Perception Test

Chapter 7

Conformity

AIB College

of BusinessDr. Josh Woods

Figure 7.1: Continuumof Social Influence

Conformity

Tendency to change perceptions, opinions, or behavior in ways that are consistent

with group norms.

Videos: Conformity

When all members of a group give an incorrect response to an easy question, most people most of the time conform with that response.

Answer: True… Let’s see why!

Putting Common Sense to the Test…

The Early Classics

Sherif’s study (1936)Figure 7.3: Classic Case of Suggesti

bilityhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

0DoIxN6B4PQ

Asch’s study (1951)Figure 7.4: Line Judgment Taskhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

TYIh4MkcfJA

Figure 7.4: Line Judgment Task

Used in Asch's Conformity Studies

Asch, 1955.

Return to main slide

What Did Asch’s Participants Do?

Participants went along with the clearly incorrect majority 37% of the time.

However, 25% of the participants NEVER conformed.

Still, 50% conformed for at least half of the critical presentations.

Why Do People Conform?

Informational Influence: People conform because they believe others are correct in their judgments. Figure 7.5 – Conformity Effects on Perception

Normative Influence: People conform because they fear the consequences of appearing deviant.

We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United

States is from Texas

Landslide

#10

#43

Figure 7.5: Conformity Effects on Perception

Return to main slide

Types of Conformity

Private Conformity: Changes in both overt behavior and beliefs.

Public Conformity: Superficial change in overt behavior only.

Table 7.1: Two Types of Conformity

Majority Influence: Group Size

Conformity increases with group size -- but only to a point.

Why? Law of “diminishing returns”?

Can anyone tell me what this is? Light bulb example

Perception that others are either in “collusion” or “spineless sheep”?

Majority Influence: Having an Ally

When there was an ally in Asch’s study, conformity dropped by almost 80%.

Table 7.2 – On Being a Lone Dissenter

Table 7.2: On Being a Lone Dissenter: Voting Patterns of U.S.

Supreme Court

Figure 7.1: Continuumof Social Influence

Compliance

Changes in behavior that are elicited by direct requests.

Compliance

It’s technique…Want a firmer stomach? You need technique to isolate those abdominal muscles. She’s doing sit ups. Sit ups don’t work. They don’t isolate the abdominal muscles. And look at her legs. Everywhere! The wrong way.

How long do you think it took him to make this argument?

Mindlessness and Compliance

Talking fast and catching people off guard can improve compliance rates.

People can be disarmed by the simple phrasing of the request. May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?

94% May I use the Xerox machine? 60% May I use the Xerox machine because I need to make

some copies? 93%

Norm of ReciprocityThe powerful norm of reciprocity dictates

that we treat others as they have treated us. This norm leads us to feel obligated to repay for

acts of kindness, even when unsolicited. Such as peppermints with your check Or a thank you hand-written on a bill Would you like some coffee?

Norm of reciprocity is relatively short-lived.

Compliance: Sequential Request Strategy I

Have you ever…Accepted a free trial subscription?Clipped a coupon for and purchased a

product you don’t regularly use?Applied for a store credit card just to get

the one-time 10% discount?Applied for credit with free interest for a

yearTried a free sample at the grocery store?

Figure 7.1: Continuumof Social Influence

Compliance: Sequential Request StrategiesI: Foot in the Door

II: Lowballing

III: Door in the Face

IV: That’s Not All, Folks!

Sequential Request Strategy I:Foot-in-the-Door Technique

Person begins with a very small request; secures agreement; then makes a separate larger request.

Example: Car Purchase “You have a better warranty than

the guy who bought this car brand new.” “Would you like more coverage?”

Foot-in-the-Door& Low-Balling

How much is a brand new Chevy Volt? Let’s build one http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html

How much does it cost to rent a Uhaul? $39.95/day Plus “optional” insurance ($53.95/day) – foot-in-

the-door Plus taxes – low balling Plus mileage – low balling Plus Environmental fee (…what?) – low balling Plus Gas – low balling

$300 f0r 4 days?But… $40 x 4 is $160

Sequential RequestStrategy II: Low-Balling

Person secures agreement with a request and then increases the size of that request by revealing hidden costs.

Why is it effective? Psychology of

commitment I need as many volunteers

as possible…

Sequential Request Strategy III:Door-in-the-Face Technique

Person begins with a very large request that will be rejected; then follows that up with a more moderate request.

Why is it effective? Perceptual contrast?

Boy Scout: Would you buy two circus tickets for ten bucks?

Cialdini: No Boy Scout: How about two chocolate bars for $2? Cialdini: OK

Reciprocal concessions: They are compromising with me. Perhaps I should meet them in the middle.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent That

Agreed

Real Request Only After Declining Initial

Request

Willing to Take Delinquents to the Zoo?

Would you be willing to work at a juvenile delinquents center for two hours a week over the next two years without pay?

Sequential Request Strategy IV: That’s Not All, Folks!

Person begins with a somewhat inflated request; then immediately decreases the apparent size of the request by offering a discount or bonus.

Infomercials are famous for this Miracle Blades - $500 value for $40 – Can this be

true? And if you call now you can get it half off, plus an

extra set, and I’ll even throw in this extra knife!!!!!!

If you buy one you get two free!

Burger et al

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Sales

75 Cents Reduced to 75 cents

Price of Cupcakes

Table 7.3: SequentialRequest Strategies

Assertiveness: When People Say No

To be able to resist the trap of compliance techniques, one must: Be vigilant Not feel indebted by the norm of reciprocity

Compliance techniques work smoothly only if they are hidden from view.

Most people will shock someone until they are dead if instructed to do so.

Answer: True… Let’s see why!

Putting Common Sense to the Test…

Figure 7.1: Continuumof Social Influence

Obedience

Behavior change produced by thecommands of authority

The Milgram Obedience Studies (1963 & 1965)

AND “MILGRAM REVISITED”(JERRY BURGER, 2009)

Obedience to Authority

Milgram Study (Milgram, 1963, 1965)Experimental Question: Under what

conditions will people carry out the commands of an authority figure and when will they refuse to obey?

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57-76

Table 7.4: The Learner's Scripted Protests in the Milgram Experiment

Milgram Study Results

The experimental setup was described to 40 psychiatrists. They predicted that no one would go beyond the 10th level (150 volts)

Actual results: 65% of the subjects obeyed the experimenter and shocked the “learner” all the way to 450 volts (“Danger: Severe Shock”)

No difference between men and women

Milgram’s Additional Research Findings

Conditions that decreased obedience: 1) Proximity of the “learner”:

Obedience decreased if the learner was in the same room as the teacher

Obedience decreased if the teacher had to physically place the learner’s hand on a shock plate

Explanation: visual cues of someone else’s pain triggers an empathic response

Milgram’s Additional Research Findings

Conditions that decreased obedience: 2) Closeness of the authority figure

Usually the experimenter sat a few feet away from the teacher

Obedience decreased when the experimenter… left the lab and gave the instructions by telephone was never seen and instructions were left on a tape

recorder Also found: when the experimenter was in another

room or when he was not present the “teachers” falsely reported how much shock they were giving the “learner”

Explanation: people will take a stronger stand when they do not have to encounter an authority figure face-to-face

Milgram’s Additional Research Findings

Conditions that decreased obedience 3) Prestige of the experimenter

The initial studies took place at Yale University with the experimenter dressed in a white lab coat

Obedience decreased when the study was moved to Bridgeport, Connecticut and conducted by the fictional “Research Associates of Bridgeport”

Milgram Study Results

Conditions that decreased obedience 4) Disobedient models

When other “teachers” (who were actually confederates of the experimenter) sat with the teacher and disobeyed the experimenter, 90% of the real subjects disobeyed as well

Figure 7.7: Factors That Influence Obedience

Based on Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority, 1974.

Milgram Study Commands

Experimenter prompts: if the “teacher” objected to continuing the experiment, the experimenter’s script included the following prompts: Please continue (or “Please go on”) The experiment requires that you continue It is absolutely essential that you continue You have no other choice, you must go on

Milgram’s Conclusions

“If in this study an anonymous experimenter could

successfully command adults to subdue a fifty-one

year old man, and force on him painful electric

shocks against his protests one can only wonder

what government, with its vastly greater authority

and prestige can command of its subjects.”

-- Stanley Milgram

AMERICANS ARE GREEDYAMERICANS ARE POWER-HUNGRY.

AMERICANS ONLY CARE FOR THEMSELVES.

THE AMERICAN EMPIRE MUST BE DESTROYED. THEIR TIME MUST COME TO AN END.

Rhetoric

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

THEY ARE JUST EVIL .IT ’S NOT OUR PROBLEM.

THEY BROUGHT IT ON THEMSELVES.

WE CAN’T SOLVE ALL THE WORLD’S PROBLEMS.

Rhetoric

Did you know the White House has been set ablaze and almost burnt down by one of our greatest enemies?

THEY ARE JUST EVILIT ’S NOT OUR PROBLEM.

THEY BROUGHT IT ON THEMSELVES.

WE CAN’T SOLVE ALL THE WORLD’S PROBLEMS.

Rhetoric

2.386 killed68 were civilians

346,000-356,000 killedAt least 300,000 civilians

Ever Wonder What the Big Deal is With those Origami Cranes?

Milgram’s Primary Question:Are We All Nazis?

No, an individual’s character can make a difference.

The point: changing minds can be more powerful than killing radicals.