Social Influence (Chapter 8)

The lighter side of conformity

Reverend James Jones David Koresh And the darker side….

Fundamental attribution error, redux.

Critical issue: internalized vs. non-internalized influence

Three historic distinctions Conformity Compliance Obedience

Classic studies Sherif (1935) – Autokinetic effect – Saccadic eye movements Method: Phase I (private) Phase II (public)

Private trialsPublic trials Trial 1 Trial 110

Important aspects of Sherif (1935) Highly ambiguous Guessing Compromise Re-test FULL YEAR later (in private) Suggests internalization

Asch (1951) Original goal: to critique Sherif (1935)

TEST AB C

Details of results for 12 “critical” trials Number of times (out of 12) Ss conformed % 33% 15% 17% 11% Percentage of total sample

Implications/summary conformity surprisingly high given – Unambiguous – Strangers – Low stakes for being wrong – Asch’s original hunch WRONG

What about individual differences? 24% participants in Asch (1951) NEVER conformed—why? social vs. personality psychology

Informational vs. normative social influence Informational social influence— – Need to know “what’s right” – Arises when correct answer ambiguous (e.g. Sherif, 1935) – Crisis situation (e.g. War of the Worlds) – Importance of task should generally increase conformity Normative social influence – Need to be accepted – Correct answer relatively unambiguous (e.g. Asch, 1951) – Importance of task should generally decrease conformity

Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman (1996) Person A Person A* Person B Person C Person D Actual perpetrator “line-up” presented on computer Task difficulty: 5 seconds (EASY) vs. 500 milliseconds (HARD) Task Importance (high vs. low) PA PB PC PD.

Results 5 0 Hard task (fast exposure) LOWHIGH IMPORTANCE OF CORRECT IDENTIFICATION Easy task (slow exposure) Number of conforming trials

Summary of Baron et al. When correct answer unclear (ambiguous) – Informational social influence – Conformity higher when important When correct answer clear (unambiguous) – Normative social influence Conformity lower when task is important

Slight (0-240) Intense ( volts) Extreme intensity ( volts) Danger: severe shock ( volts) XXX ( volts) Initial “prediction” study Psychiatrists: predict that 1 out of 1,000 would go to highest level Results of main study: In actuality, 65% go to highest level Milgram (1965)

Why did American soldiers commit abuses at Abu Ghraib and record their crimes on film? For "psy-op reasons," according to Private Lynndie England (above), who insists that she was following orders from "persons in my higher chain of command." Psychological, moral, and legal implication of Milgram study: abuses at Abu Ghraib

Social influence and body image Two issues – #1 Variance in societal standards for beauty 1a. Variation across cultures 1b. Variation over time, within culture

Variation across 54 cultures (Anderson, 1994) Food supply in that culture Low (unreliable) High (reliable) Preference for thin body Preference for heavy body high low

Variation over time, within culture: United States

Mean bust-to-waist ratio (high #s = heavier, more “voluptuous” body type)

Issue #2: Do idealized images of feminine beauty have a causal (negative) impact on your body satisfaction?

Allison Hinkamper’s dissertation “priming” manipulation “thin ideal” images control images (1)control images (2)

Self-reported mood after exposure to images

Priming manipulation Dejection /negative mood Self-rated satisfaction with body.28* -.21* A classic mediated effect: (a) presentation of “thin ideal” leads to increase in dejection, (b) higher levels of dejection associated with lower levels of body image r =.00

Research on culture ideals for male body type

Research on men Much less attention More heterogeneous “ideal” compared to women, but.. Evidence for increased emphasis on musculature Clever study by Pope et al. (2000)-”The Adonis Complex” – computer-generated image of self Actual Self-ideal Image that they guessed women would find attractive +28 lbs muscle In actuality, women tended to prefer actual/typical physique Other studies show parallel effects for women, in terms of thinness.

Power of propaganda

propaganda vs. “ordinary” advertising

Some techniques of propaganda generation Appeal to fear Conditioning (association) Stereotyping/scapegoating Direct order

When will people show normative social influence? Social impact theory – Strength, immediacy, number Collectivist vs. individualist cultures Self esteem Gender

Resisting normative social influence

Minority influence Tyranny of the Asch position among American psychologists? – Serge Moscovici Mechanisms

A closer look at norms Injunctive vs. descriptive norms Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren (1993)

Participant’s car (with handbill attached to windshield) participant confederate One of three types of behavior (nothing, drops fast food bag, picks up fast food bag) Parking Garage initial state: already littered vs. clean

Summary of design – Two independent variables 1. Behavior of confederate –Control –Descriptive norm activated (drop bag) –Injunctive norm activated (pick up bag) 2. General Cleanliness of setting –Littered vs. clean – Dependent variable what do Ss do with handbill attached to windshield?

Control Descriptive (litters) Injunctive (picks up) Norm made salient by confederate clean littered Prior condition of environment Probability of littering (handbill)

More complex issue National park anecdote – Non-linear relation between amount of pre- existing litter and probability that you will litter – Suggests that strong injunctive norms can, ironically, be triggered by small amounts of litter – But as litter increases, this trend is reversed

control One piece of litter in otherwise pristine setting Lots of litter Probability that participant will litter high low