Psych314 Chapter 8

Front 1

conformity

Back 1

a change in one's behavior due to the real or imagined influence of other people

- goal of social psychologists is to understand what situations promote conformity and the reasons for it

Front 2

The Sherif studies (1936)

Back 2

The exp: sit in a dark room by yourself
Instructions: watch the single point of light in front of you and estimate how far it moved
autokinetic effect: the point of light seemed to move, although it was stationary
results: some participants thought the light moved 1-2 inches and others thought it moved 800 feet
-groups of 2-3 brought together to share estimates
- at first estimates were different, over time, they became more and more similar

Front 3

The Asch studies (1955)

Back 3

not ambiguous
participants asked which out of 3 lines was closest to the given line (obvious answer)
- when subjects were alone, right answer
- subjects then put in a room with confederates who said consistently wrong answers...

Front 4

why do we conform?

Back 4

- did not know what to do in confusing or unusual situation
- did not wish to be ridiculed or punished
- so they wouldn't be rejected or thought less

Front 5

Informational social influence

Back 5

the influence of other people that leads us to conform because we see them as a source of information to guide our behavior; we conform because we believe that others' interpretation of an ambiguoug situation is more correct than ours and will help us choose an appropriate course of action (behavior of others provide info)

Front 6

when will people conform to informational social influence?

Back 6

- situation is ambiguous
informational social influence can lead to private acceptance (when people conform to the behavior of others because they genuinely believe these people are right)
- knowledge of topic is limited

Front 7

normative social influence

Back 7

desire for social approval. leads to public compliance- confirming publicly without necessarily believing in what the group is saying/doing

Front 8

when will people conform to normative social influence

Back 8

- minority
- consistent

Front 9

resisting normative social influence

Back 9

- helps if comrade present

Front 10

social influence and body image

Back 10

- in most societies, heavy body considered beautiful

Front 11

Silverstein et al (1986) analyzed photos of women appearing in Ladies' home jourmal and Vogue from 1901-1981: bust to waist ratio

Back 11

fluctuated with the economy. Higher ratio during times of economic turmoil. Lower presently, and roaring 20s (great economic wealth)
- been very low since 1963

Front 12

social influence and body image

Back 12

- women tend to perceive themselves as heavier than they actually are
- this effect heightened if they've just been exposed by media portrayals of thin women
- 70% of HS girls are unhappy with their body image
1/3 of 13 yr old girls are actively trying to lose weight by dieting, vomitting, using laxatives, or taking diet pills

Front 13

crandall (1998)- convergence of binge eating within sorrority houses from fall to spring

Back 13

- rate sisters in terms of popularity
alpha- most popular is girl who binge most
beta- most popular is the one who binges the right amount
- new sisters followed the trends of respective sororities

Front 14

social influence and men's body image

Back 14

- ideal male body much more muscular
- men generally think ideal body has 28 pounds more muscle than their own body
Harrison Pope and colleagues analyzed boy's toys G.I Joe
biceps grew from relatively normal 12.2 inches proportion in 1964 to 26.8 in 1998.

Front 15

injunctive norm

Back 15

people's perceptions of what behaviors are approved or disapproved by others

Front 16

descriptive norms

Back 16

people's perceptions of how people actually behave in given situations, regardless of whether behavior is approved or disapproved by others

Front 17

Reno at al, 1993: Patrons of a library were walking to their cars in the parking lot

Back 17

IV1: confederate's behavior
1. control group: the confederate walked by, did nothing
2. descriptive norm condition: confederate threw trash on the ground
3. injunctive norm condition: confederate picked up littered fast food bag from the ground
IV2: parking lot heavily littered or clean
DV: Ps threw away paper ad?
In control group, nearly 40 percent littered in both IV2
when confederate threw trash on ground, 30 percent littered when parking lot was trashed and a little over 10% littered in clean lot
In injunctive condition very little littered, and less Ps littered in the trashed parking lot
- injunctive norms are more effective in changing behavior

Front 18

The power of obedience

Back 18

Milgram
- obedience to authority
- study done at Yale, experimenter wearing white coat
15-450 volts
- experimenter told participants to please continue
participants went up all the way to XXX even after no response from confederate who complained of heart problems
- showed

Front 19

Compliance

Back 19

how to get what you want

Front 20

reciprocity

Back 20

norm of reciprocity: we feel obligated to return favors

Front 21

reciprocity: door-in-face

Back 21

asking for an extreme request that is almost always denied and then asking for a more moderate favor
Cialdini & Ascani: Blood donors asked 1st for long term commitment, when refused, asked for one time donation

Front 22

"Free" gift

Back 22

target feels obligated to give something back

Front 23

that's-not-all

Back 23

target feels obligated to reciprocate better deal

Front 24

consistency

Back 24

desire for consistency- maintaining consistency is one way we manage our self-concept

Front 25

consistency: foot-in-the-door

Back 25

asking for a small favor and then following up with a larger one
Freedman & Fraser (1966) Safe driving study
- ask to put a small safe driving sign in front of house
- when asked to put big one, those who had small board more likely to say yes.

Front 26

commitment

Back 26

when person has committed, less likely to back out even if time is really early (not consistent). if time mentioned beforehand, person can say no

Front 27

even-a-penny would help

Back 27

desire to see ourselves as helpful
American Cancer society study

Front 28

social validation

Back 28

we look to others to determine appropriate ways to behave

Front 29

Cialdini 2005

Back 29

people severely underestimates the extent to which their actions in a situation are determined by the similar actions of others there.
people severely underestimates the persuasive impact that others' behavior have on the choices of a target audience.

Front 30

how compliance professionals use social validation

Back 30

?

Front 31

liking

Back 31

we help our friends and people we like
- physically attractive
- similar to us
- compliment us
- cooperate with us

Front 32

how compliance professionals use liking

Back 32

1. physical attractiveness: the halo effect
2. similarity: mirror-and-match technique
3. compliments

Front 33

authority

Back 33

we assume, usually correctly, that authorities have superior knowledge, talent, or fortune

Front 34

how compliance professionals use authority

Back 34

professional actors/actresses in advertising

Front 35

scarcity

Back 35

opportunities seem more valuable when less available

Front 36

how compliance professionals use scarcity

Back 36

- limited stock
Worchel et al, 1975. showed people 2 jars of cookies, one with 10 and one with 2. Ps rated cookies as more desirable, expensive, attractive when there were only 2 cookies in jar

Front 37

scarcity: reactance and teen love

Back 37

Driscoll et al, 1972. the more parents objected to relationship, the more in love couples said they were, the more they said they wanted to get married.