Social Psychology – Ch 17 Social Influence

Social Psychology Scientific study of the ways that people’s behavior and mental processes are shaped by the real or imagined presence of others

Facilitation and Inhibition Triplett (1898) and others Presence of others facilitates activity Tends to be on simple/well-learned tasks Derailing effects of coactors and audience Tends to be more common on complex tasks Related to arousal, or that presence of others is distracting? Social Loafing – when working with others our effort can be reduced Triplett – bike riders and coaction Multiplication coaction – speed of doing problems increased, however accuracy decreased Essentially related to arousal theory – high level of arousals make simple tasks easy, but difficult ones tough

Stoop effect research suggests that it is competition and social comparison that are the major determinants of social facilitation It’s not just the presence of another, it’s the person’s sense of that other person

Deindividuation Loss of identity in a crowd Reduces sense of accountability Zimbardo electrocution study (1969) Can be influenced by social norms – like nurse’s uniform decreases effect - Women wear big hoods and participate in electrocution activity vs. wear normal clothes with name tags – in the hoods women gave twice the electrocution - Kids wearing masks on halloween – take more candy than kids without masks

Bystander Effect Kitty Genovese case People are less likely to help when others are present More likely to define event as a non-emergency Diffuses the responsibility of acting However, when one person helps it increases rate of help in others. Also, more likely to act if you know….I’m looking at YOU Crowds tend to lull members into inaction – Latane and Darley study about participants in a smoky room not reporting the smoke; another Latane study involved much more personal call for help, more people helped, but still fewer than half when another person was present; other Latane study about seizure through intercoms – the more other people the participant thought were present the more it decreased reporting rate – even though people were upset by the experience Finding on NY subway station suggests that there is a likelihood of help – 95% in case where person seemed disabled; and common group identity actually increases group helping

Conformity Asch Studies Participant asked about length of line when confederates gave the incorrect response. Conformed to group consensus 1/3 of the time, and ¾ of participants conformed at least once. If there is no consensus it significantly reduces conformity To avoid conforming meant that someone would be breaking the will of the group – people reported feeling uncomfortable and worried about what others would think – said they knew the right answer, they just didn’t want to seem different Even another dissenter that seemed visually impaired would increase the likelihood that the participant would not conform

Influencing conformity Informational social influence – unsure of an ambiguous stimuli so conform with others (Sherif study…) Normative social influence – desire to fit in with the group Minority influence – Asch study in reverse – still had an impact in almost 1/3 of cases These cases tended to involve a change in perception of participants Minority can cause a majority to challenge its beliefs, where as a majority that decides together is not asked to question itself

Obedience Milgram Studies 65% continued to 450 volts, all continued to 300 volts Surveillance Buffers Role models Emerging situation Ideology Hofling et al 1966 study of nurses and obedience Surveillance – no experimenter present significantly decreased participation Buffers – having to actually place participants hand on electric shock decreased participation; while having no feedback led response to 100%; shock generator was its own buffer – it removed responsibility Role models – having others quit greatly reduced participation Emerging situation – the situation develops over time, it doesn’t start bad – kind of like foot in door technique Ideology – obedience to authority is ingrained to culture; respect for scientists

Internalization Foot in the door technique – start with a small request, then increase it Freedman and Fraser 1966 17% in control condition vs. 76% in Door in the face technique Lowballing Bait and Switch Internalization is desire for change of opinion, not just compliance Public change in

Cognitive Dissonance Theory There is a drive toward cognitive consistency – when our actions don’t match with our beliefs we act to reduce the inconsistency Rationalization Festinger and Carlsmith 1959 Festinger and Carlsmith – completed a dull task then paid either $1 or $20 to tell that it was fun – those that were paid $1 actually reported that they found it more fun on survey, where as people paid $20 didn’t – those paid $1 experienced dissonance and so actually changed their perception – those paid $20 knew they were being paid to lie

Self-perception theory We come to know our own attitudes, etc. in part by inferring them from our own behavior. Does this better explain the Festinger and Carlsmith study? Can rewards undermine intrinsic motivation? Overjustification effect – too much emphasis placed on situational causes for a behavior Self-justification leads people to rationalize behaviors It’s like the behavior leads to a recognition of thinking - Festinger and Carlsmith – the individual implicitly asks self, why did I do this? If I’m willing to accept $1 for telling people to like, I must have actually like it – not everyone would do it for that much money – essentially an example of the fundamental attribution error

Impact of groups We identify with REFERENCE GROUPS – our attitudes might begin as compliance, but over time become internalized. Bennington College example Keep it REAL! Institutional Norms – rules for accepted behavior applied to an organization Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo 1972) Participants took on the roles of the institution

Groups and decisions Group Polarization – group decisions tend to more extreme than individual ones. Stoner (1961) Combination of informational and normative social influence Groupthink – members of a group suppress dissent in the interest of consensus. Cohesive decision makers Isolation from outside No systematic process Direct leader with an opinion High stress Discussion tends to be biased in favor of the group’s initial position (informational influence); the group also provides the norm that people then base their opinions off Group think has illusions of invulnerability, pressure on dissenters and self-censorship, rationalization of the decision Group think is a widespread idea, but has little empirical basis – all after the fact Research suggests that critical thinking tends to result in better decisions