theorize that
power—having power, using power, even thinking about power—leads to
psychological and interpersonal changes for both those who have power
and those who do not.
Approach/Inhibition Theory - An integrative
conceptual analysis of the transformative effects of
power that finds power to be psychologically and
behaviorally activating but the lack of power inhibiting
(posited by Dacher Keltner and his colleagues).
 A E G-s Cf I R-t E E S-s C E

Power’s Positive Effects Power’s Negative Effects

Power and action Power and risk-taking

Power and emotion Power and emotion
Power and goal-striving Power and empathy
Power and cognitive Power and self-satisfaction
functioning Power and coercion
Power and influence Power and ethics
How do those without power react when power is used to
influence them?

1. Approach/inhibition theory predicts that individuals who do not feel powerful

will display more negative emotion and reduced motivation. These negative
effects are more likely when powerholders use coercive influence methods.

2. Coercive methods have been linked to a number of dysfunctional group

processes, including increases in conflict as more group members rebel against
authority (the ripple effect), disrupted interpersonal relations, and revolutionary
coalitions.
3. Kelman’s (1958) compliance–identification–internalization
model describes a sequence of increasing private acceptance of
an authority’s beliefs, values, and perspectives.

4. Milgram’s (1974) theory of the agentic state traces obedience

back to the nature of the authority–subordinate relationship.

5. People who blame obedience on the individual in the situation

may be displaying the fundamental attribution error (FAE), which
underestimates the power of group-level processes.
REACTIONS TO THE USE OF POWER

Lucifer effect - The transformation of benign

individuals into morally corrupt individuals by
powerful, but malevolent, social situations; named
for the biblical character Lucifer, an angel who fell
from grace and was transformed into Satan
(proposed by Phillip Zimbardo).
 PSY 103 - GROUP DYNAMICS

Thank
You!
Galaang, Gingabo,
Presented by
Gallego, Gabanite