2 Psych 160 - 6

Front 1

autokinetic illusion

Back 1

• the apparent motion of a stationary point of light in a completely darkened environment
o study (Sherif): everyone's individual judgments quickly fused into a group norm, and the norm influenced how far the light was seen to move
Muzafer Sherif was interested in how groups influence the behavior of
individuals by shaping how reality is perceived. He noted that even our
most basic perceptions are not direct, but are influenced by prevailing
frames or reference. Sherif designed an experiment to examine the
circumstances in which other people serve as a social frame of reference.
His experiment was built around the autokinetic illusion. The phenomenon
stems from the fact that with complete darkness there are no other stimuli
to anchor one’s sense of the light’s location. Sherif thought that other
people might fill in the void and serve as a frame of reference against
which one’s perceptions of the light’s movement would be assessed.

*Sherif put individual participants in a darkened room, presented them
with a stationary point of light on trial after trial, and had them
estimate how far it “moved” each time. He found that some people thought,
on average, it moved very little in each trial, and others thought it
moved a good deal more. After, Sherif brought several participants into
the room together and had them call out their estimates for each to hear.
He found that people’s estimates tended to converge over time. Those who
individually had thought the light had moved a fair amount soon lowered
their estimates, and those who thought it moved very little increased
their estimates. Sherif argued that everyone’s judgments quickly fused
into a group norm, and the norm influenced how far the light was seen to
move. His interpretation was reinforced by a follow-up experiment that
found that when participants were brought back for individual testing up
to a year later, their judgments still showed the influence of their
groups earlier responses. The behavior of Sherif’s participants is
typically interpreted as the result of informational social influence
(below).

Front 2

chameleon effect

Back 2

• the non-conscious mimicry of the expressions, mannerisms, movements, and other behaviors of those with whom one is interacting
o study: undergrads at NYU were asked to describe various photographs from popular magazines along w/ another participant (confederate). As predicted, the participants tended to mimic (or conform to) the behavior exhibited by the confederate. they shook their feet more often in the presence of a foot-shaking confederate and rubbed their face more often when in the presence of a face-rubbing confederate
o peeps tend to like those who mimic them more
o peeps who have been mimicked tend to engage in more prosocial behavior immediately afterwards

Front 3

compliance

Back 3

• responding favorably to an explicit request by another person

Front 4

conformity

Back 4

• changing one's behavior or beliefs in response to explicit or implicit (whether real or imagined) pressure from others

Front 5

obedience

Back 5

• social influence in which the less powerful person in an unequal power relationship submits to the demands of the more powerful person

Front 6

Foot-in-the-Door technique

Back 6

• A compliance technique in which one makes an initial small request to which nearly everyone complies, followed by a larger request involving the real behavior of interest
o Study (freedman & Fraser) – people were more likely to display the large billboard on their lawn (76%) when they were previously asked a much smaller request—to display in a window of their home a small sign.
o Legitimizing the tiniest contribution – charities who say “even a penny would help” invalidates the thought “I don’t have enough money to give”—research shows that such “even a penny” appeals substantially increase the percentage of individuals who donate, but do not lower the amount that is typically given

Front 7

Door-in-the-face technique (reciprocal concessions technique)

Back 7

• Asking someone for a very large favor that he or she will certainly refuse, and then following that request with one for a more modest favor (that tends to be seen as concession that the target will feel compelled to honor)
o Study (cialdini) – a field study in which students were approached on the Arizona State Univ campus by members of Cialdini’s research team posing as reps of the “county youth counseling program” and asked if they would be willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo. 83% refused. Those who were first asked whether they would be willing to counsel juvenile delinquents for 2hrs/wk for a min of the next 2 years. All refused, at which point they were asked about chaperoning the trip to the zoo. Now 50% of the students agreed to chaperone—triple the rate of the other group.
o Study (harari) – professors were asked if they would be willing to meet for “15 to 20 minutes” to discuss a topic of interest to a student. When faced with this request by itself, 57% agreed. Yet 78% agreed to the request when it was preceded by another request—to spend 2 h ours a week for the rest of the semester with the student.

Front 8

ideomotor action

Back 8

• the phenomenon whereby merely thinking about a behavior makes its actual performance more likely
o - ex: merely thinking about eating a bowl of Haagen Dazs ice cream makes it more likely that we will actually open the freezer, take out the ice cream, and indulge

Front 9

That’s-not-all technique

Back 9

• Adding something to an original offer, which is likely to create some pressure to reciprocate
o Study (burger) – at an arts fair on Santa Clara Univ campus, individuals who approached the booth of the Psychology Club bake sale were told that the cupcakes on display cost 75 cents each. Before the potential customers could respond, half of them were also told that the price included 2 medium-sized cookies. this nearly doubled sales from 40 to 73%

Front 10

informational social influence

Back 10

• the influence of other people that results from taking their comments or actions as a source of information as to what is correct, proper, or efficacious
o ex: the behavior of Sherif's participants
o the tendency to use others as a source of info is particularly pronounced when we are uncertain of the right answer
o Sherif's task is as ambiguous as it gets, so informational social influence is at its peak

Front 11

normative social influence

Back 11

• the influence of other people that comes from the desire to avoid their disapproval, harsh judgments, and other social sanctions (ie barbs, ostracism) (aka avoid standing out negatively in the eyes of everyone else)
o study (Asch): individuals in a group had to compare test lines to a target line and say publicly which line was the same length as the target line. To avoid the disapproval of the group, many participants conformed to the judgments of the majority rather than expressing their own judgment.
o Study (Ross et al.) – replicated Asch’s results in one experiment and adding another condition in which participants COULD explain to themselves why their own judgments differed from those of the majority. Participants asked to judge the duration of tones. Results: participants in the asch-like condition called out the incorrect response (that is, they conformed) much more often than those in the different payoffs condition—and much more often than those in a control condition who called out their responses when they were alone. Lesson: it’s difficult to act independent when one doesn’t know what to make of things. It is easier to stand one’s ground, in other words, when one has a clear understanding of what might cause others to make erroneous judgments.
o Study (Torrance) – he gave the members of Navy bombing crews—pilot, navigator, and gunner—a number of reasoning problems. He then asked the crews to report one answer for the whole group. If pilot originally came up w/ right answer, group eventually reported it as their answer 91% of the time. When the navigator offered it, the group reported it 80% of the time. But if the lowly gunner offered it, they reported it 63% of the time.
o Study (milgram) – test of cross-cultural differences in conformity – using Asch’s paradigm in Norway and France>>Norwegians emphasize group cohesiveness more than the French, and just as he predicted, Norwegian participants conformed more.
o Study (Bond & Smith) – a more systematic analysis of the results of the Asch procedure as used in 133 different studies in 17 different countries found that conformity does indeed tend to be greater in interdependent countries than in independent countries
o Women tend to conform more about “male” issues whereas men tend to conform more about “female” issues

Front 12

Public compliance

Back 12

• Agreeing with someone or advancing a position in public but continuing to believe something else in private
o Normative influence, in contrast, often has a greater impact on public compliance than on private acceptance
o Study (moscovici et al.) – participants who had earlier been exposed to a consistent minority identified more of these stimuli as green—their sense of the border between blue and green had shifted. Thus, the consistent minority opinion had both a direct effect on participants’ responses in the public setting, and a “latent” effect on their subsequent, private judgments.
o Further investigation of minority influence in paradigms like Moscovici’s has shown that minorities have their effect primarily through informational social influence. Peeps in the majority might wonder why the minority keeps stating its divergent opinion which can lead them to consider the stimulus more carefully, leading to a level of scrutiny and more systematic thought that can lead to a genuine change in attitude or belief. Thus, majorities typically elicit more conformity, but it is often of the public compliance sort. In contrast, minorities typically influence fewer people, but the nature of the influence is often deeper, resulting in true private acceptance.