MODULE 4

SOCIAL INFLUENCE
 WHAT IS SOCIAL INFLUENCE?

• Social influence occurs when a person's emotions,

opinions, or behaviors are affected by others WHAT
• The ways in which people are affected by the real
and imagined pressures of others. HOW
• Social influence is defined as change in an
individual’s thoughts, feelings, attitudes, or
behaviors that results from interaction with another
individual or a group. WHY
2 TYPES OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE
(DEUTSCH AND GERARD, 1955)

• Normative : Pressure to conform to the positive

expectations or actions of other people.
• Going along with the crowd in order to be liked
and accepted.
• What happens when we do not conform
• Fear negative consequences of appearing
deviant, paradox of being unique but
disagreement and conflict can be stressful ,
risk of being ridiculed, rejected, laughed at ,
disliked
• “To get along, go along”!
• Informational : Based on the desire to be correct (i.e to
possess accurate perceptions of the social world)
• Going along with the crowd because you think the
crowd knows more than you do.
 CONFORMITY :
TWO TYPES
EXPERIMENTAL REALITY PRIMARY DEPTH OF
TASK EFFECT OF CONFORMITY
GROUP PRODUCED
1) SHERIFF’S NOT CLEAR , INFORMATIONAL PRIVATE
AMBIGUOUS CANNOT BE INFLUENCE ACCEPTANCE
AUTOKINETIC EASILY ( OTHERS KNOW
EFFECT VALIDATED BY BETTER)
PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE
2 )ASCH’S CLEAR NORMATIVE PUBLIC
SIMPLE LINE INFLUENCE CONFORMITY
JUDGEMENTS (COST OF
DISSENT)

How do we know the difference between private and public conformists?

❖ Sheriff’s (1936) retesting of subjects

❖ Asch’s (1956) recording of subject’s private response
 COMPLIANCE (CIALDINI, 1994, 2008)

A form of social influence involving direct requests from

one person to another.

Friendship Commitment
Reciprocity
and liking /
consistency

Social
Scarcity Authority
validation
CONFORMITY

• Pressure to behave in ways consistent with rules that

often exert a powerful influence on us.
• Shoulds and oughts

• Social norms : Rules indicating how individuals are

expected to behave in specific situations.
FACTORS AFFECTING CONFORMITY

1. COHESIVENESS : The extent to which we are attracted

to a social group and want to belong to it.
> cohesiveness > conformity
>more approval /value > conformity

> more uncertainty > conformity

2. GROUP SIZE :

• Impact matters
• Asch (1956) – varied the group size to study the
influence of people on an individual’s response.
• Law of diminishing returns

• Collusion or “spineless sheep”

• Conclusion : Whether we conform or not depends on
our perception of how many distinct independent
thinking others , there are.
3. DESCRIPTIVE AND INJUNCTIVE NORMS :

• Descriptive – Norms simply indicating what most people

do in a given situation ; what is seen as effective or
adaptive.
• Injunctive : Norms specifying what ought to be done ;
what is approved or disapproved behaviour in a given
situation.
• Does not change the moral expectation attached to
the norm.
• Normative focus theory : A theory suggesting that norms
will influence behaviour only to the extent that they are
focal for the people involved at the time the behaviour
occurs.
• Focal, salient, relevant to our behaviour
• Study by Cialdini et al. (1990) on littering and
awareness of how others are behaving
• Study by Cialdini et al., (1991) on activation of
norms based on prior behaviour of others in the
situation /existing norms

Clean or cluttered space :

Clean or cluttered space : Subject observes
Subject observes confederate who draws
confederate who walks attention to the existing
past them norm

• Conclusion : By linking behaviour to signs of

social approval and disapproval, injunctive
norms have a powerful influence on us.
RECENT RESEARCH FINDINGS ON CONFORMITY

1. Power
• Keltner, Gruenfield and Andenson (1993)
• Less dependent on others to obtain social resources
• Threats affect them less
• Less likely to take other’s perspective
FREES ONE
• Experiments by Galinsky et. al (2008)POWER FROM
SITUATION
AL
PRESSURES

GENERAL
BELIEF
THAT THEY MORE
ARE RESISTANT
DESERVIN TO
G OF THE CONFORMI
POWER TY
THEY
POSSESS
ADMIRED BY
OTHERS FOR
INDEPENDEN
T ACTIONS
2. SEXUAL MOTIVES

• Griskevicius et. al
Men are
assertive and (2006)
independent
• Priming of motive to
attract desirable
partners.
• Does this mean that
Women find
this attractive! women are in general
more conforming ?
3. The desire to be unique

• When is our desire to be unique, stronger?

• When it is threatened
• Imhoff and Erb (2009) – Average personality
SYMBOLIC SOCIAL INFLUENCE

• Are other people necessary to influence us?

• Who influences us ultimately?
• How can the psychological presence of others
influence us?
• Research findings : Fitzsimons and Bargh (2003)
 OBEDIENCE
A PERSON DIRECTLY ORDERS ONE OR MORE OTHERS
TO BEHAVE IN SPECIFIC WAYS.
VERSIONS OF THE EXPERIMENT

Milgram (1965, 1974) Burger (2009)

• Males • Both genders

• No screening for medical • Screening for medical
conditions that may be conditions that may be
affected by stress affected by stress
• No freedom to withdraw from • Freedom to withdraw from the
the experiment ; was verbally experiment
prodded to continue • Around 55 -72% obeyed
• Around 65% obeyed
 Authority - Authority –Visible Commands Events
Responsibility

Obedien Authority Authority Status Status Fast Gradual Slow Fast

ce assumes doesn’t and and moving moving
responsi assume power power
bility responsi visible not
bility visible

Strong

Weak
• Countercultural movement in the 1960’s “Question
Authority”.

• Disobedience was positive, good and even an obligation.

• Is obedience always negative?

• It is actually prosocial and considered desirable when
people follow their leaders.
• Supports group life and helps cultures succeed.
• Eg: Military , Sports teams, organizations.

• Conclusion
• Human social and cultural life sometimes contains
conflicting rules and sometime people obey the wrong
ones.
POWER & TYRANNY
ONE PERSON’S CONTROL OVER ANOTHER
• Characteristics : Addictive ; Control and belongingness.

• Effects of power on leaders

• Kipnis (1972, 1976) – High vs low power managers
• Theory of power (a more balanced view) – Keltner,
Gruenfeld and Anderson (2006) Emotion, rewards vs
punishments, what can you do for me (or vice versa) ; the
duplex mind, approach vs inhibition.

• Effects of power on followers

• Legitimate leadership : Explanations used to justify why

people in power deserve to be in power.
ARTICLE DISCUSSION

Tyranny revisited :
Stephen Reicher and S.Alexander Haslam
 Similarities Differences Overall comparison
•The studies took place in a •IVs of Zimbardo's experiment
simulated prison - mundane were the assignments of the • Overall, Zimbardo's
realism was used to make the roles (guard or prisoner) experiment may have been
situation seem more real whereas IVs of H&R's higher in ecological validity
experiment were permeability, due to the lack of demand
•Both were experimental case legitimacy and cognitive characteristics which may
studies alternative have been present in H&R's
study due to the fact that
•Volunteer samples used •Saliva tests were taken in participants knew that were
(newspaper ad) H&R's study to measure levels being filmed for television.
of stress
•Volunteers were screened to • H&R's study is higher in
eliminate psychological •H&R's study was filmed and ecological validity than
problems, medical disabilities on television, therefore Zimbardo's study as it took
or history of crime/drugs participants may not have place in 2006 and therefore
appeared as their true selves is more similar to our
•Prisoners had to wear uniform compared to Zimbardo's study, society today.
where participants felt that the
experiment was real • Zimbardo's study seen as
unethical due to the orders
•In Zimbardo's study, prisoners had to follow,
participants took on their role such as humiliating them by
as guards more effectively than not allowing them to wear
they did in H&R's study any under clothes. H&R's
study involved an
independence ethics
committee that ensured that
the experiment was stopped
if anything unethical were to
take place in order to