Interpersonal and Group Processes Flashcards
define social influence
how other people influence our behaviour
3 types of social influence and definitions
- Compliance: change of behaviour in response to a direct request e.g. attending a social event because someone asked you to
- Obedience: change of behaviour in response to a directive from an authority figure e.g. change behaviour in response to a direct order from a police officer, teacher, parent etc
- Conformity: change in behaviour to match the response or actions of others e.g. looking in a specific direction because other people did
Principles of Compliance (Cialdini & Goldstein 2004)
Applied in advertising and sales
- Reciprocity
- Consistency
- Commitment
- Liking
- Authority
norm of reciprocity
the rule that obliges us to repay others for what we have received from them
Examples for the use of the norm of reciprocity in sales: free samples – acceptance of ‘gift’ = social obligation – Door-in-the-face technique
Cialdini et al (1975)
Large request:
We’re currently recruiting university students to work as voluntary, nonpaid counsellors at the County Juvenile Detention Center. The position could require two hours of your time per week for a minimum of two years. You would be working more in the line of a Big Brother (Sister) to one of the boys (girls) at the detention home. Would you be interested in being considered for one of these positions?
Concession:
We’re recruiting university students to chaperone a group of boys (girls) from the County Juvenile Detention Center on a trip to the zoo. It would be voluntary, nonpaid, and would require about two hours of one afternoon or evening. Would you be interested in being considered for one of these positions?
norm of consistency
the rule that obliges us to be consistent in our behaviour
Examples for the use of the norm of consistency in sales: foot-in-the-door technique
Freedman and Frazer (1966)
Small request to house-owners (only for foot-in-the-door groups), attach small label with warning ‘drive safely’
Large request (single contact or 2 weeks after small request), gigantic sign in front of house (different or similar to original request)
norm of commitment
once we make a commitment, we feel pressure to follow through
Examples for the use of commitment in sales: low-balling technique
Cialdini et al. (1979)
Commitment: would you like to particiant in my experiment? Yes or No
Request: it starts at 7am. Yes or No
liking and factors effecting liking
people comply more with requests made by individuals they like
Factors that influence liking:
- Physical attractiveness
- Similarity
- Familiarity
Example from advertisement:
use of well-liked celebrities
authority and obedience
People comply more with requests made by individuals in a position of authority
People are also more likely to obey orders from individuals in authority e.g. police officers, security guards
Example: Milgram and Hofling
Real-world replications of Milgram’s study: the Hofling et al. (1966) hospital study
- On orders given during the telephone call from a bogus physician, nursers were asked to administer 20mg of Astroten
* Non-approved drug
* Dosage twice than that on the label
* Instructions supposed to be given in person
* Unfamiliar doctor
- 21/22 nursers who took the calls were ready to give the injection
explanations for conformity
Informational influence: conformity because we believe others understand the situation better than we do – being influenced by others to produce the ‘correct’ behaviour
Normative influence: conformity in order to be liked and accepted by others – to gain social approval
evidence for conformity: Sherif
Sherif investigated whether it was possible to observe the creation of social norms in the laboratory
- Participants were asked to estimate how far a pinpoint of light moved on the wall of a dark room (autokinetic effect)
- Day 1: participants were alone, answers varied from about 0 inches to about 8 inches
- Day 2: participants were with 3 confederates; after the confederates gave estimates of 1-2 inches, higher estimates decreased, whereas lower estimates increased
- Day 3: participants with 3 confederates; after the others responded 1-2 inches again, answers converged further
- Day 4: participants with 3 confederates; after the others’ responded 1-2 inches again, answered about 2 inches
- Thus norms were created and later used as basis for decisions (frame of reference).
evidence for conformity: Asch
Normative conformity (not informational – why?)
- 75% of participants conformed at least once
- On average: 33% conformity
Variations of the study:
- Response given privately in cubicles: 23% conformity
- When erroneous majority is not unanimous this greatly reduces conformity – if one confederate gives accurate information (the other erroneous) then conformity drops to 5.5%
factors that influence social facilitation/ social inhibition
Presence of others = cockroach maze (Zajonc 1969)
Others as distraction
Evaluation apprehension
define social facilitation
improved task performance in the presence of others
define social inhibition
decreased task performance in the presence of others
define dominant response
the reaction elicited most quickly and easily by a given stimulus
define social loafing
type of motivation loss that occurs when group members’ work is unidentifiable and they work less than they would work individually e.g. they slack off
Latane, Williams and Harkins (1979)
- Sat participant in a group of 6
- Blindfolded participants and had them put on headphones
- Played clapping or cheering over headphones
- Participants asked to clap/ cheer
- IV: Participants thought they were making noise alone or with up to 5 others
- Results: 1/3 less noise when they thought others were also making noise
group schemas
emotional, cognitive and behavioural aspects
Prejudice (emotional): a shared attitude or feeling towards a social outgroup and their members based on group membership. In research: often negative
Stereotypes (cognitive): are generalised beliefs about members of groups
Typical prejudice: race, ethnicity, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, mental/physical health
Discrimination (behavioural): not all prejudice translates to behaviour, but when it does, then this behaviour is called discrimination
linguistic intergroup bias (Maass 1999)
- Tendency to use concrete, specific language describing positive outgroup characteristics and negative ingroup characteristics
- Tendency to use more general and abstract terms related to enduring traits in regards to negative outgroup characteristics and positive ingroup characteristics
cognitive processes in prejudice
illusory correlations
illusion of out-group homogeneity
illusory correlations
perception of a relation between two distinctive elements that does not exist or is exaggerated
Example: belief that people from NY are rude
Caused by tendency to focus on confirmatory evidence i.e. focus on cases of rude New Yorkers as evidence; cases of polite New Yorkers are ignored – confirmatory bias
Conspiracy theories: attend to evidence in favour of conspiracy, ignore anything that is inconsistent with it
illusion of out-group homogeneity
tendency to perceive members of the outgroup as more similar to each other than members of the ingroup
Example: women might see men (outgroup) as ‘all the same’ and vice versa
can prejudice be reduced?
Contact hypothesis: contact with people of outgroup (communication, interaction) should reduce prejudice
- However: anxiety, self-fulfilling prophecy, power differential, length of contact can all work against the contact hypothesis
- When it does work out it can lead to:
o Decategorisation: seeing the other as an individual rather than as a member of the outgroup – attention is on individual characteristics rather than group characteristics
o Recategorization: instead of ingroup vs outgroup, the focus is on common membership in a superordinate group e.g. ‘we’re all British’ instead of ‘I’m Scottish and you’re English’
define bystander effect and give an example
Bystander effect is the tendency for a bystander to be less likely to help in an emergency is there are other onlookers present
Case: Kitty Genovese
- She was raped and stabbed to death in 1964 in Queens
- 37 neighbours saw/ heard her screams for help
- 0 people called the police, assuming someone else would do so
Latane and Darley (1968)
Participants were told they would discuss ‘problems faced by students in a high pressure urban environment’
- Discussion over intercoms
- Experimenter left room
Participants believed they were going to have discussion alone, with one, or with four other people
Shortly after discussion began, one of the other ‘participants’ on the intercom began to choke and appeared to be having an epileptic seizure
- Would the participant leave the room to seek help?
- How long would it take?
principles that can prevent helping
Pluralistic ignorance: a majority of group members privately reject a belief, but incorrectly assume that most others accept it, and therefore go along with it – ‘no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes’
Education: not asking questions in class because person believes they are the only one who doesn’t understand or that asking questions is improper
Helping: ‘everyone else understands what is really going on here, that is why no one is doing anything’
diffusion of responsibility
- Tendency for each group member to dilute personal responsibility for acting by spreading it among all other group members
- For example, bystanders to an emergency may assume someone else will call the police
