week 5

Question 1

Social influence

Answer 1

The process whereby people directly or indirectly affect each other’s thoughts, feelings and actions

Question 2

incidental influence

Answer 2

• Social facilitation

- Social norms

Question 3

deliberate influence

Answer 3

• Inducing compliance
• Influence of majorities
• Influence of minorities
• Obedience to authority

Question 4

Social Facilitation

Answer 4

The effect of others on our behaviour

cyclists were faster in a group then individually

Question 5

Social inhibition

Answer 5

decreased performance with audience in novel tasks

Question 6

Zajonc (1965): Drive Theory

Answer 6

-The mere presence of others influences our behavior
-Increases arousal (extra energy)
-Facilitates dominant responses, inhibits non-dominant responses:
Improved performance on simple/routine/well-learnt tasks
Decreased performance on complex/novel tasks

Question 7

Social Norms

Answer 7

Shared belief systems about how we should (and should not) think, feel and act

Question 8

Autokinetic effect

Answer 8

an optical illusion

Question 9

An example of norm development Muzafer Sherif

Answer 9

we use others as frame of reference particularly when in uncertain and unstable situations

Question 10

norm development experiment Sherif

Answer 10

-Judge how many inches the dots move (about 100 judgements)
-3 times (conditions):
Alone
Then in groups of two or three
Alone again

First there were huge differences, then with group work the results were closer together and when alone they were almost identical

why? Uncertainty, ambiguity of task, look at others to interpret

Question 11

Social Norms (2)

Answer 11

descriptive norm

injunctive norm

Question 12

descriptive norms

Answer 12

how others (will) act in similar situations/
what is typical

Question 13

injunctive norms

Answer 13

what behaviour should be performed/what is desired

Question 14

Broken Windows Theory:

Answer 14

Signs of disorderly and petty criminal behaviour trigger more disorderly and petty criminal behaviour

Question 15

The spreading of disorder: Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg

study 1

Answer 15

No conflict condition: No- graffiti sign (injunctive norm) and no graffiti on the walls (descriptive norm)

Conflict Condition: No- graffiti sign and graffiti on the walls

Dependent Variable: How many people will throw the fake flyer on the ground (no litter bins around) in each condition?

Cialdini effect
50% more was littered with the graffiti

Question 16

cialdini effect

Answer 16

descriptive norm inhibits the injunctive norm

Question 17

The spreading of disorder: Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg

study 5&6

Answer 17

Studies 5 & 6: stealing
Envelope, visibly containing a €5 note, hanging out of a mailbox

No conflict condition: mailbox - not covered with graffiti and ground around the mailbox - clean.

Conflict conditions:
Mailbox covered with graffiti without litter on the ground
No graffiti on the mailbox, but space around it - littered

with graffiti and litter more people who steal the envelope

Question 18

inducing compliance

Answer 18

the target of influence goes along with the request from influence source

Giving in to a request

Question 19

inducing compliance techniques

Answer 19

Door-in-the-face
Foot-in-the-door
Lowballing

Question 20

Door-in-the-face (or mutual concessions) technique

Answer 20

Requester begins with an extreme request that is almost always refused

Then retreats to a more moderate request which is what s/he had in mind all along

Target of influence: likely to make a concession too

Question 21

door in the face: blood donors

Answer 21

Condition 1: Request for blood donations for a year, followed by one-off blood donation request
Condition 2: Request for one-off blood donation

with condition 1 there were 20% more people who were willing to do a one-off blood donation request

Question 22

Foot-in-the-door technique

Answer 22

The reverse of the door-in-the-face:
First request is small – almost
certain not to be refuted
can i lend 50 cents?

Second request is bigger – can’t be refuted
I’m actually 2 Euro short…

Question 23

why does foot in the door work?

Answer 23

• Need to be consistent with our previous behaviour

- Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972): we infer who we are by what we do

Question 24

Lowballing

Answer 24

Target of influence complies to the initial request
This request is followed by a more costly and less beneficial version of the same request

e.g. price for a car agreed, then salesman goes back on the deal with a good reason for which the car is no longer available at the initial prize

Question 25

why does lowballing work?

Answer 25

need to be consistent with our previous behavior as well as commitments

Question 26

Asch’s experiment

Answer 26

Conformity to group opinions:
› 75% sometimes followed the group
› 36% always followed the group
› The larger the group, the more conformity (up to a point)

(group of actors with one subject, line needs to match line other picture)

Question 27

Majority Influence

Answer 27

There is safety in numbers!
Also called the social-proof heuristic

If the majority is saying/doing it, it must be right/the right the thing to do.

Question 28

Minority dissent

Answer 28

can shape majority opinion

Question 29

Characteristics of Minorities

Answer 29

• are distinctive
• can challenge dominant majority view
• can create conflict within majority
• offer new and different perspective

Question 30

Minority Influence

Answer 30

Moscovici (1976):

• The individual often conforms to the majority, especially in public situations
• But the minority can still exert an influence, especially on private thoughts

conversion theory

Question 31

Conversion theory

Answer 31

we react differently when we notice we are different from the majority vs. minority

Majority: comparison with self and group - “Am I doing it right?”

Minority: validation of others - “Why are they different?”

Question 32

Minority Influence

Moscovici study: Reversing Asch

Answer 32

6 group members (two were confedetates)
Participants controlled for vision and then projected a series of 36 slides all of which are clearly blue but vary in intensity

Condition A: confederates consistently say slides are green (high-consistency)

Condition B: confederates say that 24 slides are green and 12 are blue (low-consistency)

Control condition: no confederates

in condition B a couple of times the participants said green
in condition A a lot of times participants said green
in Control condition they almost didnt

Consistency of minority is of superior importance in affecting judgments

Question 33

The Dual Process Model (Moscovici) - majority

Answer 33

• Engages in social comparison
• Focus of attention are heuristics (number of others), not the argument -> convergent thinking
• Why? Disagreement with majority = stress = narrowing attention -> public compliance

Question 34

The Dual Process Model (Moscovici) - minority

Answer 34

• Engages in validation
• Focus of attention is the argument’s content ->divergent thinking
• Why? Disagreement with persistent minority= scrutiny and open mind -> private, not public, conversion (and not compliance)

Question 35

trial of adolf eichmann

Answer 35

“Only following orders”

› How can an individual be socially influenced to engage in antisocial acts?

› Obedience to authority

Question 36

obedience to authority

Answer 36

Complying with order from a person of higher social status within a defined hierarchy or chain of command

Question 37

Milgram Which factors made it more likely
that participants went so far
in their shock administration?

Answer 37

• Closeness to victim (in the same room vs. different rooms)
• Immediacy of authority figure
• Legitimacy (e.g. wearing a lab coat)
• Escalation of commitment - gradual increments (like foot-in-the-door)