Exam 3 Flashcards
Exam April 11
Social Influence
Use of social power to change the behavior or attitudes of others in a particular direction
Conformity
Change in behavior or attitude as a result of real or imagined social influence
3 Types of Conformity
1. Acceptance: publicly conform privately agree 2. Compliance: publicly conform privately disagree 3. Obedience: conform to command
Norms
Rules for accepted or expected behavior.
Autokinetic Effect Study
Estimate how far point of light moved in dark room
After many trials, individual’s estimates converged
Repeated procedure in a group situation
Retained group norm when tested alone later
EXAMPLE OF: Acceptance. Publicly conformed and privately agreed.
Informational social influence
Used others’ estimates
to guide own estimates
The Line Study
A control group (who did study alone) almost always gave correct answer. When group gave wrong answer, subject went along with the group.
EXAMPLE OF: Compliance. Publicly conformed but privately disagreed
Normative social influence
Conformed to be accepted by group
Johnny Rocco Case
Participants rated who they wanted to leave the group, most wanted the deviate to go the most.
2 Forms of Reciprocation
1) Repayment
2) Concessions
Christmas Card Study
(Phil Kunz) Sent Christmas cards to strangers and over 20% returned a card, most had notes/letters and only 6 said they could not remember them.
3 Reasons for Repayment
- Obligation – gift/favor causes people to feel obligated
- Guilt– People feel guilty if they do not reciprocate the gift/favor
- Evolutionary adaptive–
Foot in the door technique
Two step procedure:
Large request (get No!) Smaller request (get Yes!)
Compliance with small request
increases chance of compliance
with larger request later
Door-in-the-Face Technique (AKA factors that reduce foot in the door effectiveness)
- Initial request too extreme
- Request for selfish purposes
- Delay between 1st and 2nd request
That’s not all technique
Two step strategy:
Inflated request
Offer discount or bonus
Commitment and Consistency (Cognitive Dissonance)
Feeling of anxiety or tension
Arises when behaviors are not equal to our attitudes
Commitment and consistency Resturant example
“Please call if you have to change your plans.”
30% no show rate
“Will you please call if you have to change your plans?”
10% no show rate
Beach Towel Study
When asked to watch subjects things, people were more likely to intervene when a thief came by
American Cancer Society Study
“even a penny would help” Experimental group- the small amount attached makes it seem like such a small amount, who couldn’t donate? Raised more money in the end.
Commitments “grow their own legs”
People add reasons and justifications to support the commitments they have made.
EXAMPLE: Joe millionaire
Low Ball Technique
Costs concealed until commitment is made
EXAMPLE: car dealers
Quit smoking study
Smokers asked to complete survey, After committing, told “no smoking”
85% showed up because they committed already. 12% only complied when they were told about the no smoking first.
Why does commitment and consistency work?
Consistency is valued
Consistency saves mental resources
Factors that affect commitment and consistency:
We feel more invested if:
- voluntary
- public
- more effort
- actively made commitment
Social Proof
Determine correct behavior by
seeing what others are doing.
Social Proof- Looking up Milgram experiment
1 confederate looking up - 45%
15 looking up- 85%
Social Proof:Craig & Prkachin (1978)
- Administered shock to participant
- Asked participant how painful shock was
- Took physiological measures of pain
Participants felt less shock on both pain indices if they were in the presence of another participant who was apparently experiencing little or no pain
Why Does Social Proof Promote Conformity?
- People make fewer errors when they “follow the crowd”
2. Following the crowd is easier – takes less mental effort
Copycat SuicidesSchmidtke & Hafter (1988)
Copy cat suicides called the Werther Effect
Examined # of suicides following broadcast of FICTIONAL TV show
TV show lasted 6 weeks
Depicted 19 yr. old male who committed suicide by leaping in front of a train
Following the series, railway suicides increased substantially
This increase was greatest for males who were same age as TV character
Scarcity
- People value things that are less available
- Scarcity creates potential for loss.
- Fear of loss more important than
possibility of gain
EXAMPLE: Tickle me elmo
Strategies Derived from Scarcity Principle
- Limited Numbers:
Customer told that a particular product is in short supply
2. Time Limits:
Customer told that there is a deadline to the sale of a product
Reactance and Toy PreferenceBrehm & Weintraub (1977)
Toddlers put in room with attractive toys
One toy behind a Plexiglas sheet that was: 1 foot high (no barrier) 2 feet high (barrier) Toddlers made contact with toy behind the barrier 3 times faster
Reactance and Teen LoveDriscoll, Davis, & Lipetz (1972)
The more parents objected to their teens’ relationship, the more in love the couples said they were, and the more the couples wanted to get married.
The couples’ love increased as parental interference increased and decreased as parental interference decreased
Factors that Influence Effectiveness of Scarcity
- New scarcity
- Competition for scarce resources
People are more likely to want a
scarce item that they are competing for
Cookie StudyWorchel, Lee, & Adewole (1975)
Showed people a jar of cookies
Jar had either: 10 cookies in it 2 cookies in it People rated cookies as more desirable, more attractive, & more expensive when there were only 2 in the jar. They were the SAME cookies!
Authority
People comply with requests more when requester is in a position of authority
Obedience Study - Milgram
Milgram’s participants obeyed because of the experimenter’s authority, and not because of abnormal psychological problems
Why Do People Obey Authority?
- Socialization practices (taught from a young age that obedience is the correct way to behave)
- Heuristic (for knowledge and wisdom
Symbols authority
- Title
- Clothes
- Trappings
Doctor’s OrdersHofling et al. (1966)
Researcher called nurses’ stations
Identified self as physician
Directed nurse to give drug to patient (95% OBEYED!)
Symbols of Authority: ClothesBickman (1974)
Parking meter, dime for parking, more people gave money when the person who needed the dime was wearing a uniform
Horn Honking StudyDoob & Gross (1968)
Researcher to either a luxury car or economy car, measured how many people were annoyed an honked. Luxury got less of a response.
Factors that influence liking
- physical attractiveness
- similarity
- praise
- familiarity
- mere association
Liking
People prefer to comply with requests
made by individuals who they like
Why Attractiveness Works
Halo Effect:
One very positive trait possessed by a person influences the total judgment of that person.
Attractiveness is one such very positive trait
Devil Effect:
One very negative trait possessed by a person influences the total judgment of that person.
Attractiveness Stewart (1980)
same exact story and everything except the attractiveness
o Attractive victim- unattractive defendant
Victim awarded $10,051
o Unattractive victim- attractive defendant
Victim awarded $5,623
o 1. Evaluated attractiveness of 74 male defendants prior to trail
o 2. Followed the defendants to find out their trait outcomes
o Results: Unattractive defendants were two times more likely to get a jail sentence than attractive defendants
AttractivenessKurtzburg, Safar, & Cavior (1968)
o Jail inmates: all with facial disfigurements
o Some got plastic surgery, some didn’t
o Some got counseling, some didn’t
o Results were that inmates who had the plastic surgery were significantly LESS likely to return to jail regardless of whether they had counseling or not.
Joe Girard: World’s Greatest Salesperson
o Averaged 5 cars sold per day
o $200,000 per year
o What did he do? Send post cards that said “I like you –Joe” to the people who he sold cars too. He was building a customer base.
Familiarity Mita, Dermer, & Knight (1977)
A person is more familiar
with mirror image
Person’s friends more familiar
with the person’s true image
Defenses Against Liking
Be suspicious if you really like someone you haven’t known very long.
Mentally separate the requester from the request
“Would I buy this product if
someone else were selling it to me?”
Physically separate the requester from the request, if possible
“I’ll have to think it over”
Romantic relationships involve 4 fixed stages:
Stage 1: Proximity Filter (pool of eligible mates)
Stage 2: Stimulus Filter (relationship based on external attributes)
Stage 3: Value Filter (relationship based on a shared value and belief system)
Stage 4: Role Filter (relationship based on successful fulfillment of one’s roles)
Social Exchange Theory
Based on the Max-Min principle
Outcome = Rewards - Costs
Self-Disclosure
Reveal intimate aspects
of self to another
Social Penetration Theory
- Relationships progress from superficial exchanges to more intimate ones.
- Specific stages of relationships are characterized by specific patterns of self-disclosure
Love in the Lab
. Two strangers put in a room together for 90 minutes during which time they exchange intimate information
- They stare into each others’ eyes for 2 min. without talking
- “Tell the other person what you like about him/her”
- Participants leave by separate doors
Group
Two or more people who interact for more than a few moments, feel like a group, and who influence each other via interdependent goals/needs.
Aggregate
A collection of people who are in the presence of one another, but do not typically interact for more than a few moments and who do not feel like a group. Independent goals/needs.
Sorority StudyCrandall (1988)
Bulimia binge eating and purging within sororities on the campus where he taught. Identified freshmen to these group, followed students in both sororities. Girls who conformed with the norm for her sorority was rated more popular.
Group Norms
Expected behavior of all
group members
Social Roles
Expected behavior of
particular members
Effects on behavior
- Similarity
- Performance
- Deindividuation
Ant StudyChen (1937)
The ants took longer to begin when they worked alone
The ants moved more soil when they worked in groups
Cockroach StudyGates & Allee (1933)
The presence of others (a) improved running times in the simple maze but (b) worsened running times in the difficult maze
Social Facilitation Effect
The presence of others improves performance on simple tasks but worsens performance on difficult tasks
Factors that influence deindividuation
- Group size (large)
- Accountability (low)
- Anonymity (anonymous)
Social Exchange Theory
Based on the Max-Min principle
Outcome = Rewards - Costs
Self-Disclosure
Reveal intimate aspects
of self to another
Social Penetration Theory
- Relationships progress from superficial exchanges to more intimate ones.
- Specific stages of relationships are characterized by specific patterns of self-disclosure
Love in the Lab
. Two strangers put in a room together for 90 minutes during which time they exchange intimate information
- They stare into each others’ eyes for 2 min. without talking
- “Tell the other person what you like about him/her”
- Participants leave by separate doors
Group
Two or more people who interact for more than a few moments, feel like a group, and who influence each other via interdependent goals/needs.
Aggregate
A collection of people who are in the presence of one another, but do not typically interact for more than a few moments and who do not feel like a group. Independent goals/needs.
Sorority StudyCrandall (1988)
Bulimia binge eating and purging within sororities on the campus where he taught. Identified freshmen to these group, followed students in both sororities. Girls who conformed with the norm for her sorority was rated more popular.
Group Norms
Expected behavior of all
group members
Social Roles
Expected behavior of
particular members
Effects on behavior
- Similarity
- Performance
- Deindividuation
Ant StudyChen (1937)
The ants took longer to begin when they worked alone
The ants moved more soil when they worked in groups
Cockroach StudyGates & Allee (1933)
The presence of others (a) improved running times in the simple maze but (b) worsened running times in the difficult maze
Social Facilitation Effect
The presence of others improves performance on simple tasks but worsens performance on difficult tasks
Factors that influence deindividuation
- Group size (large)
- Accountability (low)
- Anonymity (anonymous)
Conflict
Belief that one’s behaviors/goals
are not compatible
with the behaviors/goals
of others
Factors that Influence Conflict
- Social Dilemmas
2. Competition
Social Dilemmas
Conflict between
self-interests and group interests
Prisoner’s Dilemma
Confess/Does not confess- if both do not confess, everyone wins, gets one year. if both confess, each get 5 years. one confesses (gets 0 years) and one does not confess (gets 10 years)
EXAMPLE OF: social dilemma
When faced with a social dilemma…
- each party personally better off when they act selfishly
- both parties worse off as a group when they act selfishly
- as a group, the parties would have been better off if they had acted unselfishly
Peacemaking
- mere exposure
2. cooperation
The Contact Hypothesis - created by
GORDON ALLPORT
Contact between
members of different
groups lessens conflict
Jigsaw Classroom
kids of mixed gender and ethic groups “experts” on different pets, kids all depended on other kids to learn the material, found that after this experience, people had much more positive attitudes against each other and many became close friends
