1. Social Psychology – Ch 17
Social Influence

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

15. 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