2 Social proof Flashcards
CH4
Principle of social proof
we determine what is correct by finding out what other people think is correct (Lun)
We view a behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it
CH4
Albert Bandura and phobias
Albert Bandura:
showed how people suffering from phobias can be rid of these extreme fears in an amazingly simple fashion
EXAMPLES:
-67 % of children were willing to climb into a playpen with a dog after watching other children play with a dog
-2.study: film clips had the same impact
Ch4
Robert O´Conner
socially withdrawn children
- after watching a film of children playing
- isolates immediately began interacting with their peers at a level equal to “normal” children
- 6 weeks later: those who had viewed it were leading their school in amount of social activity
CH4
Festinger, Riecken, Schachter On Cults
-after failed apocalypse phrophecy -> cultists become strenghtened in their believes
-preparations during the weeks prior to armageddon:
1.level of commitment to cult´s believe system is very high
2. Form of inactivity: distaste for recruitment efforts, no interest in the media
-after failed judgment-day:
intense spreading of the word, new recruits
WHY?
-It was the dawning realization that if the predictions were wrong, so might be the entire belief system on
which they rested
-members had given up too much - they HAD to believe
-if they could win new converts, their threatened
but treasured beliefs would become truer
-The greater the number of people who find any idea correct, the more a given individual will perceive the idea to be correct
-since the physical evidence could not be changed, the social evidence had to be.
CH4
Uncertainty
-when we are unsure of ourselves, when the situation is unclear or ambiguous,
when uncertainty reigns, we are most likely to look to and accept the actions of others as correct
-uncertainly develops is through lack of familiarity with a situation
-EX: Sylvan Goldman and his invention: the shopping cart
CH4
Pluralistic ignorance
DEF: (incorrect) belief that one’s personal attitudes are different from the majorities’ attitudes, and thus one goes along with what they think others think
- tendency for everyone to be looking to see what everyone else is doing
- can lead to Bystander effect
- EX: Catherine Genovese
CH4
The Bystander Effect
-With several potential helpers around, the personal responsibility of each individual is reduced
-In times of such uncertainty, the natural tendency
is to look around at the actions of others for clues
around us.
-everyone is likely to
see everyone else looking unruffled and failing to act -> failure to interpret situation as an emergency, because nobody is acting as if it was one
Ch4
The Bystander effect
Part 2
-a better chance of survival if a single bystander
-the importance of social proof in causing widespread
witness “apathy”
-(A. S. Ross, 1971), single bystanders provided emergency aid 90 percent of the time, whereas such aid occurred in only 16 percent of the cases when a bystander was in the presence of two passive bystanders
-once witnesses are convinced that an emergency situation
exists, aid is very likely
-the pluralistic ignorance effect is strongest among strangers
Ch4
Bystander effect
Rural area VS city
All the conditions that decrease an emergency victim’s chances for bystander aid exist
normally and innocently in the city, in contrast to rural areas:
1. Cities are more clamorous, distracting, rapidly changing places where it is difficult
to be certain of the nature of the events one encounters.
2. Urban environments are more populous; consequently, people are more likely
to be with others when witnessing a potential emergency situation
3. City dwellers know a much smaller percentage of fellow residents than do people
who live in small towns; therefore, city dwellers are more likely to find
themselves in a group of strangers when observing an emergency
CH4
Decreasing the Bystander effect
- the best strategy when in need of emergency help is to reduce the uncertainties of those around you concerning your condition and their responsibilities
- Be as precise as possible about your need for aid.
CH4
Phillips
Social proof and Suicides
-We will use the actions of others to decide on proper behavior for ourselves,
ESPECIALLY when we view those others to be similar to ourselves
SUICDES:
-publicized suicide -> increase in car accidents
-The same social conditions that cause some people to commit suicide cause others to die accidentally
-a “bereavement” account:
highly publicized deaths throw many people into states of shocked
sadness
-Upon learning of another’s suicide, an uncomfortably large number of people decide that suicide is an appropriate action for themselves (obvious suicides, car accidents)
SO:
-Victims of fatal car wrecks that follow front-page suicide stories die four times more
quickly than normal
-copycat deaths, then the
imitators should be most likely to copy the suicides of people who are similar to
them
-When the newspaper detailed the suicide of a young person, it was young
drivers who then piled their cars into trees, poles, and embankments (principle of social proof)
-distressing tendency for suicide publicity to
motivate certain people who are similar to the victim to kill themselves
=> social proof
Ch4
Phillips
Social Proof and Homicides
-widely publicized aggression (Fights/Boxing, Report on homicide)
has the nasty tendency to spread to similar victims, no matter whether the
aggression is inflicted on the self or on another.
=> social proof (asserts
that people, especially when they are unsure of themselves, follow the lead of similar others)
CH4
Jonestown
-total alienation from the
rest of the world in a jungle situation in a hostile country
HOW? -social proof
1. initial set of their
compatriots, who quickly and willingly took the poison
2. source of social evidence came from the reactions of the crowd itself
-the most influential leaders are those who know how to arrange group conditions to
allow the principle of social proof to work in their favor
Ch4
Summary
-The principle of social proof states that one important means that people use
to decide what to believe or how to act in a situation is to look at what other
people are believing or doing there
-social proof can be used to stimulate a person’s compliance with a request by informing the
person about the actions of others
-Social proof is most influential under two conditions:
1. uncertainty
2. similarity
-Recommendations to reduce our susceptibility to faulty social proof include a
sensitivity to clearly counterfeit evidence of what similar others are doing and
a recognition that the actions of similar others should not form the sole basis
for our decisions
Ch4
Questions
1.Describe the principle of social proof and how it can explain the effect of canned
laughter on an audience’s reaction to comedy material.
2. In the Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter study of the end-of-the-world cult, group
members pushed to win new converts only after their doomsday predictions proved
false. Why?
3. Which two factors maximize the influence of social proof on an individual? What was
it about the Jonestown, Guyana, situation that allowed these two factors to operate
forcefully?
4. What is pluralistic ignorance? How does it influence bystander intervention in emergencies?
5. Which naturally occurring conditions of city life reduce the chance of bystander intervention in an emergency?
6. What is the Werther effect? How does it explain the puzzling relationship between
highly publicized suicide stories and startling increases in the number of airplane and automobile fatalities following publication of the stories?
Vid 1
Intro to Social Proof
- Sherrif experiments on conformity (uncertainty - follow the rest)
- Ash´s experiments (we are influenced even when it goes against our own judgments)
WHAT are the processes behind this?
1. Normative social influence:
We act in line with others because we want to be liked (we tend to like people that are similar to us)
2. Informational Social Influence:
you want to be effective in behavior, correct in judgements - often the beh/judgments of others is the most correct/most adaptive
=> social norms?
Vid 2
Social Norms
- based/routed in the work on conformity
- DEF social norms: what guides/steers behavior in society, commonly observed behavior, approved/disproved, powerful influence?
- collective cultures: influenced more by norms
-conflicting evidence on why they are sometimes so influential and sometimes not:
CIALDINI: one must distinguish between 2 types of norms:
- Injunctive norm: the behavior perceived to be commonly (dis)approved, differ in cultures, differ in settings, uses rewards/social sanctions
- Descriptive Norm: The behavior perceived common, does not influence behavior via rewards/ punishments, tells you what the most adaptive behavior is
- EXAMPLE: Litter experiment - people litter more in a prelittered setting - injunctive and descriptive norms can be conflicting
Vid 2
What determines behavior?
Cialdini:
-salience: the extent to which the type of social norm is in your attention span -> the norm that is most salient will determine behavior
Vid 2
Theory of normative conduct
Salience (Cialdini)
THEORY OF NORMATIVE CONDUCT (Cialdini)
- the importance of:
- the distinction between injunctive and descriptive
- Salience (how focused)
EXPERIMENT 1
increasing descriptive norms -confederate litters in the littered environment -> increased littering
-confederate litters in a clean setting -> decrease in littering
=> in clean env: confederate shows that NO ONE else is littering - focus on descriptive norm
=> descriptive norms ARE NOT modeling -> different processes
=> role of salience
EXPERIMENT 2 relationship between the number of trash and the likelihood of littering -0 trash - 18% litter -1 trash - 10% -2 trash - 20 % - and rising ->making descriptive norms more salient
EXPERIMENT 3
People are less likely to litter in a fully littered environment
- wind blew it into pile- seemed as if somebody was cleaning-> focused on injunctive norm
- confederate picking up trash -> focus on injunctive norm - fewer people litter
=> power of the injunctive and descriptive norms
Vid 2
Summary
- distinguish between injunctive and descriptive norms, can be conflicting
- salience
Vid 3
How to use Social Norms
Example 1
- Hotel room: Reusing Towels
- Most effective: “Join your fellow citizens in helping to save the environment” -focus on descriptive norm
Example 2
- Curbside recycling
- “Neighbours are recycling” -focus on the descriptive norm, most effective
Example 3
- Energy use
- “Join your neighbors in reducing energy” - focus on the descriptive norm, most effective was to show that neighbors were using less energy compared to you
- even though social proof is very influential, we do not acknowledge/notice it, “invisible”, we don’t see it as a cause
Vid 3
How to NOT use social norms
Example 1
- Petrified Forest
- everybody does steals wood: focus on descriptive norms, not very effective -people were taking more
- focusing on the injunctive norm was better
Example 2
- Binge drinking
- shows how common binge drinking is - the opposite effect -focused on descriptive norms
- moderate drinkers increased intake to “catch up”
- extreme drinkers decreased
Vid 4
Experiment by Sherif
on Conformity - then social norms
Sherif (1936)
- shows how social norms develop over time
- How much does the light move?
- Stage 1: Participants viewed the light alone, then estimated light movement
- Stage 2: Participants viewed light with others, then estimated
- Being seated together- social norm developed- one opinion formed over time -people adapt beh/opinion to others
- REASON: provided by Ash
Vid 5
Experiment by Asch
on Conformity
Experiment: comparing lines, 1 subject, 5 confederates: false answer, 32% conform
- Variations:
1. Conformity highest, when faced with unity - one confederate states another opinion-conformity is broken- only 8% comply
2. Writing answer down - decreases conformity
3. Group size - large group- higher conformity
WHY?
- Normative social influence (wanna be liked)
- Informational social influence (wanna be right)
Example: Smoke filled room
Vid 6
Social Influence and eyewitness testimony
Research by E. Brimacombe
-Instability in Memory
-Car Study: Hit or smash car accident, 1-word difference
-Often confidence in memory is mistaken for truth/accuracy
-confidence is disruptable due to social influence
-Her Study: thief, lineup did not include picture of thief, difference in confidence level due to comment made after decision: high confidence due to comment that others had made the same choice
-rising confidence: rebuilding of memory, memory feels sharper, more accurate
-Antidote:
Her study, witnesses (Crime video) or investigators (line-up briefing), investigators stay silent
-difference some investigators believe they´re accurate others believe they are not
-> investigators beliefs are constructing/creating witnesses credibility
=>memory is influenced by social influence
