Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
20 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
social influence
|
• the myriad ways that people impact one another, including changes in attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and behavior, that result from the comments, actions, or even the mere presence of others
|
|
|
conformity
|
• changing one's behavior or beliefs in response to explicit or implicit (whether real or imagined) pressure from others
|
|
|
obedience
|
• social influence in which the less powerful person in an unequal power relationship submits to the demands of the more powerful person
|
|
|
compliance
|
• responding favorably to an explicit request by another person
|
|
|
ideomotor action
|
• 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 |
|
|
chameleon effect
|
• 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 |
|
|
autokinetic illusion
|
• 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 |
|
|
informational social influence
|
• 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 |
|
|
normative social influence
|
• 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 |
|
|
Internalization
|
• Private acceptance of a proposition, orientation, or ideology
o Informational social influence, by influencing how we come to see the issues or stimuli before, tends to influence our internalization |
|
|
Public compliance
|
• 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. |
|
|
Norm of reciprocity
|
• A norm dictating that people should provide benefits to those who benefit them
o This norm also exists in many bird and mammal species. For example, when one monkey removes parasites from another’s back, the latter typically returns the favor, which helps to cement the social bond between the two. o Study (regan) – 2 individuals were asked to rate a number of paintings, ostensibly as part of an experient on “aesthetics.” One was a participant, the other was a confederate. In one condition, the confederate returned with 2 Cokes. In the other condition, the confederate returned empty-handed. Participants who were earlier given a Coke by the confederate bought twice as many raffle tickets as those who were not given a Coke. |
|
|
Door-in-the-face technique (reciprocal concessions technique)
|
• 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. |
|
|
That’s-not-all technique
|
• 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% |
|
|
Foot-in-the-Door technique
|
• 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 |
|
|
Negative state relief hypothesis
|
• The idea that people engage in certain actions, such as agreeing to a request, in order to relieve negative feelings and to feel better about themselves
o Study (cialdini) – spilling of the computer cards was choreographed to make the participant feel guilty, and the request to make phone calls was the means to assess whether their guilt increased their compliance. It did. guilty participants volunteered to make an average of 4.4 phone calls, compared to an average of 2.8 on the part of control participants who hadn’t previously spilled the boxes of cards. Participants in 2 additional conditions had an experience between the time they knocked over the computer cards and the time the second experimenter made her request, and this experience was designed to rid them of their negative state they were experiencing. One group got money, the other group was praised. Results: participants in these 2 conditions offered to make significantly fewer phone calls than did participants who were made to feel guilty but who did not enjoy a mood-lifting experience. It appears that the primary reason that people are motivated to comply with requests when they are in a bad mood is to get into a better frame of mind, which disproves the investigators’ hypothesis that it is the specific emotion of guilt that moviates people to comply. These 2 conditions prove that it is the simple desire to get rid of a bad mood that increases compliance. They no longer feel bad, so they no longer need to seek out a means to lift their mood. |
|
|
Reactance theory
|
• Reasserting prerogatives in response to the unpleasant state of arousal experienced by people when they believe their freedoms are threatened
o If your parents tell you that you can’t, under any circumstances, dye your hair is your desire to have it dyed diminished or increased? Reactance theory predicts that he moment you feel your freedom is being taken away, the freedom becomes more precious, and your desire to maintain them is increased |
|
|
o Ways to increase the ability to resist social influence are:
|
• Practice – Christians were more likely to help the Jews not because their attitudes were more favorable, they were just more practiced at helping
• Have an ally – in Asch’s experiment, just having one additional person depart from the majority was sufficient to produce a drastic reduction in conformity • Be aware of slippery slopes – it’s often easiest to resist influence from the start, rather than giving in and hoping to put a halt to things later • Delay – an initial emotional compulsion is likely to dissipate, and the question of whether to comply w/ a request can be evaluated on the merits of the idea, not on the basis of an intense emotional state. |
|
|
why does feeling good make people more likely to agree and help others?
|
o our moods color how we interpret events. Requests for favors are more likely to be perceived as less intrusive and threatening when we are in a good mood.
o It feels good to feel good—and we want the feeling to last as long as possible o Study (isen & Levin) – participants who received cookies were more likely to assist with an experiment by serving as a confederate. Having received the cookie (and being in a good mood) increased the compliance rate when the task involved helping the participant, but not when it involved hindering the participant. |
|
|
does guilt lead to more compliance?
|
• More guilt leads to more compliance
o Study (harris) – researchers asked Catholics to donate to the March of Dimes either when they were on their way into the church for confession or on their way out. The presumption was that hose on their way in were rehearsing their sins and thus feeling guilty; those on the way out had expiated their sins and hence were no longer plagued by guilt. Those solicited on the way in gave more money than those solicited on the way out |
