Social influence

Efforts by one or more persons to change the behavior, attitudes, or feelings of one or more
others. But people exert social influence for many reasons, not just to swindle others. Sometimes
they exert influence in order to help the people involved (e.g., by getting them to stop smoking or
stick to their diets). Or—and less altruistically— they may try to get them to do personal favors,
buy certain products, or vote for specific candidates—the goals are almost infinite. The means
used for inducing such change—for exerting social influence—vary greatly too, ranging from
direct personal requests to clever commercials and political campaigns. Whatever the goals,
though, social influence always involves efforts by one or more people to induce some kind of
change in others.
Direct efforts to change others’ overt behavior through requests are often labeled compliance (or
seeking compliance); these involve specific requests to which the people who receive them can
say “Yes,” “No,” or “Maybe.”
Often, efforts to change others’ behavior involve the impact of rules or guidelines indicating
what behavior is appropriate or required in a given situation. These can be formal, as in speed
limits, rules for playing games or sports. This kind of influence is known as conformity, and is an
important part of social life.
Finally, change can be produced by direct orders or commands from others—obedience.
In this chapter, we examine all of these forms of social influence.
Conformity:
“A type of social influence in which individuals change their attitudes or behavior to adhere to
existing social norms.”

During an exam, another student’s cell phone begins to ring loudly. What does this person do?

You are driving on a street when you see and hear an ambulance approaching you from behind.
What do you do?

In each of these situations, the people involved could, potentially, behave in many different
ways. But probably you can predict with great certainty what they will do. The student with the
loud cell phone will silence it immediately—and perhaps apologize to other members of the class
sitting nearby. When you hear an ambulance, you will pull over to the right and perhaps stop
completely until it passes. The fact that we can predict others’ behavior (and our own) with
considerable confidence in these and many other situations illustrates the powerful and general
effects of pressures toward conformity. Conformity, in other words, refers to pressures to behave
in ways consistent with rules indicating how we should or ought to behave. These rules are
known as social norms, and they often exert powerful effects on our behavior.
At first glance, this strong tendency toward conformity—toward going along with society’s or a
group’s expectations about how we should behave in various situations— may seem
objectionable. After all, it does place restrictions on personal freedom. Actually, though, there is
a strong basis for so much conformity: without it, we would quickly find ourselves facing social
chaos. Imagine what would happen outside movie theaters, stadiums, or at supermarket checkout
counters if people did not obey the norm “Form a line and wait your turn.” And consider the
danger to both drivers and pedestrians if there were not clear and widely followed traffic
regulations.
Another reason people conform is, simply, to “look good” to others—to make a
positive impression on them. For instance, at work, many employees adopt what are
known as facades of conformity—the appearance of going along with the values and goals
of their organizations, even if they really do not (Hewlin, 2009). For instance, they often
say things they don’t really believe, suppress personal values different form those of the
organization, and keep certain things about themselves confidential. They may find doing
so to be unpleasant but necessary to further their careers.

Asch’s Research on Conformity:

Social Pressure—the Irresistible Force?

Asch created a compelling social dilemma for his participants whose task was ostensibly
to simply respond to a series of perceptual problems . On each of the problems, participants were
to indicate which of three comparison lines matched a standard line in length. Several other
people (usually six to eight) were also present during the session, but unknown to the real
participant, all were assistants of the experimenter. On certain occasions known as critical trials
(12 out of the 18 problems) the accomplices offered answers that were clearly wrong; they
unanimously chose the wrong line as a match for the standard line. Moreover, they stated their
answers before the real participants responded. Thus, on these critical trials, the people in Asch’s
study faced precisely the type of dilemma described above. Should they go along with the other
individuals present or stick to their own judgments? The judgments seemed to be very simple
ones, so the fact that other people agreed on an answer different from the one the participants
preferred was truly puzzling. Results were clear: A large majority of the people in Asch’s
research chose conformity. Across several different studies, fully 76 percent of those tested
went along with the group’s false answers at least once; and overall, they voiced agreement
with these errors 37 percent of the time. In contrast, only 5 percent of the participants in
a control group, who responded to the same problems alone, made such errors.
Of course, there were large individual differences in this respect. Almost 25 percent of the
participants never yielded to the group pressure.

There’s one more aspect of Asch’s research that is important to mention. In later
studies, he repeated his basic procedure, but with one important change: Instead of stating
their answers out loud, participants wrote them down on a piece of paper. As you might
guess, conformity dropped sharply because the participants didn’t have to display the fact
that they disagreed with the other people present. This finding points to the importance
of distinguishing between public conformity—doing or saying what others around us say
or do—and private acceptance—actually coming to feel or think as others do.

Sherif’s Research on the Autokinetic Phenomenon:

How Norms Emerge

Autokinetic phenomenon
The apparent movement of a single, stationary source of light in a dark room. Often used to
study the emergence of social norms and social influence.
Sherif (1937) realized that he could use this situation to study the emergence of social norms.
This is so because there is considerable ambiguity about how much the light is moving and
different people perceive it as moving different distances. Thus, when placed in this setting with
several others and asked to report how much they perceive the light to be moving, they influence
one another and soon converge on a particular amount of movement; that agreement, in a sense,
constitutes a group norm. If the same individuals are then placed in the situation alone, they
continue to give estimates of the light’s movement consistent with the group norm, so clearly,
the effect of such norms persist. This suggests that these effects reflect changes in what
participants in these studies actually believe—private acceptance or commitment; after all, they
continue to obey the group norm even if they are no longer in the group!
Sherif’s findings also help explain why social norms develop in many situations— especially
ambiguous ones. We have a strong desire to be “correct”—to behave in an appropriate manner—
and social norms help us attain that goal. As we note below, this is one key foundation of social
influence; another is the desire to be accepted by others and liked by them—which sometimes
involves the “facades of conformity” studied by Hewlin (2009), and discussed above. Together,
these two factors virtually ensure that social influence is a powerful force—one that can often
strongly affect our behavior.

Factors Affecting Conformity:

COHESIVENESS AND CONFORMITY: BEING INFLUENCED BY THOSE WE LIKE

One
factor that strongly influences our tendency to conform—to go along with whatever
norms are operating in a given situation—is cohesiveness—the extent to which we are
attracted to a particular social group and want to belong to it (e.g., Turner, 1991). The
greater cohesiveness is, the more we tend to follow the norms (i.e., rules) of the group.
This is hardly surprising: the more we value being a member of a group and want to
be accepted by the other members, the more we want to avoid doing anything that will
separate us from them.
CONFORMITY AND GROUP SIZE: WHY MORE IS BETTER WITH RESPECT TO
SOCIAL
PRESSURE Another factor that produces similar effects is the size of the group that is
exerting influence. Asch (1956) and other early researchers (e.g., Gerard, Wilhelmy, &
Conolley, 1968) found that conformity increases with group size, but only up to about
three or four members; beyond that point, it appears to level off or even decrease
DESCRIPTIVE AND INJUNCTIVE SOCIAL NORMS: HOW NORMS AFFECT
BEHAVIOR
Social norms, as we have already seen, can be formal or informal in nature—as different
as rules printed on large signs and informal guidelines such as “Don’t leave your shopping
cart in the middle of a parking spot outside a supermarket.” This is not the only way in
which norms differ, however. Another important distinction is that between descriptive
norms and injunctive norms.
Descriptive norms are ones that simply describe what most people do in
a given situation. They influence behavior by informing us about what is generally seen
as effective or adaptive in that situation. In contrast, injunctive norms specify what ought
to be done—what is approved or disapproved behavior in a given situation.
Compliance: To Ask—Sometimes—Is
to Receive
A form of social influence involving direct requests from one person to another. that although
techniques for gaining compliance take many different forms, they all rest to some degree on six
basic principles:

● Friendship/liking: In general, we are more willing to comply with requests from

friends or from people we like than with requests from strangers or people we don’t
like.
● Commitment/consistency: Once we have committed ourselves to a position or action,
we are more willing to comply with requests for behaviors that are consistent with
this position or action than with requests that are inconsistent with it.
● Scarcity: In general, we value, and try to secure, outcomes or objects that are scarce
or decreasing in availability. As a result, we are more likely to comply with requests
that focus on scarcity than ones that make no reference to this issue.
● Reciprocity: We are generally more willing to comply with a request from someone
who has previously provided a favor or concession to us than to someone who has
not. In other words, we feel obligated to pay people back in some way for what they
have done for us.
● Social validation: We are generally more willing to comply with a request for some
action if this action is consistent with what we believe people similar to ourselves are
doing (or thinking). We want to be correct, and one way to do so is to act and think
like others.
● Authority: In general, we are more willing to comply with requests from someone
who holds legitimate authority—or simply appears to do so.

According to Cialdini (2008), these basic principles underlie many techniques used
by professionals—and ourselves—for gaining compliance from others. We now examine
techniques based on these principles, plus a few others as well.

Tactics Based on Friendship or Liking: Ingratiation

Impression management techniques are often used for purposes of ingratiation—getting others
to like us so that they will be more willing to agree to our requests.
What ingratiation techniques work best? A review of existing studies on this topic (Gordon,
1996) suggests that flattery—praising others in some manner—is one of the best. Another is
known as self-promotion—informing others about our past accomplishments or positive
characteristics (“I’m really very organized” or “I’m really easy to get along with”; Bolino &
Turnley, 1999). Other techniques that seem to work are improving one’s own appearance,
emitting many positive nonverbal cues, and doing small favors for the target people.
Tactics Based on Commitment or Consistency:
The Foot-in-the-Door and the Lowball
This is the basic idea behind an approach for gaining compliance known as the foot-in-the-door
technique. Basically, this involves inducing target people to agree to a small initial request
(“Accept this free sample”)
And then making a larger request—the one desired all along. The results of many studies
Indicate that this tactic works—it succeeds in inducing increased compliance. Because the foot-
in-the-door technique rests on the principle of consistency: Once we have said yes to the small
request,
We are more likely to say yes to subsequent and larger ones, too, because refusing these
would be inconsistent with our previous behavior. The foot-in-the-door technique is not the only
tactic based on the consistency/commitment principle, however. Another is the lowball
procedure. In this technique, which is often used by automobile salespersons, a very good deal
is offered to a customer after the customer accepts, however, something happens that makes it
necessary for the salesperson to change the deal and make it less advantageous for the customer
— For example, the sales manager rejects the deal. The totally rational response for customers,
of course, is to walk away. Yet, often they agree to the changes and accept the
less desirable arrangement.
Foot-in-the-door technique
A procedure for gaining compliance in which requesters begin with a small request and then,
when this is granted, escalate to a larger one (the one they actually desired all along).
Low-ball procedure
A technique for gaining compliance in which an offer or deal is changed to make it less attractive
to the target person after this person has accepted it.

Tactics Based on Reciprocity: The Door-in-the Face

And the “That’s-Not-All” Approach

Door-in-the-face technique
A procedure for gaining compliance in which requesters begin with a large request and then,
when this is refused, retreat to a smaller one (the one they actually desired all along).
Instead of beginning with a small request and then escalating to a larger one, people seeking
Compliance sometimes start with a very large request and then, after this is rejected, shift
To a smaller request—the one they wanted all along. This tactic is known as the door in-
The-face technique (because the first refusal seems to slam the door in the face of the
Requester), and several studies indicate that it can be quite effective.

That’s-not-all technique
A technique for gaining compliance in which requesters offer additional benefits to target people
before they have decided whether to comply with or reject specific requests.

A related procedure for gaining compliance is known as the that’s-not-all technique. Here, an
Initial request is followed, before the target person can say yes or no, by something that
sweetens the deal—a small extra incentive from the people using this tactic (e.g., a reduction in
price, “throwing in” something additional for the same price). For example, television
commercials for various products frequently offer something extra to induce viewers to pick up
the phone and place an order—for instance
A “free” knife or a “free” cookbook. Several studies confirm informal observations suggesting
that the that’s-not-all technique really works.

Obedience to Authority:
Another major type of social influence—obedience—in which one person directly
Orders one or more others to behave in specific ways. Obedience is less frequent than
Conformity or compliance because even people who possess authority and could use it often
prefer to exert influence in less obvious ways—through requests rather than direct
orders.
It is, in a sense, the most direct form of social influence. Research by stanley milgram indicates
that many people readily obey orders from a relatively powerless source of authority, even if
these orders require them to harm others. A recent replication of this study reported results very
similar to those obtained by milgram. Such destructive obedience, which plays a role in many
real-life atrocities, stems from several factors. These include the shifting of responsibility to the
authority figure; outward signs of authority that remind many people of the norm “obey
Those in authority”; a gradual escalation of the scope of the commands given (related to the foot-
in-the-door technique); and the rapid pace with which such situations proceed.