SOCİAL İNFLUENCE

Social psychologists have long been interested in how an individual’s

behavior is influenced by other people.
In Chapter Five we have discussed some aspects of social influence in
its analysis of the processes of attitude change.
In this chapter, we will examine three importand types of social
influence: conformity, compliance, and obedience.

1
CONFORMİTY

• Conformity is defined as the tendency to change one’s beliefs or

behaviors to mach the behavior of others.
• Most teenagers are presumably free to pick up their own clothes
and hairstyles. However, young people often prefer to dress like
others in their social group, thus conforming to current fashion
trends.

2
• On the one hand, we know that sometimes a person has to «go along to get
along.» Conforming to group norms is often the price we pay for acceptance
and social harmony.
• On the other hand, we value individualism and worry that people can easily be
pressured to go against their personal beliefs «because everyone is doing it.»

3
• When is conformity a social good and when it is harmful? The answer might be
a matter of controversy.
• In 1992 the U.S supreme court ruled that public schools may not include
prayers during a school seremony.
• The Court concluded that it must protect children’s freedom of consciense
from subtle coersive pressure in school.
• Critics immediately denounced the decision as censoring the religious
expression of the majority of school children. Lets see two classic studies.

4
Guess in the Dark: The Sherif
Studies
• In pioneering research by Muzafer Sherif (1936), the task seemed simple:
Individual male university students sat in a darkened room and watched a
single point of light.
• Each of them was told that the light would move and that his job was to
estimate how far it moved.
• Most participants fount it extremely difficult how far the ligh moved because it
often appeared to move at varying directions.

5
• Actually the study used a perceptual illusion known as the «autokinetic effect»:
A single point of light seen in the dark appear to move, even though it is
stationary.
• Given the ambiguity of this situation, the participants could not be sure of their
own judgements, and their initial estimates varied enormously.
• Many people thought the light moved 1 or 2 inches, whereas, on person
thought it moved as much as 800 feet

6
• In a series of experiments Sherif brought together groups of two or three
individuals. The light was presented, and each person gave his estimate out
loud.
• On the first trial, the individuals usually gave quite different answers. But over
time, as they made more judgements and listened to the responses of others
in the same situation, the participants’ answers become more and more
similar.

7
• What Sherif had demonstrated was the emergence of a group norm or
standard for judging the lights.
• Later, when participants were once again asked to make their judgements
alone, their answers still fell within the aproximate range established by the
group.
• In everyday life, we might see the emergence of a social norm as teenage
friends slowly evolve a group standard about appropriate dress, correct
behavior at school, or the best place for pizza.

8
• In a slightly different version of the study participants made their judgements
in two-person groups.
• However, only one person was a real subject; the second person was a
confederate of the researcher.
• The confederate had been trained to make his estimates consistently higher or
lower than those of the real subject like 30 cm vs 5cm respectively.
• By the end of a series of estimates, the subject’s estimates were very similar to
those of the conf.

9
As Plain as Day: The Asch
Studies
• Solomon Ash wondered if conformity occurs only in ambiguous situations, such
as the Sherif study, in which people are quite uncertain about the correct
answer.
• Asch (1955) reasoned that when people face an unambiguous situation, they
would trust their own perceptions and give their independent judgements,
even when every other member of a group disagreed with them.
• To test this hypothesis he designed an experiment.

10
• Five college students sat around a table and were told they would be judging
the lenth of lines.
• They were shown a card containing only one line (the «standard») and a
second card on which three lines of varying lenths had been drawn.
• Their task was to choose the line on the second card that was most similar in
length to the standard line in the first card.

11
. As can be seen under, it was an easy task.
. On of the lines was exactly the same length as
the standard, whereas, the other two were
quite different from it.
. When the lines were shown, the five
participants answered aloud in the order in
which they were seated.
. The first person gave his judgement, and then
each of the othersresponded.

12
• Because the judgement was so easy, there were no disagreement.
• When all had responded, a second set of lines was shown, responses were
given and a third set of lines were presented.
• At this point, the experiment seemde dull and pointless.
• On the third trial, however, the firs participant looked carefully at the lines and
the gave what was obviously a wrong answer. He might have said line 1 instead
of line 2.

13
• Second, third and fourth participants to gave the same wrong answer.
• When it was the fifth participant’s turn to respond, he was quite disturbed, it
was clear to him that the others were giving wrong answers. He know that the
anwer was line 2, but everyone else said line 1.
• In these circumstances, 35 percent of the people sitting in the fifth position
went along with the others and gave the same answer thouh they knew that it
was wrong.

14
• Some participants never gave the wrong answer, and some di all the time, but
overall there was one wrong answers in three.
• Of course the situation in this study was staged. The first four «subjects» were
confederates and they did what the experimenter told them to do.
• But the real (fifth) subject did not know this, and he gave the wrong answer
rather than disagree with the others.

15
• It should be kept in mind that, in this experiment, the correct choise was
certain, subjects swayed by the majority even they knew the correct answer.
• In control groups with no group pressure, subjects chose the correct
answer100% of the time.
• What can be said about this proportion of conformity among US. college
students? İs it relatively high or relatively low?

16
There is no easy answer to this question. Most participants (75%) conformed at
least once in the experiment.
On the other hand, most most answers (2/3) given by the participants were
correct despite group pressure.
So, there was conformity and considerable independence of judgement.

17
• A meta analysis of 133 conformity studies (Bond and Smith, 1996) found a
steady decline in general levels of conformity since Asch’s study in 1950.
• Research has demonstrated similar conformity effects using a variety of
judgement tasks, including evaluating attitude statements, statements of fact,
and logical syllogisms.
• For example, men are 20-25 cm taller than women, male babies have a life
expectancy of only 25 years and so on.

18
• In other words, regardles of the type of stimulus and how clear the correct
choise is, when individuals are faced with a unanimous group opinion, the
pressure exerted by the majority is often strong enough to produce conformity.
• In many cases, individuals continue to believe that their private judgements are
correct and that the group is wrong.
• Nevertheless, when asked to respond publicly they give the same wrong
answers that others give.

19
Culture and Conformity

• Everydey experiences of conformity are shaped by the cultural context.

• Individualist cultures emphasize personal freedom and independence. Child
rearing teaches self-reliance and assertion; children are given a good deal of
independence and creativity is encouraged. Uniqueness of the individual is
important.
• In this cultural context, the negative aspects of conformity tned to be
emphasized. Conformity may be seen as a loss of autonomy and control.

20
• In contrast in collectivist cultures (of Africa, Asia and Latin America) the
meaning of conformity is quite different.
• They emphasize the immportance of ties to the social group. Parents are
concerned with obedience, proper behavior, and respect for the group
traditions.
• In this cultural context, the positive aspects of conformitiy is emphasized.
Conformity is seen not as a response to social pressure but as a way to be
connected to others and to fulfill one’s moral obligations as a responsible
person. Not being selfish and group harmony is important.

21
• Cros-cultural research has shown greater conformity to group norms in
collevtivist cultures than in individualist cultures.
• Berry (1967) used an Asch type line-judgement task to compare conformity in
three cultural groups: participants from Scotland, Eskimo people from Baffin
Island and ındividuals from African Temne farming culture. First two of these
represented individualistic cultures that value self-reliance and the third
represented collevtivist cultures.

22
• As predicted, clear cultural differences emerged. The Eskimo respondents showed
the least conformity (less than 3 out of 15 trials) fallowed by the Scots (mean of
about 4). The greatest conformity was shown by the Temne respondents (mean of 9
out of 15 trials).
• A meta analysis of 133 cross-cultural conformity studies too found more conformity
among people from collectivist cultures than among those from individualist
cultures). Culture was a more affective factor in conformity than factors such as
group size and ambiguity of the stimulus (Bond and Smith, 1996).

23
• Kim and Markus (1999) demonstrated the divergent cutlural attitudes toward
conformitiy and uniqueness between people from the U.S. and those from
Asian cultures.
• In one study, participants evaluated sets of abstract figures. In each set, most
figures appeared several times and one figure was unique.
• Compared to Asian and Asian American participants, European Americans
showed a greater preference for uniqueness.

24
• A contend analysis of advertisements from American and Korean magazines
highlihted this difference (Kim and Makus, 1999).
• American ads emphasized freedom, choise, uniqueness an rebelling against
tradition.
• Korean ads emmphasized tradition and harmony within group norms.
• In the U.S. the best taste is one’s individual taste. In Korea, the normal, regular
traditional tastes are the best tastes (research finding with coffe).

25
Why do People Conform?
• People conform for many reasons.
• Two of the most important reasons are to be right and to be liked.
• People are more likely to be influenced by a persuasive communication from a
person who is knowledgeable, trustworty, and likeable.
• Smilarly, people are more apt to conform to group behaviors when they think
the group members are right and when they want to be liked by the group.
• Now let us see the differen types social influence.

26
• Informational Influence: The Desire to be right. One reason for conformity is
that the behavior of other people often provides useful information. This is
known as informational influece.
• A tourist trying figure how to buy a ticket for the New York subway may
carefully observe the behavior of New Yorkers noting where they go, how they
make their way through turnstile.
• The tendency to conform based on informational influence depends on two
aspects of the situation: how well informed we believe the group is, and how
confident we are in our own independent judgement.

27
• Anything that increase confidence in the correctness of the group is likely to
increase conformity.
• Balanced against confidence in the group is the individuals confidence in his or
her own views.
• Reseach shows that the more ambiguous or difficult the task, the more likley
people are to conform to group judgements.
• Because they are less certain of their own judgements.
• Sherif’s task was more difficult than Asch’s task, therefore produce more
conformity.

28
• A useful distinction can be made between change in a person’s public actions
(overtly going along with the group) and change in a person’s private beliefs
(actually agreeing with the group).
• Informational influence can thus be seen as a fairly rational process by which
the behavior of others alters our beliefs or interpretation of a situaiton and
conseqently leads us to act in accord with the group.

29
• Normative Influence: The Desire to be Liked. A second reason for conformity is
the desire for social approval. This is known as normative influence.
• Simultaneously, we want to avoid being teased, ridiculed, or rejected.
• Normative influence is defined as altering our behavior to conform to group
norms or standards inorder to gain social acceptance or maintain our standing
in a group.

30
• For example, when we are with our health-conscious friends we may exagerate
our interest in salad and fresh fish, even though we don’t especially like them.
• In such situations conformity leads to outward change in public behavior but
not necessarily to change in private opinions.
• Of course, if we change our behavior to conform to group norms, we may also
have a tendency to change our private beliefs as well according to dissonance
theory. «Post conformity justification.»

31
When Do People Conform

• We are apt to conform more in some situations than in others.

• The size of the group, the unanimity of group opinions, and our
commitment to the group can all affect conformity.
• In addition, there are individual differences in the desire for
individuation or uniqueness that can also influence whether we
conform or dissent.

32
• Group Size. Conformity usually increases as the size of the majority increases
(at least up to a point).
• Imagine that you’re in room that feels uncomfortably chilly to you. If there is
another person in the room who complains that it’s too hot, you may decide
that he or she is mistaken or feverish.
• But if five other people say the room is too hot, you may reconsider, wondering
if something is wrong with you.
• Five peopel are more trustworty than one. Asch (10955) found that 3 pople
produced the most conformity.

33
• Group Unanimity. A person facet with a unanimous majority is under great pressure to
conform.
• If however, a group is not united, there is a striking decrease in the amount of conformity.
• When even one other person dissents, conformity drops to about one fourth the usual level (to
about 9%). It does not seem to matter who the nonconforming person is.
• Furthermore, a sole dissenter can reduce conformity even if he or she gives wrong answers.
Even a slight disagreement in the group makes it easier for an individual to remain independent.

34
• The dramatic decrease in conformity when unanimity is broken seems to be
due to several factors.
• First, trust or cofidence in the correctness of the group decreases and indicates
that there is room for doubt. Reduces reliance on mojority opinion.
• Second, another opinion in the same direction serves to strengthen the
individuals selfl-confidence and greater confidence reduces conformity.
• Third, another consideration involves reluctance to appear deviant. The lone
dissender stands out. When someone else also disagrees, neither person is as
deviant as he or she would be alone.

35
• Commitment to the Group. Conformity is affected by the strength of the bonds
between each individual and the group.
• Commitment refers to all the forces, positive and negative, that act to keep an
individual in a relationship or group.
• Positive forces that attract an individual to a group include liking other group
members, believing that the group accomplishes important goals, feeling that
group members work well together, and expecting to gain forom belonging to
the group.

36
• The negative forces that keep an individual from leaving a group also increase
commitment.
• These include such barriers as having few alternatives and having made large
investments in the group that would be costly to give up.
• In general, more committed a person is to a group, the greater the pressures
are for conformity to group standards.

37
• The Desire for Individuation.People differ in their willingness to do things that
publicly differetiates them from others.
• Some people are more comfortable blending in with a group and going along
with group opinions; others prefer to stand out.
• This phenomenon is called the desire for individuation by Maslach and her
colleagues (1985) who developed a paper-and-pencil test to measure peoples
willingnes to engage in public behaviors that sets them apart from others.

38
• Research shows that high individiation people are more likely to say that they
have distinctive ways of dressing, use a distinctive nick name, and own unique
possessions.
• In laboratory studies, high-individuation subjects were less likely to go along
with the majority view and were more likely to engage in what the researchers
called «creative dissent.»
• High-individuation subjects have also been rated by observers as less socially
compliant, more critical and less polite.

39
Using Conformity to Change Unhealty Behavior: The Case
of Social Norms Marketing

• For decades American high school and college administrators have sought ways
to reduce student binge (excessive) dringking, promote safer sex, discourage
smoking, and foster sensible eating.
• Today many schools are trying a new approach known as «social norms
marketing.»
• The basic idea is familiar. When a teenager asks for parental permission to stay
out late or see an R-rated movie because «everybody is doing it,» the appeal is
based on information about social norms.

40
• Can the power of social norms be harnessed for healt education? Many
schools seem to think so.
• In this approach, school officials use questionnaires and other methods to
assess the frequency of alcohol consumption, condom use, smoking, and other
behaviors on their campus.
• Students often misperceive the frequency of these behaviors.
• By providing information showing that healty behavior is, in fact, «normal,»
administrators hope to influence students’ attitudes and behaviors.

41
• At the University of Arizona, an ad proclaimed, «Most of A students (69%) have
4 or fewer drinks when they party.
• Smilar ads provide facts about the percentage of students who participate in
volunteer service or who exercise or play sports regularly.
• Currently, however, actual effectiveness of social norms marketing is a topic of
debate.
• Some believe it is effective when used properly and some believe for example
that it could also encourage light drinkers to drink more.
• And some say the norms of the students’ own small group may be more
effective than campus-wide standarts.

42
Minority Influence:
Innovation in Groups.

• Conformity to majority behavior or standards is a basic aspect of life.

• However, our emphasis on majority influence should not blind us to the
importance of minority influence
• Sometimes a forceful minority with a new idea or a unique perspective can
effectively change the position of majority.

43
• Pioneering work of French psychologist Sergei Moscovici has shown this effect.
• In one study, (Moscovici et al., 1969) members of six person groups used an
Asch-type conformity paradigm but with a majority of naive subjects and a
minority of confederates.
• Members of six person groups were asked to rate the color of slides. In
actuality, all slides were blue but varied in their luminance.
• In control groups of six naive subjects, virtually all slides were discribed as
blue.

44
• In the experimental group, however, two confederates consistently labeled the
blue slides as «green.»
• Participants had previously been told that all group members had normal
vision.
• With this minority pressure, about a third of the participants reported seeing
at least one «green» slide, and 8 percent of all judgements indicated that slides
were «green.»
• Clearly, the minority view had a noticeable effect on the naive majority.

45
• The «behavioral style» of a minority is important.
• First, to be effective a minority must be consistent and forceful
• This behavioral style is interpreted by the majority as a sign of the minority’s
confidence and certainity in its position.
• Second, minority should be logically consistent but not rigid.
• That is, to be effective, a minority shoul have a well defined but flexible style of
presentation.

46
• As a minority persists in its position over time, the majority may start to
question the correctness of its views.
• Ultimately some majority members may convert by changing their own
position in the direction of the minority members.
• If enough members change their views, the minority may be transformed into
a new majority.

47
• Research has identified other factors that determine the influence of
minorities.
• First, minorities are more influential when they are able to refute the majority
view effectively by logical arguments, for example.
• Second, minorities are more likely to succeed when the issue is not of great
personal relavance or importance to majority group members.
• Third, the general social climate of the society can olso make a difference. A
minority will be more effective if it argues for a position in line with the current
trends.

48
• Fourth, minorities are also more likely to succeed when they are similar to the
majority group in most respects except for the particualar behavior or attitude
in question.
• For example, a member of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) who tries
to convince other AKP members to change their views on the presidential
system of governmet would be a «single minority» (also called «in-group
minority») because of differing from the AKP mojority only in beliefs about the
presidential system.

49
• In contrast, a member of the National Movement Parti (MHP) who tries to
convince AKP members to change their policies concerning presidential system
of government would be a «double minority» (or «out-group minority»)
because of differing from the majority in two ways: political party and the
presidential system.
• Research suggests that the single minority is more influential than a double
minority.

50
• A study by Maas and Clark (1984) found an ostensibly (clearly) gay minority
arguing for gay rights had less influence on heterosexuals than did a
heterosexual minority arguing for gay rights, partly because the gay minority
was seen as having more self-interest in the issue.
• When a minority group is perceived as having a personal stake in its position,
its views can more easily be discounted as reflecting self-interest.

51
• In sum, minorities have more influence when their position is taken seriously
and is seen as reflecting certainty and competence.
• Minorities are less influential when they can be discounted as bizarre,
dogmatic, or self-serving.
• A current controversy among social psychogists is whether the processes of
majority influence (conformity) and minority influence (innovation) are
fundementally the same or different.

52
• One view known as the «dual-process hypothesis,» is that minorities and
majorities induce different cognitive processes among group members.
• Minority influence leads group members think seriously about the issues
involved and engage in systematic processing of information.
• As a result, the influence of minorities is more likely to result in changed
attitudes.
• In contrast, majority influence is seen as a less thoughtful process of
conformity to group views. Majority may lead to changes in overt behavior but
not necesarily to changes in private attitudes

53
• The influence of minorities can be very important.
• Yet many researchers are skeptical of the idea that the process through which
minorities influence groups are unique.
• There is evidence that majority endorsement of a position sommetimes also
leads to careful scrutiny of a message.
• In short, both majorities and minorities are capable of influencing groups in a
variety of ways and can produce both private attitude change and public
conformity.

54
COMPLİANCE

• One of the basic ways people influence each other is to ask them to do
something.
• Think some of the direct requests you might make of your friends: to drive you
to the airport, to lend you money, to refrain from smoking in your car, to tell
you what they think about your haircut, or to join a volunteer group you are
organizing.

55
• Compliance is defined as doing what we are asked to do, even though we
might prefer not to do.
• The distinguishing future of compliance is that it involves responding to a
request from another individual or group.
• Imagine that as you approach the local supermarket, a young women stops you
and asks you to sign a petition urging the city to build a new shelter fo
homeless families. You reluctantly sing the petition.

56
• Next, the women asks you to donate 10 liras to help the homeless. You give
her 3 liras and duck into the market.
• Why did you comply, at least partially, with the requests?
• Sometimes we comply with requests seemingly with no reason at all.

57
• In one study researchers approched people waiting to use a photocopying
machine and asked to go to the head of the line because «I have to make
copies» (Langer, at. al., 1978).
• This so called explanation provided no logical justificaiton for going out of turn.
• Yet many people went along with the request, apparently not paying much
attention to the content of the explanation.
• Langer refers to this bephavior as «mindless» because the response is made
almost without thinking.

58
• Perhaps out of habit, we have learned that when someone asks for something,
especially something trivial, and gives a reason (even a meaningles reason), we
should go along.
• We spare ourselves the mental effort of thinking about the situation and
simply comply with the request.
• Mindlessness may not explain most instances of complience, but it is a
fascinating aspect of human behavior.

59
Six Bases of Social Power

• People can influence each other in a wide variety of ways.

• When David Kipnis (984) asked managers how they influence their coworkers
to do things, they said:
«I simply order him to to what I ask.»
«I act very humble while making my request.»
«I explain the reason for my request.»

60
• In contrast, when Kipnis asked dating couples how they influence their partners, they said:
«I get angry and demand him give in.»
«I act so nice that she can’t refuse.»
«We talk about why we don’t agree.»
. A useful way to classify how people influence
each other was devepod by Raven and his
colleagues.
. This model identifes six mojor bases of
power, each reflecting a different kind of resource
a person might use to influence someone.

61
• Rewads. One basis of power is the ability to provide positive outcomes or
rewards for another person.
• Some rewards are highly personal, such as a smile of approval from a special
friend.
• Other rewards, such as money, are impersonal.
• Sometimes reward power is used to make explicit bargains, other times, the
possibility of rewards is more subtle as in working hard for a pay rise.

62
• Coercion. Coercion can range from actual physical force to threats of
punishment or subtle signs of disapproval.
• For example, after trying unsuccessfully to convince a young child to take a
nap, a parent may simply place the ressitant child in the crib, wolk out of the
room, and close the door.
• Or a supervisor may threaten disciplinary action if an amployee continues to
arrive late for work.

63
• Expertise. Special knowledge, training, and skill are sources of power.
• We defer to experts and fallow their advise because we believe that their
knowledge will help us to achieve our personal goals.
• If a trusted physician advises us to take three little green pills daily for an
infection, we are likely to comply whether or not we know precisely what the
pills contain or understand how the medicine works.

64
• Information. We often try to influence people by giving them logical
arguments that we think will suggest the right course of action to them.
• Friends might influence you to go to a concert by informing you that your
favorite music group is performing.
• In this case the influencer is not an expert.
• Rather, it is the content of the message that produces the desired effect.

65
• Referent (Identification) Power. A basis of influence with special relevance to
personal relationship and groups is referent power.
• This power exists when we identify with or want to foster a relationship with
another person or group.
• In such cases, we may voluntarily copy their behavior (conformity) or do what
they ask (comply) because we want to become similar to them or have a
continuing relationship. Identification as a type of influence can be very
effective especially in children.

66
• Legitimate Authority. Sometimes one person has the right or authority to ask
another person to act a certain way.
• The high school teacher who orders a tardy (slow, lazy) student to do extra
homework and the general who orders troops into battle are exercising
legitimate power.
• Social roles, such as parent and child, police officer and citizen, or supervisor
and employee dictate the legitimate rights and responsibilities of each person
in the relationship.

67
• There are many ways to signal one’s authority in a situation.
• The black robe of judge, the white coat of a physician, and the bule uniform of
a police officer are visible markers of status and authority.
• A field experiment in a zoo illustrates the potential importance of uniforms. A
person told the visitors not to touch the handrails of the bird exibit. Visitors
were more likely to comply with this request when it came from someone
dressed as a zookeeper than when it came from a person in casual clothes.
Uniform was the reminder of legitimate authority.

68
• Power of Helplessness. A special case of legitimate authority is «helplessness.»
• Consider the requests: A small child asks his mother for help in taking off his
snow boots; a polite foreign tourist asks a pedestrian the way to the buss stop
in broken Turkish; a partially blind grocery shopper asks for help in reading the
price marked on an icecream container.
• In each case, the person asking for help is in a powerless or helpless position.

69
• In each of these cases, others are likely to comply with the request respecting a
cultural norm of social responsibility.
• We expect people to help those who are less fortunate, and this social
obligation makes it legitimate for those in need to ask for help.
• However, the legitimate power of helplessness can sometimes be costly for
those who use it.
• People who constantly claim to be helpless may come to see themselve as
incompetent.

70
• According to Raven (1992) there are other means of influence.
• One of them is changing the environment so that the target of influence has to
comply. If you don’t want children to enter your garden you erect fence around
it. This is called «environmental manipulation.»
• Another approach is to use the power of third parties. A child may say to his
sister «If yo don’t stop, I’m going to tell Daddy about what you did.» The aim
here is to change the sister’s behavior by threatening her.

71
• The bases of power can readily be applied to situaitons in everyday life.
• A study of influence strategies used by teachers in the U.S. schools show that
teachers generally use two forms of influence: expert power and referent
power.
• A teacher who uses expert power might say «trust me, I know what I say, it
really works.»
• A teacher who uses referent power seeks to build a positive relationship with
students so that the students comply with his or her requests.

72
• In contrast, the other forms of influence, namely, coercion and legitimate
authority, appear to be less effective.
• A teacher who uses coercion might say «Stop talking or I’ll send you to the
principle’s office.»
• A teacher who appeals to legitimate authority might say «Do it because I told
you to, and I’m your teacher.
• However, students in the U.S. tend to find these two approaches oppressive.
• In the long run, use of coercion and authority may not motivate students to
learn and may not foster an interest in the course.

73
Mood and Complience
• If you want to ask a friend for a special favor, should you wait until he or she is
in particularly good mood?
• More generally, what part do emotions play in compliance?
• Australian psychologists Joseph Forgas (2001) designed a series of experiments
to fint out.
• He predicted that we are more willing to comply with a request when we are
feeling happy than when we are feeling sad.

74
• Forgas further, predicted that mood would be especially important in how a
person reacts to a rude versus polite request.
• In one study, students in a university library were firs exposed to one of three
mood induction experiences.
• Some read a discription of a humorous story (the positive emotion condition).
Others read a sad story about death from cancer (the negative mood
condition). In a third, control condition, students read an information sheet
about the library.

75
• After the student had read the materials, he or she was approached by an
unfamiliar student (actually a confederate) who asked for a favor.
• In the polite condition the confederate asked, «Excuse me I need some paper
to finish an assignement. Could I please get 10 sheets if you have any to
spare?»

76
• In an intermadiate politeness condition, the confederate asked, «Sorry, would
you have 10 sheets of paper?»
• In the impolite condition he simply said, «Give me 10 ten sheets of paper.»
• A few minutes later, a second experimenter told the naive student that the
earlier request for paper had actually been part of a psychology study and
asked the student to evaluate the request an to indicate his or her degree of
complience.

77
• As Forgas predicted, mood had a significant effect on reactions to a request for
a favor.
• Students in the positive mood condition evaluated the request most favorably,
those in the control condition were somewhat less favorable, and students in
the negative-mood condition were the harshest of all in their assessments of
the request.

78
• Finally, as predicted, mood effects were larger when a request was rude than
when it was polite: Happy people tended to ignore the way a request was
worded, and sad people were significantly more responsive to the polite
request than to the rude request.
• In other research (1999a, b) Forgas found that subjects were more polite when
making a difficult request.
• But students in a sad mood consistently formulated their requests in a more
polite way and made more eloborate or complex request statements than
those in the polite condition.

79
• According to Forgas, being in a negative mood may bias people toward
negative thoughts and so lead them to overestimate the dangers of giving
offense, the result being more polite and elaborate requests.
• In contrast, those in a good mood may have more optimistic and confident
thoughts, which woul lead them to be more direct and less polite in asking for
a favor.

80
Specific Compliance
Techniques

• One line of research has investigated the specific techniques people use to
make others comply with their requests.
• Robert Cialdini (2004) and other social psychologists have identified several
important compliance techniques.
• Now let’s see the core ideas behind these techniques.

81
• The Foot-in-the-Door Technique. This technique may be summarized as «first
making a small request. When the person complies, making another, larger
reqest.»
• Once someone has complied with the small request, he or she is more likely to
agree to a larger request. This is the foot-in-the door technique.
• A classic study by Freedman and Fraser (1966) demonstrated this effect.

82
• Experimenters went from dood to door an told women they were working for
the Committee for Safe Driving.
• They said they wanted the women’s support for this campaign and asked them
to sign a petition that would be sent to the state’s senators.
• The petition requested the senators to work for legislation to encourage safe
driving.

83
• Almost all women agreed to sign.
• Several weeks later, different experimenters contacted the same women and
also other women who had not been approached before.
• At this time, all the women were asked to put in their front yards a large,
unattractive sign that read «Drive Carefully.»
• The results were striking. Over 55% of the women who had previously
endorsed the petition (a small request) also agreed to post the sign (big
request).
• In contrast, under 17% of the other women agreed to post the sign.

84
• Getting the women to agree to the initial small request tripled the amount of
compliance for the larger request.
• Several psychological processes explain this technique.
• One explanation is based on self-perception theory.
• The idea is that in some ways, the individual’s self-image changes as a result of
the initial act of compliance.

85
• In the safe driving experiment, for example, a woman may have thought of
herself as the kind of person who does not take social action or, perhaps, who
does not agree to things that are asked of her by someone at the door.
• Once she had agreed to the small request, which was actually difficult to
refuse, she may have changed her perception of herself slightly.
• After signing the petition, she may have come to think herself as the kind of
person who gets involved or who cares about safe driving. Thus, she may have
been more likely to comply when the larger request came.

86
• Second, the desire to view oneself as acting consistently may contribute to the
foot-in-the-door effect: If I am the kind of person who cares about safe driving,
then I should be willing to put a sign in my front lawn.
• This technique is more effective among individuals who express a strong
personal preference for consistency.

87
• The third explanation is that people who agree to a small request become
involved and committed to the issue itself, to the behavior they perform, or
perhaps simply to the idea of taking some king of action.
• All of these processes may operate simultaneously to determine an individual’s
response to a foot-in the door request.

88
• The Door-in-the-Face Technique. Sometimes a technique opposite to the foot-
in-the-door also works.
• Asking first for a very large request and then making a smaller request can
increase compliance.

• This approach is sometimes called the door-in the-face technique, because the
first request is typically so outrageously large that people might be tempted to
slam the door in the requester’s face.

89
• In one study people were asked to volunteer time for a good cause (Cialdini et
al., 1975).
• Some were asked first to give a huge amount of time.
• When they refused, as almost all did, the researcher immediately said that
then perhaps they might agree to a much smaller commitment of time.
• Other participants were asked to give only the smaller amount of time,
whereas, a third group was given a choise between the two.

90
• The results of the Cialdini et all. study were striking.
• In the small-request-only condition, 17% of participants agreed.
• In the choice condition 25% percent complied with the smaller request.
• However, when the participants had first turned down a large request, 50%
complied with the smaller request.
• Here, the tactic is to ask for the moon and settle for a star.
• The more you ask at first, the more you expect to get eventually. The second
requst seems even smaller.

91
• Both the foot-in-the door and the revers tactic work at times, but we don’t
know when each of them is most effective.
• Both seem to work best when the behavior involved is prosocial, that is, when
the request is to help a worthwile cause.
• One difference seems to be that the-door-in-the-face tchnique works when the
smaller request follows the larger one immediately and is obviously connected.
• The foot-in-the-door technique works even when the two requests are
seemingly unconnected.

92
• The Low-Ball Technique. Consider how likely you would be to agree to the
following requests.
• In one case, a researcher calls you on the phone and asks you to participate in
an experiment scheduled for 7:00 A.M.
• In a secont case, a researcher calls you to participate in a study.
• Only after you agree to participate does the researcher informs you taht the
study will be scheduled for 7:00 A.M..

93
• This tactic, in which a person is asked to agree to something on the basis of
incomplete information is later told the full story, is called Low-ball technique.
• Essentially the person is tricked into agreeing to a relatively attractive
proposition, only to discover that the ters are different from those expected.
• This technique seems to work because once an individual has made an initial
public commitment to course of action, he or she is reluctant to withdraw
when the grounds change. It deceives.

94
• When Cialdini and his associates (1978) compared these to procedures, they
found that the second approach was much more effective.
• When students were told on the outset that an experiment would be
conducted early in the morning, only 25% agreed to participate and showed up
on time.
• In contrast, when the time of the studey was initially concealed, 55% of
students agreed to participate and almost all af them showed up for the erly
morning appointment.

95
• The That’s-Not-At-All Technique. Think of this situation: A salesperson
describes a new microwave ovento a potential custumer and gives a price.
• Then, while the customer is tryign to reach a decision, the sales person adds,
«But that’s not all. Today only, we’re having a special deal. If you buy the
microwave oven now, we’ll give you a five-piece set of microwave dishes at no
additional cost.

96
• In actuality, the dishes always come with the oven, but by presenting the
dishes as a «special deal» or as something «just for you,» the sales person
hopes to make the purchase even more attractive.
• The essence of the techique is to present a product at a high price, allow the
customer to think about it, and then improve the deal either by «adding» a
product or lovering the priceb.

97
• In one study, Burger (1986) held a psychology-club bake sale on campus. At
random, haf the people who stopped at the table and asked about the
cupcakes were told that they could buy a prepackaged set including one
cupcake and too cookies for 75 cents.
• In this control condition, 40 percent of those who inquired actually
purchased a cupcake.
• In the that’s not all condition, people were first told that the cupcakes
were 75 cents each.
• A moment later, they were told that actually, they wouldn’t get only the
cupcake but also to cookies for the same price.
• In this condition, 73 percent of people bought a cupcake.

98
• The Pique (attract attention) Technique. In many cities today, pedestrians are
often approached by beggers asking for money.
• Many pedestrians, weary from repeated requests, in a mindless refusal script,
turn down the requests for money without much thought.
• Michael Santos and his collegues (1994) reasoned that to successful in this
situation, a begger must somehow disrupt the pedestrian’s refusal script and
capture his or her attention.

99
• To study this so-called pique techniqe, college women confederates posed as
panhandlers (beggers) and approached pedestrians in Santa Cruz, California
(Santos et al., 1994).
• Sometimes panhandlers made a typical request: «Can you spare a quarter?»
• In the pique condition, however, the panhandler made a novel request: «Can
you spare 37cents?».
• As predicted, pedestrians were significanly more likely to give money to an
unusual request.

100
• Apparently, the unusual request attracted the interest of the targets and
interfered with the mindles refusal script of the pedestrians.
• The novel requests may also have increased liking or sympathy for the person
making the unusual requests.

101
Resisting External Pressure
• Although external pressure can increase complience, there are limits to the
effevtiveness of these tactics.
• Many peopel turn down the pandhandlers regardless of the cleverness of their
request.
• In wartime, heroic soldiers refuse to give secret information even when cruelly
tortured, putting commitment principle above personal safety.
• Influence attemps do not always produce the desired effect.

102
• Sometimes too much pressure may actually cause a person to do the opposite of what the requester wants.
• Brehm (1966) called this phenomenon «reactance.»
• The basic ideo of the reactance theory is that people attemp to maintain their personal freedom of action.
• When this freedom is threatene, they do whatever they can to reinstate it.

103
• A study of alcohol consumption illustrates this point.
• The researchers reasoned that a very strongly worded antidrinking message
might be perceived as a threat to personal freedom and so be less effetive than
a milder antidrinking message (Besley and Wu, 1991).
• To test this idea, the researchers compared the impact of two messages.

104
• A very strong message emphasized that there is «conclusive evidence» of the
harm of drinking and that «any reasonable person must acknowledge these
conclusions.»
• A more moderate message said that there is «good evidence» of harm of
alcohol and that «you may wish to carefully consider» these findings.
• After reading one of the messages, students indicated how much alcohol they
intended to drink nex week.
• As predicted, students who read the strong message intended to drink more
alcohol than the other group.

105
OBEDİENCE TO
AUTHORİTY

• In this final section, we take a closer loot at one of the six bases of power:
obedience to legitimate authority.
• In some social situations, we perceive one person or group as having the
legitimate authority to influence our behavior.
• The government has a wright to ask citizens to pay taxes; parents have a right
to as their childern to wash dinner dishes; in wartime, generals expect soldiers
to obey orders and so on.

106
• In these cases, social norms permit those in authority to make requests and
dictate that subordinates should obey them.
• Research show that people are more likely to defer (obey) authorities such as
an employer or a religious leader if they receive benefits from belonging to the
group or organization.
• Compliance with authorities is also increased when people belive they are
treated fairly, trust the motives of the the authorities and identify with the
group or organization.

107
 Crimes of Obedience

• In many cases, we agree with the policies of those in charge and obey orders
willingly.
• But what happens when the demans of authorities conflict with our own
beliefs and values.
• Do we fallow our conscience and risk punishment, or do we go along the with
the request of the authority.

108
• Kelman and Hamilton (1989) used the term «crimes of obedience» to describe
immoral or illegal acts that are committed in response to orders from an
authority.
• When soldiers obey orders to torture or kill unarmed civilians, they are
engaging in crimes of obedience.
• The less extreem forms of obedience are more common. For example, acts of
obedience to illegal orders of political leaders.
• Social psyhologists have extensively investigated this sort of obedience.

109
• When Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany in 1933, they
contendet that tha Arya race was superior to such «mongrel races» as the Jews
and the Gypsies, and that Europe needed to be racially purified.
• Within few year, the Nazi rejime began to arrest an imprison Jews in Germany.
• By 1939 when Germany invaded poland, hundreds of thousands of Jews were
already in concentration camps.

110
• Soon thereafter, Nazi officials began secretly exchanging memos on «a final
solution to the Jewish problem.»
• Under the effective management of Adolf Eichmann, a dedicated career
burocrat, Jews throuhout Europe were systematicall rounded up and shipped
concentration camps where they were starved, gassed, or shot.
• By 1945, six million Jews had died, along with many Gypsies, homosexuals and
political dissidents

111
• At the end of the war Eichman fled to Argentina. In 1961, he was captured by
Israeli investigators and stood trial for murder.
• His defence was that he was not responsible for the deats of the Jews because
he had simply been fallowing orders. But the court sentenced him to death.

112
• The vertual annihilation of the European Jewish community couldn’t have
happened without the cooperation of ordinary citizens-bureaucrats, soldiers,
janitors, doctors, railroad workes and so on.
• Why did so many people comply with the Nazi rejime? Did their complience
emerge from pathological characteristics of German people? Or more
frighteningly, did fallowing orders arise out of the normal operation of
everyday social processes, such as simple obedience to authority?

113
Milgram Experiments

• In the 1960s, Stanly Milgram (1963-1974) designed a series of laboratory

experiments to understand the issues involved in obedience to authority.
• Milgram began his research by placing newspaper ads asking for men to
participate in a psychology study.
• The volunteers were scheduled in pairs and were told that the purpose of the
study was to study the effecs of punishment on learning.

114
• One of them was selected by chance as the «lerner» and the other as the
«teacher.»
• The teacher’s job was to read aloud pairs of words that the learner was
supposed to memorize.
• Each time the learner made a mistake, the teacher was to administer a
punishment.
• The teacher sat infront of a large, «impressive» shock machine containing a
long series of levers.

115
• Each lever was labeled with the amount of schock it would deliver.
• The schock range was from 15 to 450 volts. Above the numbers representing
valtage were labels describing the severety of the shock such as «Slight,»
«Extreem Intensity,» and «Danger: Severe Schock.»
• The learner was put in a chair in another room. His arm was strapped down to
the chair and electodes were taped to his arm.

116
• He couldn’t be seen by the teacher or anyone else; they communicated
entirely by intercom.
• Before the testing began, the learner mentioned that he had a slightly weak
heart.
• He was assured by the experimenter tha the schocks were not dangerous.
• Then the experimenter gave the teacher a sample shock, to give him some idea
of what the shocks he woud be delivering felt like.

117
• It was actually fairly severe and hurt considerably but the teacher was told it
was a mild shock.
• During the testing, the learner made a number of errors. Each time, the
teacher told him he was wrong and delivered the shock.
• As the level of shock increased, the learners reactions becaem increasingly
dramatic.

118
• Through all this, the experimenter urged the teacher to continue: «Please
continue,» «The experiment must go on,» «It is necessary for you to continue.»
• The subject was assured that the responsibility was experimenter’s, and not
his.
• In these circumstances, a large number of subjects delivered supposedly
severe electric shocks.

119
• These results are summarized in Table 7-5
• Schock Level % obeying
• Sligt to very strong (0-240vs) 100%
• İntense (255-300vs) 88%
• Extremely intense (315-360vs) 68%
• Danger: Severe shock (375-420vs) 65%
• «XXX» (435-450vs) 65%
• Not: 65% went all the way to 450volts when the teacher and the lerner were in
seperate rooms.

120
• All of the 40 subjects delivered tha 300-volt shock, and 65% continued to the
final 450-volt level.
• They did this even though the person they were shocking screamed for mercy,
had a heart condition, and was apparently experiencing great pain.
• In reality of course, the learner was a confederate, and didn’t receive any
shocks.
• All responses, including errors, yellings, and groans were rehearsed and tape
recorded.

121
• The theacher however didn’t know that the situation was staged. He was the
real subject of the study.
• In a series of 18 studies, Milgram identified conditions that increase or
decrease obedience. Figure 7-2 summarizes his results.
• Situations that made individuals feel more responsible for their own actions, or
that emphasized the suffering of the wictim reduced the amount of obedience.

122
• For example, bringing the wictim closer to the subject substantially reduced
obedience. Obedience was greatest when the wictim was in another room and
could not be heard or could be heard only through intercom.
• Obedience was decreased when the wictim was in the same room, and it
dropped still more when the subject had to touch the wictim to administer tha
shock. Reminding of their responsibility also reduced obedience.

123
• Milgram found that when the experimenter physically in the same room with
the subject obedience was greatest, and decreased whet the experimenter
communicated through intercom from another room or simply left tape
recorded instructions.
• Finally, in other variations of the experiment, subjects administered shoks as
part of a group of teachers (In reality, only one of the teachers was a naive
subject).

124
• When the real subject merele watched as peers administered shocks, 93% of
subjects obeyed all the way to the 450vs.
• In contrast, when two defiant peers (actually confederates) stopped delivering
shocks early in the experiment 90% of subjects also stopped.
• The behavior of peers proved to be a powerful force that could support or defy
the authority of the experiment.

125
• Participants in Milgram studies often experienced considerable stress.
• Some began to sweat; others broke out into nerveous laughter or stuttered.
• They often pleaded with the experimenter to end the study. They experienced
great conflict.
• They felt enormous pressures from the situation and from the experimenter to
continue.

126
• But the subjects were also concerned about the welfare of the wictim and
about their personal responsibility in inflicting pain.
• As long as they could shift responsibility to the experimenter and minimize in
their owna minds the pain the wictim was enduring, obedience was high.
• To the extend they felt personally responsible and were aware of the wictim’s
pain, they were less obedient.

127
• No one anticipated a level of obedience this high. Milgram (1974) decribed this
prosedures in detail to psychiatrists, college students and middle class adults.
Vertually everyone subjects would quickly stop givin shocks once the learner
protested.
• The psychiatrists predicted that most subject wouldn’t go beyond 150vs. when
the wictim firs demanded to be let go, and that only 1 person in 1.000 would
administer the highest shock.

128
• Milgram interpreted his findigns as showing taht «normal» people can be led
to perform destructive acts when exposed to strong situational pressure from a
legitimate authority: «Men who are in everyday life responsibel and decent
were seduced by the trappings of authority and by the uncritical acceptance of
the experimenter’s definition of the situation into performing harsh acts».

129
• Miller (1986) called this «normality thesis»-the idea that the evil acts are not
necessarily performed by abnormal or «crazy» people.
• Rather, average individuals who see themselves as mere agent in an
organization, carrying out the orders of those in command, can behave in
destructive ways.
• Milgram studies are a compelling reminder of the power of social situations to
influence human behavior.

130
• Although the pressures to obey legitimate authorities are strong, individuals do
not inevitably obey. There were people who risked their lives to shelter Jews
from Nazi persecution.
• What enabled these individuals to resist Nazi policies, and more generally, how
can we account for principled resistence to authoritiy?.

131
• Several factors seem to make a difference.
• First obedience is reduced when the suffering of the wictims is highly salient.
• Second, obedience is reduced when an individual is made to feel personally
responsible for his or her actions.
• Third, people are more likely to resist authority when others in the situation
disobey.
• Fourth, encouraging individuals to question teh motives, expertise, or
judgement of authorities can also reduce obedience.

132
The Ethics of Obedience
Research

• Milgram’s research sparked an uprecedented debate about the ethics of

psychological research.
• Diana Baumringd (1964) severely critisized Milgram for exposing participants
to psychological distress, ambarrassment, and loss of dignity.
• She worried that, in the long run, those who participated in Milgram’s
experiment may have suffered a loss of self-esteem.

133
• Milgram (1964) offered a strong defence of his research. He emphasized that
the study was not harmful to the subjects.
• He explained the detailed and thoughtful nature of the explanations given to
participants at the end of the experimental session.
• He also noted that a 1-year follow-up of participants found no evidence of long
term psychological harm.

134
• Milgram also emphasized the value of his research. Neither he nor his
colleagues had expected the high levels of obedience they found, and also
important new information about human behavior was provided.
• Psychological science has whethered the storm created by the Milgram
controversy and has learned a good deal in the process.
• Today, psychologists are more aware of the potential risks of psychological
research.l

135
• Following this controversy, a set of guidelines established in many countries,
for the protection of human research participants.
• It is doubtful that Milgram studies would get aproval today. Baumrind (1964),
among otehers, would see this as a victory.
• Other psychologists, would argue that the iimportant information gained from
the Milgram studies made the ethically justifiable.

136