1. PowerPoint® Presentation by Jim Foley
Social Psychology
PowerPoint® Presentation
by Jim Foley
© 2013 Worth Publishers

2. Module 44: Social Influence

3. What form of social influence is the subject of this cartoon?
Conformity
What form of social influence is the subject of this cartoon?

4. Social Influence Conformity: Mimicry and more
Conformity refers to adjusting our behavior or thinking to fit in with a group standard.
Automatic Mimicry affecting behavior
The power of Conformity has many components and forms, including
Social Norms affecting our thinking
Adjustment behavior/“to fit in with or align ourselves with what we perceive to be a group standard.”
Normative and Informational Social Influence

5. Mimicry
It is not only true that birds of a feather flock together: it is also true that if we flock together, we might choose to wear the same feathers.
No animation.
“Same feathers” refers to the same habits, behaviors, or of course the same clothes.

6. Social Influence Automatic Mimicry
Some of our mimicry of other people is not by choice, but automatic:
Contagious Yawning, as well as contagious arm folding, hand wringing, face rubbing…
Adopting regional accents, grammar, and vocabulary
Empathetic shifts in mood that fit the mood of the people around us
Adopting coping styles of parents or peers, including violence, yelling, withdrawal.
Adopting coping styles may help explain not only copycat violence and suicide but also why people can plan on having a different parenting style than their parents but end up under stress doing just what was modeled for them.
Obesity, sleep loss, drug use, loneliness, and happiness spread through social networks (Christakis & Fowler, 2009).

7. The Chameleon Effect: Unconscious Mimicry
In an experiment, a confederate/collaborator of the experimenter intentionally rubbed his/her face or shook a foot; this seemed to lead to a greater likelihood of the study participant doing the same behavior.
Narrating the chart: Let’s first compare the two bars on the right to the ones on the left: apparently people are more likely to shake a foot than rub their faces, at least in this experiment. The chameleon affect is that that the amount of face rubbing is much greater when the confederate, the person secretly working for the experimenter, is doing face rubbing also. The impact on foot shaking is about the same size (if you look at the numbers, not the chopped-off bars): in both cases, about a 50% increase in the behavior.
(Hypothesis: Yawning would increase the yawning of others more than face rubbing increases the face rubbing of others)…
According to Chartrand and Bargh (1999), we are natural mimics and unconsciously mimic others’ “expressions, postures, and voice tones.” The researchers noted that students who worked along a student who shook their foot or rubbed their face were more likely to do the same. The effects of suggestibility can be more serious, as indicated by the increase of threats of violence in every state but Vermont following the incident at Columbine. Although not all studies confirm it, some studies find a considerable increase in suicidal behavior following publicized suicides.

8. Social Influence: Conformity Responding to Social Norms
When we are with other people and perceive a social norm (a “correct” or “normal” way to behave or think in this group), our behavior may follow the norm rather than following our own judgment.
Asch Conformity studies: About one third of people will agree with obvious mistruths to go along with the group.
Think this guy will conform?
That square has 5 sides.
WT???
Asch had subjects come into a room with 5 other people who are already seated. The group is then asked which line matches the standard line. In the first two examples, your answers match that of the group. In the third example, all members of the group pick the wrong line. Asch found that among thousands of college students, nearly one third were willing to deny what they could see with their own eyes and go along with the group.
In classrooms are hand-raised answers to controversial questions less diverse than anonymous electronic clicker responses (Stowell et al., 2010).

9. Social Influence: Conformity What makes you more likely to conform?
When…
You are not firmly committed to one set of beliefs or style of behavior.
The group is medium sized and unanimous.
You admire or are attracted to the group.
The group tries to make you feel incompetent, insecure, and closely watched.
Your culture encourages respect for norms.
Click to reveal bullets.
I say “medium sized” where the text reads “at least three people;” Beyond a certain size group, conformity decreases, perhaps because there is a possibility of subgroups that support non conformity (although they in turn will be an environment in which conformity occurs).

10. Conformity is when we adjust our thinking and behavior to go along with a group standard. Which of the following is NOT likely to influence whether or not we conform?
A. your level of intelligence
B. the size of the group that you are with
C. whether or not the group is observing you
D. whether or not the group has status

11. Two types of social influence
Normative Social Influence:
Informational Social Influence:
Example: Going along with others in pursuit of social approval or belonging (and to avoid disapproval/rejection)
The Asch conformity studies; clothing choices.
Example: Going along with others because their ideas and behavior make sense, the evidence in our social environment changes our minds.
Deciding which side of the road to drive on.
Click to reveal second circle.
This slide is here because this is where it’s located in the text, but it could be moved all the way to the beginning of the social influence section. In either case, it may seem like a follow up on the persuasion topic, but in this case, no one is trying to persuade us, we are influenced by what we see in our social surroundings.

12. Since everyone in her dorm watched American Idol and The Apprentice, Tyra decided she better do the same. She didn’t particularly like those shows, but she wanted everyone to accept her. This example best illustrates:
A. informational social influence.
B. social facilitation.
C. groupthink.
D. normative social influence.

13. Obedience: Response to Commands
Milgram wanted to study the influence of direct commands on behavior.
The question: Under what social conditions are people more likely to obey commands?
The experiment: An authority figure tells participants to administer shocks to a “learner” (who was actually a confederate of the researcher) when the learner gives wrong answers.
Click to reveal bullets.
Voltages increased; how high would people go?

14. The Design of Milgram’s Obedience Study
One layout of the study
Ow!
Please continue. (Give the shock.)
But… …okay.
The “Learner” (working with researchers)
Milgram had subjects draw straws, one to be the learner, and one to be the teacher (although the learner was actually part of the experiment). He then had the teacher administer shocks to the learner (answering questions re:word pairs), each time a wrong answer was given. Milgram found that 63-65% of individuals continued to administer the shocks, even as the “learners” cried out in pain, complained of heart conditions, and ceased to respond. The “teachers” were told that “the experiment requires that you continue,” and that “[they had] no other choice. [They] must go on” (Milgram, 1963, 1974).
Shock levels in volts that participants thought they were giving
Slight (15-60)
Moderate (75-120)
Strong ( )
Very strong ( )
Intense ( )
Extreme intensity ( )
Danger: severe ( )
XXX ( )

15. Compliance in Milgram’s Study
In surveys, most people predict that in such a situation they would stop administering shocks when the “learner” expressed pain.
But in reality, even when the learner complained of a heart condition, most people complied with the experimenter’s directions:
“Please continue.”
“You must continue.”
“The experiment requires that you continue”…
Click to reveal bullets.

16. How far did compliance go?
Jerry Burger (2009) replicated Milgram’s basic experiment. Seventy percent of the participants obeyed up to the 150-volt point, a slight reduction from Milgram’s result. And in a French reality TV show replication, 80 percent of people, egged on by a cheering audience, obeyed and tortured a screaming victim (de Moraes, 2010).
In 10 later studies, women obeyed at rates similar to men’s (Blass, 1999)..
The teachers typically displayed genuine distress.

17. What Factors Increase Obedience?
The bad news: In war, some people at the beginning choose not to fight and kill, but after that, obedience escalates, even in killing innocent people.
The good news: Obedience can also strengthen heroism; soldiers and others risk or even sacrifice themselves, moreso when under orders
What Factors Increase Obedience?
When orders were given by:
Someone with legitimate authority
Someone associated with a prestigious institution
Someone standing close by.
When the “learner”/victim is in another room.
When other participants obey and/or no one disobeys (no role model for defiance)
There are more versions of this experiment, revealing more patterns:
Compliance is higher when the participant only has to read the questions and announce when wrong answers happen, but someone else administers the shock;
Compliance is much higher when the level of shock is predetermined and enforced by the authority figure (lower if the participant chooses if and when to raise the voltage).
In the summer of 1942, nearly 500 middle-aged German reserve police officers were dispatched to German-occupied Jozefow, Poland. On July 13, they were to round up the village’s Jews, who were said to be aiding the enemy. Able-bodied men would be sent to work camps, and all the rest would be shot on the spot. The commander gave the recruits a chance to refuse to participate in the executions. Only about a dozen immediately refused. Within 17 hours, the remaining 485 officers killed 1500 helpless women, children, and elderly, shooting them in the back of the head as they lay face down. some 20 percent of the officers did eventually dissent managing either to miss their victims or to wander away and hide.
Other Evidence of the Power of Obedience

18. Lessons from the Conformity and Obedience Studies
When under pressure to conform or obey, ordinary, principled people will say and do things they never would have believed they would do.
To look a person committing harmful acts and assume that the person is cruel/evil would be to make the fundamental attribution error.
The real evil may be in the situation.
Great evils sometimes grow out of people’s compliance with lesser evils. People became capable of evil in Milgram’s experiment and other situations in tiny increments. The Nazi leaders suspected that most German civil servants would resist shooting or gassing Jews directly, but they found them surprisingly willing to handle the paperwork of the Holocaust (Silver & Geller, 1978).

19. Social Influence: Group Behavior
Besides conformity and obedience, there are other ways that our behavior changes in the presence of others, or within a group:
Social Facilitation
Groupthink
Deindividuation
Click to show five bubbles: social facilitation, social loafing, polarization, deindividuation, and groupthink.
Social Loafing
Group Polarization

20. Social Facilitation
Individual performance is intensified when you are observed by others.
Experts excel, people doing simple activities show more speed and endurance in front of an audience… but novices, trying complex skills, do worse.
Novices = people newly trying difficult, complex, skilled activities.
“Facilitation” refers to the improvement, the excellent performance facilitated by the physiological arousal caused by being watched.
For example, people will wind a fishing reel faster in the presence of someone else doing the same thing (Triplett, 1898). However, it seems that when in the presence of others, we do better on those things that we already do well, but those things that are difficult are even more difficult when watched… particularly tasks require cognitive attention as opposed to physical strength.
Arousal amplifies our other reactions. It strengthens our most likely response—the correct one on an easy task, an incorrect one on a difficult task.
The point to remember: What you do well, you are likely to do even better in front of an audience, especially a friendly audience. What you normally find difficult may seem all but impossible when you are being watched.

21. Social Facilitation
Why would the presence of an audience “facilitate” better performance for everyone but newcomers?
Being watched, and simply being in crowded conditions, increases one’s autonomic arousal, along with increasing motivation for those who are confident, and anxiety for those who are not confident.
Why does the presence of an audience “facilitate” an improved performance for most people but a worse performance for novices/newcomers? “Facilitation” refers to the improvement, the excellent performance facilitated by the physiological arousal caused by being watched.

22. Social Loafing
Ever had a group project, with a group grade, and had someone in the group slack off?
If so, you have experienced Social Loafing: the tendency of people in a group to show less effort when not held individually accountable.
Why does social loafing happen?
When your contribution isn’t rewarded or punished, you might not care what people think.
People may not feel their contributions are needed, that the group will be fine.
People may feel free to “cheat” when they get an equal share of the rewards anyway.
Note: People in collectivist cultures don’t slack off as much in groups even when they could. Why?
Who will know if I’m not pulling as hard as I can? No one can tell how hard each of us is pulling on the rope.
Re: Social Loafing, people who believed others were helping them in a tug of war exerted less effort than those who believed they were pulling alone (Ingham, 1974).
When you don’t care what people think, when your individual performance doesn’t seem to matter as much, then what process is not happening? Social facilitation.
Re: Collectivist cultures: Perhaps they are raised to feel enough responsibility to the group that they don’t need individual accountability and individual reward (such as individual vs. a group grade on a project). Maybe you are taught that your contribution does matter to the group, to the society, even if there is no reward.

23. Which of the following is an example of social facilitation?
A. A funny movie seems even more amusing when you watch it with a group of friends.
B. Solving difficult math problems is easier when you are in a quiet room with only one other person.
C. People may be more likely to help if there is a large crowd watching.
D. People are more likely to work much harder in a group than when they are alone.

24. Deindividuation Loss of self-awareness and self-restraint.
Examples: Riots, KKK rallies, concerts, identity-concealed online bullying.
Happens when people are in group situations involving: 1) Anonymity and 2) Arousal.
Deindividuation
In one experiment, New York University women dressed in depersonalizing Ku Klux Klan-style hoods. Compared with identifiable women in a control group, the hooded women delivered twice as much electric shock to a victim (Zimbardo, 1970). (As in all such experiments, the “victim” did not actually receive the shocks.)

25. Group Polarization
When people of similar views form a group together, discussion within the group makes their views more extreme.
Thus, different groups become MORE different, more polarized, in their views.
People in these groups may have only encountered ideas reinforcing the views they already held.
Liberal Blogs (blue) and conservative blogs (red) link mostly to other like-minded blogs, generating this portrait of the polarized Blogosphere.
Does discussion help increase open-mindedness to more views? Not necessarily. If people are grouping themselves with people having similar views, then Group Polarization happens: discussion makes their views stronger, more extreme; this makes two groups with different viewpoints become MORE different in their views.
Analysis of terrorist organizations around the world reveals that the terrorist mentality does not erupt suddenly. It usually begins slowly, among people who share a grievance. As they interact in isolation (sometimes with other “brothers” and “sisters” in camps) their views grow more and more extreme.
The anonymity of cyber environments can amplify this effect.

26. Groupthink
In pursuit of social harmony (and avoidance of open disagreement), groups will make decisions without an open exchange of ideas.
Irony: Group “think” prevents thinking, prevents a realistic assessment of options.
The authors of your text suggest that “groupthink—fed by overconfidence, conformity, self-justification, and group polarization—contributed to other fiascos as well. Among them were the failure to anticipate the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; the escalation of the Vietnam war; the U.S. Watergate cover-up; the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident (Reason, 1987); the U.S. space shuttle Challenger explosion (Esser & Lindoerfer, 1989); and the Iraq war, launched on the false idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, 2004).” (590)

27. Social Influence The Power of Individuals
Despite all of these forces of social influence, individuals still have power:
Some people resist obeying and conforming.
Individuals can start social movements and social forces, not just get caught up in them.
Groupthink can be prevented if individuals speak up when a group decision seems wrong.
Starting social movements: This is where Ghandi comes in, as mentioned in the text, although his political strategy relied on another concept, civil disobedience, that he picked up from reading Thoreau.
When you are the minority, you are far more likely to sway the majority if you hold firmly to your position and don’t waffle.