The Concepts of

UNIT 1 THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL Social Influence

INFLUENCE
Structure

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Current Research on Social Influence
1.2.1 Minority Influence
1.2.2 Persuasion
1.2.3 Elaboration Likelihood Model
1.2.4 Heuristic-systemic Models
1.2.5 Social Impact Theory
1.2.6 Social Influence Network Theory
1.2.7 Expectation States Theory
1.3 Areas of Social Influence
1.3.1 Conformity
1.3.1.1 Asch's (1951) Experiment on Conformity
1.3.1.2 Factors Found to Increasing Conformity
1.3.1.3 Informational Social Influence
1.3.1.4 Normative Social Influence
1.3.1.5 Minority Influence and Conformity
1.3.1.6 Gender and Conformity
1.3.2 Compliance
1.3.2.1 Principles Observed by Robort Cialdini
1.3.2.1.1 Reciprocation
1.3.2.1.2 Credibility
1.3.2.1.3 Liking/Friendship
1.3.2.1.4 Scarcity
1.3.2.1.5 Social Validation
1.3.2.1.6 Commitment
1.3.2.2 Four Compliance Strategies
1.3.2.2.1 Foot-in-the-door Technique
1.3.2.2.2 Door-in-the-face Technique
1.3.2.2.3 Low-Ball Technique
1.3.3 Obedience
1.3.3.1 Forms of Obedience
1.3.3.2 Cultural Attitudes to Obedience
1.3.3.3 Obedience Training of Human Beings
1.3.3.4 Experimental Studies of Human Obedience
1.3.3.4.1 The Stanford Prison Experiment
1.3.3.4.2 The Hofling Hospital Experiment
1.3.3.4.3 Factors That Increase Obedience
1.4 Let Us Sum Up
1.5 Unit End Questions
1.6 Suggested Reading and References

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Social influence is defined as change in an individual’s thoughts, feelings, attitudes,
or behaviours that results from interaction with another individual or group. It
refers to the change in behaviour that one person causes in another, intentionally
or unintentionally. As a result , the changed person perceives himself in relationship 5
Process of Social Influence to the influencer, other people and society in general. In this unit we will be dealing
with Current research on social influence, such as minority influence etc., areas of
social influence such as conformity with related experiments, compliance and its
factors, obedience and the related factors and experimental studies on human
obedience.

1.1 OBJECTIVES
After completion of this unit, you will be able to:

l Define Social influence;

l Differentiate between various types of Social influence;
l Analyse various factors associated with Conformity;
l Explain various factors affecting Compliance; and
l Describe the factors affecting Obedience.

1.2 CURRENT RESEARCH ON SOCIAL

INFLUENCE
Social influence can also be defined as the process by which individuals make real
changes to their feelings and behaviours as a result of interaction with others who
are perceived to be similar, desirable, or expert. People adjust their beliefs with
respect to others to whom they feel similar in accordance with psychological
principles such as balance. Individuals are also influenced by the majority: when
a large portion of an individual’s referent social group holds a particular attitude,
it is likely that the individual will adopt it as well. Additionally, individuals may
change an opinion under the influence of another who is perceived to be an expert
in the matter at hand. French and Raven (1959) provided an early formalisation
of the concept of social influence in their discussion of the bases of social power.
For French and Raven, agents of change included not just individuals and groups,
but also norms and roles. They viewed social influence as the outcome of the
exertion of social power from one of five bases: reward power, coercive power,
legitimate power, expert power, or referent power. A change in opinion or attitude
was considered an instance of social influence.

Since 1959, scholars have distinguished true social influence from forced public
acceptance and from changes based on reward or coercive power. Social
researchers are still concerned with public compliance, reward power, and coercive
power, but those concerns are differentiated from social influence studies.

Current research on social influence generally uses experimental methodology and

tends to fall into five main areas: (1) minority influence in group settings, (2)
research on persuasion, (3) dynamic social impact theory, (4) a structural approach
to social influence, and (5) social influence in expectation states theory. Each is
discussed below.

1.2.1 Minority Influence

Minority influence is said to occur when a minority subgroup attempts to change
the majority. For example, teachers often influence their students’ beliefs, and
6 political and religious leaders frequently influence the behaviour of their followers.
While some previous research has characterised the process of social influence The Concepts of
as the majority riding over the minority, many scholars interested in minority Social Influence
influence believe that every member of a group can influence others, at least to
some degree. Studies have found this to be particularly true when the minority
group is consistent in what it presents to the majority. In addition, the presence
of minority groups within a larger group often leads to more creative thinking and
better overall solutions on group tasks. Nemeth and Kwan (1987) demonstrated
this in a study of four-person groups working on a creativity task. Individuals
were given information that a majority 3 of 3 or a minority 1 of 3 of the other
group members had come up with a novel response to the task at hand. Those
who were in the minority condition actually produced more correct solutions to
the task, indicating the strong effect of minority viewpoints.

1.2.2 Persuasion
Current research on persuasion, broadly defined as change in attitudes or beliefs
based on information received from others, focuses on written or spoken messages
sent from source to recipient. This research operates on the assumption that
individuals process messages carefully whenever they are motivated and able to
do so. Two types of theories dominate modern persuasion research: the elaboration
likelihood model and heuristic-systemic models.

1.2.3 Elaboration Likelihood Model

The elaboration likelihood model developed by Cacioppo, Petty, and Stoltenberg
(1985) has been used most frequently in therapeutic and counseling settings. It
states that the amount and nature of thinking that a person does about a message
will affect the kind of persuasion that the message produces. Aspects of the
persuasion situation that have been shown to be important for this model include
source, message, recipient, affect, channel, and context. Of particular importance
is the degree to which the recipient views the message’s issue as relevant to
himself. This model has demonstrated its utility in persuading various people to
make various types of healthier choices e.g., cancer patients, teens at risk from
tobacco use.

1.2.4 Heuristic-systemic Models

Heuristic-systemic models propose that argument strength will be most effective
in persuading an individual when he is motivated and able to attend to the
message, the ‘‘systemic’’ route . When the target individual is not motivated or
is unable to attend carefully, persuasion will take place through more indirect
means, the ‘‘heuristic’’ route, such as nonverbal cues or source credibility.
Persuasion that takes place via the systemic route will be relatively permanent and
enduring; persuasion through the heuristic route is more likely to be temporary.

1.2.5 Social Impact Theory

Broader than persuasion, social impact theory, as developed primarily by Bibb
Latane (1981), forms the basis for an active line of inquiry today called dynamic
social impact theory. Social impact means any of the number of changes that
might occur in an individual (physiological, cognitive, emotional, or behavioural)
due to the presence or action of others, who are real, imagined, or implied.
7
Process of Social Influence Social impact theory proposes that the impact of any information source is a
function of three factors: (i) the number of others who make up that source, (ii)
their immediacy i.e., closeness, and their strength and (iii) salience or power.

Dynamic social impact theory uses ideas about social impact to describe and
predict the diffusion of beliefs through social systems. In this view, social structure
is the result of individuals influencing each other in a dynamic way. The likelihood
of being influenced by someone nearby, rather than far away, (the immediacy
factor) produces localised cultures of beliefs within communication networks.

This process can lead initially randomly distributed attitudes and beliefs to become
clustered or correlated , less popular beliefs become consolidated into minority
subcultures. Dynamic social impact theory views society as a self-organising
complex system in which individuals interact and impact each others’ beliefs.

Like dynamic social impact theory, the structural approach to social influence
examines interpersonal influence that occurs within a larger network of influences.
In this larger network, attitudes and opinions of individuals are reflections of the
attitudes and opinions of their referent others.

Interpersonal influence is seen as a basis of individuals’ socialisation and identity.

Social influence is seen as the process by which a group of actors will weigh and
then integrate the opinions of significant others within the context of social structural
constraints. The structure determines the initial positions of group members and
the network and weight of interpersonal influences within the group.

1.2.6 Social Influence Network Theory

Social influence network theory, as described by Friedkin (1998), has its roots
in work by social psychologists and mathematicians .The formal theory involves
a two- weighted averaging of influential opinions. Actors start out with their own
initial opinions on some matter. At each stage, then, actors form a ‘‘norm’’ opinion
which is a weighted average of the other opinions in the group. Actors then
modify their own opinion in response to this norm, forming a new opinion which
is a weighted average of their initial opinion and the network norm. This theory
utilises mathematical models and quantifications to measure the process of social
influence.

1.2.7 Expectation States Theory

Expectation states theory provides another formal treatment of social influence.
Rooted in the work of Bales (1950), which found inequalities in the amount of
influence group members had over one another . Researchers in this tradition
have developed systematic models predicting the relative influence of task-oriented
actors in group settings. Bales discovered that even when group members were
equal on status at the beginning of the group session, some members would end
up being more influential than others.

The group would develop a hierarchy based on the behaviour of the group
members. When group members were initially unequal in status, inequalities would
be imported to the group from the larger society such that, for example, age or
sex or race would structure a hierarchy of influence.

8 Expectation states theory, as described in Berger et al. (1980), was originally

proposed as an explanation for Bales’s finding that groups of status equals would The Concepts of
develop inequalities in influence. According to the theory, group members develop Social Influence
expectations about the future task performance of all group members, including
themselves. Once developed, these expectations guide the group interaction. In
fact, expectations both guide and are maintained by the interaction. Those group
members for whom the highest expectations are held will be the most influential
in the group’s interactions.. Scholars are continuing to expand the theory both
theoretically and substantively.

1.3 AREAS OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Three areas of social influence are conformity, compliance and obedience.
Conformity is changing how you behave to be more like others. This plays to
belonging and esteem needs as we seek the approval and friendship of others.
Conformity can run very deep, as we will even change our beliefs and values to
be like those of our peers and admired superiors.

Compliance is where a person does something that they are asked to do by

another. They may choose to comply or not to comply, although the thoughts of
social reward and punishment may lead them to compliance when they really do
not want to comply. Obedience is different from compliance in that it is obeying
an order from someone that you accept as an authority figure. In compliance, you
have some choice. In obedience, you believe that you do not have a choice.
Many military officers and commercial managers are interested only in obedience.

1.3.1 Conformity
Conformity is the process by which an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours
are conditioned by what is conceived to be what other people might perceive.
This influence occurs in both small groups and society as a whole, and it may be
the result of subtle unconscious influences, or direct and overt social pressure.
Conformity also occurs by the “implied presence” of others, or when other people
are not actually present. For example, people tend to follow the norms of society
when eating or watching television, even when they are at home by themselves.
People often conform from a desire to achieve a sense of security within a
group—typically a group that is of a similar age, culture, religion, or educational
status.

Any unwillingness to conform carries with it the very real risk of social rejection.
In this respect, conformity can be seen as a safe means of avoiding bullying or
deflecting criticism from peers. Conformity is often associated with adolescence
and youth culture, but it affects humans of all ages. Although peer pressure may
be viewed as a negative trait, conformity can have either good or bad effects
depending on the situation. Driving safely on the correct side of the road is a
beneficial example of conformity. Conformity influences the formation and
maintenance of social norms and allows society to function smoothly and predictably.
Because conformity is a group phenomenon, such factors as group size, unanimity,
cohesion, status, prior commitment, and public opinion all help to determine the
level of conformity an individual will display (Aronson, et.al. (2007).

1.3.1.1 Asch’s (1951) Experiment on Conformity

Perhaps the most influential study of conformity came from Solomon E. Asch 9
Process of Social Influence (1951). Asch gave groups of seven or nine college students what appeared to be
a test of perceptual judgment: matching the length of a line segment to comparison
lines. Each subject saw a pair of cards set up in front of the room, similar to the
ones that follow.

Stimuli like those used by Asch

Subjects received the following instructions:

This is a task involving the discrimination of lengths of lines. Before you is a pair
of cards. On the left is a card with one line. The card at the right has three lines
different in length; they are numbered 1, 2 and 3, in order. One of the three lines
at the right is equal to the standard line at the left-you will decide in each case
which is the equal line. You will state your judgment in terms of the number of the
line. There will be 18 such comparisons in all... As the number of comparisons
is few and the group small, I will call upon each of you in turn to announce your
judgments.

In a group of nine, eight subjects were actually confederates of the experimenter.

The experiment was designed so that the genuine subject was called upon
next-to-last in the group. The experimenter’s confederates had been instructed,
in advance, to make deliberately ridiculous judgments on many of the trials, but
to agree unanimously with one another. On 12 of the 18 trials, they said in loud
voices (for example) that the 4½" line was exactly equal to 3" standard line. The
pressure of the group had a dramatic effect. Although people could pick the
correct line 99% of the time when making the judgments by themselves, they went
along with the erroneous group judgment 75% of the time, even when it was
plainly wrong.

The conforming subjects did not fool themselves into thinking the wrong line was
equal to the standard line. They could see the difference. However, they were
influenced by eight people in a row making the “wrong” decision. Asked later why
they had made such obviously incorrect judgments, subjects reported, “They must
have been looking at line widths” or “I assumed it was an optical illusion” or “If
eight out of nine people made the same choice, I must have missed something in
the instructions.”

Asch obtained the conformity effect even when the confederate declared an
eleven-inch line to be equivalent to a four-inch standard. He found that small
groups-even groups of three, containing two confederates and one naïve subject-
were sufficient to induce the effect.

10
About a quarter of the subjects remained independent throughout the testing and The Concepts of
never changed their judgments to fit those of the group. One could argue that Social Influence
Asch’s experiment showed stubborn independence in some people, just as it
showed conformity in others. A subject who did not conform reported to Asch
later:

I’ve never had any feeling that there was any virtue in being like others. I’m used
to being different. I often come out well by being different. I don’t like easy group
opinions.

Asch later tested the effect of having a dissenter in the group. He found that if
only one of seven confederates disagreed with the group decision, this was enough
to free most subjects from the conformity effect. However, if the dissenter defected
later, joining the majority after the first five trials, rates of conformity increased
again. The public nature of the judgment also seemed to have an effect. If subjects
were invited to write their responses in private, while the majority made oral
responses, this destroyed the conformity effect.

1.3.1.2 Factors Found to Increase Conformity

Asch’s experiment inspired a lot of follow-up research by other experimenters.

Factors found to increase conformity included the following:

1) Attractiveness of other members in the group . People tended to go along with

a group of attractive people.

2) Complexity or difficulty of the task . People were more likely to conform if the
judgment was difficult.

3) Group cohesiveness. People conformed more if friendships or mutual

dependencies were set up beforehand .

To appreciate further the nature of this dilemma, let us imagine an introductory

lecture in psychology. The instructor is describing the Asch study and has just
shown a picture of the experimental stimuli. Suddenly he is interrupted by a
student who remarks, “But line A is the correct answer...” Predictably, the class
would laugh aloud and thereby communicate their enjoyment of their peer’s joke.
Suppose, however, that the dissenter failed to smile or to otherwise confirm that
he was trying to be funny. Suppose, instead, that he insisted, “Why are you all
laughing at me? I can see perfectly, and line A is correct.” Once convinced of the
dissenter’s sincerity, the class response almost certainly would be a mixture of
discomfort, bewilderment, concern, and doubt about the dissenter’s mental and
perceptual competence. It is this response that the Asch dissenters risked and,
accordingly, it is not surprising that many chose to avoid it through conformity.

Was the Asch conformity effect possibly due to the era in which it was carried
out? After all, the early 1950s were famous for emphasising conformity, such as
the “corporate man” who did everything possible to eliminate his individuality and
fit into a business setting. To see if the same experiment would work with a later
generation of subjects, NBC news had social psychologist Anthony Pratkanis
replicate the Asch experiment in front of a hidden camera for its Dateline show
in 1997. Sure enough, the experiment still worked, and the percentage of
conformists was almost identical to what Asch found. Most students, even some
who looked creative or rebellious on the outside, went along with obviously 11
Process of Social Influence incorrect group judgments. Later they explained that they did not want to look
foolish, so they just “caved in.”

Research in has focused primarily on two main varieties of conformity. These are
informational conformity, or informational social influence, and normative
conformity, otherwise known as normative social influence.

1.3.1.3 Informational Social Influence

Informational social influence occurs when one turns to the members of one’s
group to obtain accurate information. A person is most likely to use informational
social influence in three situations: When a situation is ambiguous, people become
uncertain about what to do. They are more likely to depend on others for the
answer. During a crisis when immediate action is necessary, in spite of panic.
Looking to other people can help ease fears, but unfortunately they are not
always right. The more knowledgeable a person is, the more valuable they are as
a resource. Thus people often turn to experts for help. But once again people
must be careful, as experts can make mistakes too. Informational social influence
often results in internalisation or private acceptance, where a person genuinely
believes that the information is right. Informational social influence was first
documented in Muzafer Sherif’s autokinetic experiment (Sherif, M., 1936). He
was interested in how many people change their opinions to bring them in line with
the opinion of a group. Participants were placed in a dark room and asked to
stare at a small dot of light 15 feet away. They were then asked to estimate the
amount it moved. The trick was there was no movement, it was caused by a
visual illusion known as the autokinetic effect. Every person perceived different
amounts of movement. Over time, the same estimate was agreed on and others
conformed to it. Sherif suggested that this was a simulation for how social norms
develop in a society, providing a common frame of reference for people.

Subsequent experiments were based on more realistic situations. In an eyewitness

identification task, participants were shown a suspect individually and then in a
lineup of other suspects. They were given one second to identify him, making it
a difficult task.

One group was told that their input was very important and would be used by
the legal community. To the other it was simply a trial. Being more motivated to
get the right answer increased the tendency to conform.

Those who wanted to be most accurate conformed 51% of the time as opposed
to 35% in the other group (Baron, 1996). Economists have suggested that fads
and trends in society form as the result of individuals making rational choices
based on information received from others. These information form quickly as
people decide to ignore their internal signals and go along with what other people
are doing.

1.3.1.4 Normative social influence

Normative social influence occurs when one conforms to be liked or accepted by

the members of the group. It usually results in public compliance, doing or saying
something without believing in it. Asch was the first psychologist to study this
phenomenon in the laboratory. As mentioned earlier, He conducted a modification
of Sherif’s study, assuming that when the situation was very clear, conformity
12 would be drastically reduced. He exposed people in a group to a series of lines,
and the participants were asked to match one line with a standard line.
All participants except one were secretly told to give the wrong answer in 12 of The Concepts of
the 18 trials. The results showed a surprisingly high degree of conformity. 76% Social Influence
of the participants conformed on at least one trial. On average people conformed
one third of the time.

However, in a reinterpretation of the original data from these experiments Hodges

and Geyer (2006) found that Asch’s subjects were not so conformist after all. The
experiments provide powerful evidence for people’s tendency to tell the truth
even when others do not. Also, there are multiple moral claims which include the
need for participants to care for the integrity and well-being of other participants,
the experimenter, themselves, and the worth of scientific research.

Normative influence is a function of social impact theory which has three

components. The number of people in the group has a surprising effect. As the
number increases, each person has less of an impact. A group’s strength is how
important the group is to a person. Groups we value generally have more social
influence. Immediacy is how close the group is in time and space when the
influence is taking place. Psychologists have constructed a mathematical model
using these three factors and are able to predict the amount of conformity that
occurs with some degree of accuracy.

Baron and his colleagues conducted a second “eyewitness study”, this time focusing
on normative influence (Baron, 1996). In this version, the task was made easier.
Each participant was given five seconds to look at a slide, instead of just one
second. Once again there were both high and low motives to be accurate, but the
results were the reverse of the first study. The low motivation group conformed
33% of the time (similar to Asch’s findings). The high motivation group conformed
less at 16%.

These results show that when accuracy is not very important, it is better to get
the wrong answer than to risk social disapproval.

An experiment using procedures similar to Asch’s found that there was significantly
less conformity in six-person groups of friends as compared to six-person groups
of strangers. Because friends already know and accept each other, there may be
less normative pressure to conform in some situations. Field studies on cigarette
and alcohol abuse, however, generally demonstrate evidence of friends exerting
normative social influence on each other.

1.3.1.5 Minority Influence and Conformity

Although conformity generally leads individuals to think and act more like groups,
individuals are occasionally able to reverse this tendency and change the people
around them. This is known as minority influence, a special case of informational
influence.

Minority influence is most likely when people are able to make a clear and
consistent case for their point of view. If the minority fluctuates and shows
uncertainty, the chance of influence is small. However, if the minority makes a
strong, convincing case, it will increase the probability of changing the beliefs and
behaviour of the majority.

Minority members who are perceived as experts, are high in status, or have
benefited the group in the past are also more likely to succeed. Another form of
13
Process of Social Influence minority influence can sometimes override conformity effects and lead to unhealthy
group dynamics. By creating negative emotional climate that interferes with healthy
group functioning. They can be avoided by careful selection procedures and
managed by reassigning them to positions that require less social interaction.

1.3.1.6 Gender and Conformity

Societal norms often establish gender differences. In general, this is the case for
social conformity, as females are more likely to conform than males (Reitan &
Shaw, 1964).

There are differences in the way men and women conform to social influence.
Social psychologists, Alice Eagly and Linda Carli performed a meta-analysis of
148 studies of influenceability. They found that women are more persuasible and
more conforming than men in group pressure situations that involve surveillance.
In situations not involving surveillance, women are less likely to conform.

In a study by Sistrunk and McDavid at a private university, a public junior college,

and at a high school, overall, females were more susceptible to social pressures
than males. In fact, females conformed more than males 3 out of 4 times when
they were presented masculine questions. Males conformed more than females 2
out of 4 times when they were presented feminine questions.

The composition of the group plays a role in conformity as well. In a study by

Reitan and Shaw, it was found that men and women conformed more when there
were participants of both sexes involved versus participants of the same sex.
Subjects in the groups with both sexes were more apprehensive when there was
a discrepancy amongst group members, and thus the subjects reported that they
doubted their own judgments. (Reitan & Shaw, 1964).

Normative social influence explains women’s attempt to create the ideal body
through dieting, and also by eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia.
Men, in contrast, are likely to pursue their ideal body image through dieting,
steroids, and overworking their bodies, rather than developing eating disorders.
Both men and women probably learn what kind of body is considered attractive
by their culture through the process of informational social influence.

Self Assessment Questions

1) What are the current research in social influence?

................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

2) What kind of studies have been conducted to understand minority influence?

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
14 ...............................................................................................................
 The Concepts of
3) Give with suitable examples some of the studies conucted in persuation.
Social Influence

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4) Discuss elaboration likelihood and heuristic systemic models in regard to

social influence.

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

5) What do you understand by social impact theory and how it has contributed
to understading social influence?

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

6) Discuss social influence network theory and the expectation states theory of
social influence.

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

7) Discuss the various areas of social influence .

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

8) Put forward the experiment by Asch on conformity and indicate its significance
for social influence.

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................... 15
Process of Social Influence 1.3.2 Compliance
In psychology, compliance refers to the act of responding favourably to an explicit
or implicit request offered by others. The request may be explicit, such as a direct
request for donations, or implicit, such as an advertisement promoting its products
without directly asking for purchase. In all cases, the target recognises that he or
she is being urged to respond in a desired way. To study the compliance professions
from the inside, Cialdini (2001) joined training programs of a different compliance
professions (sales, advertising, public relations, etc.) and started the participant
observation. He found that some principles are commonly used to increase the
probability of successful compliance, including reciprocation, credibility, liking/
friendship, scarcity and social validation.

1.3.2.1 Principles Observed by Robert Cialdini

The principles observed by Cialdini include (i) reciprocation, (ii) credibility (iii)
Liking / friendship (iv) Scarcity (v) Social validation and (vi) Commitment.

1.3.2.1.1 Reciprocation

Based on the social norm “treat others as you would expect to be treated”, when
someone does us a favour, it creates an obligation to accept any reasonable
requests he or she might make in return. We feel a motivation to reciprocate. For
instance if someone does something for you (such as giving you a compliment),
then you feel more obligated to do something for them (buy a product they may
be offering). Failing to respond leads to violation of our obligation to reciprocate
and bears the risk of social sanction. Guilt arousal produces an increase in
compliance. People who are induced to guilt are more likely to comply with a
request such as making a phone call to save native trees or donating blood
(Darlinton, & Macker, 1966).

Research findings supports in that this can be demonstrated by experiment.

Participants acted as subjects to answer questions under two conditions. When
they answered wrongly, participants acted as shock administrator and delivered
shock in condition A . When participants acted as witness, witnessing subjects
being shocked in condition B. After a few trials, requests for making calls were
made. Results showed that participants in condition A were more likely to comply
with the requests by making many more calls (39 calls) than those in condition
B (6.5 calls). It is because participants in condition A comply with the requests
in order to ward off their guilty feeling.

1.3.2.1.2 Credibility

The source of requests will also affect whether we comply or not. If the source
is an expert, with knowledge, abilities or skills, i.e. more credible, we would
respect the request more and would be more likely to comply. This principle is
used as a marketing strategy, where they put on white lab coats which, from a
consumer’s point of view, will symbolise authority.

One of the experiments conducted in this regard invited five hundred university
students to join the study about their opinion of sleep. In the first stage, students
gave their opinion on the optimum length of sleep and the average result was
about eight hours. Then, students received advice from two sources, one was a
16 physiologist who had won a Nobel Prize before and was a specialist on sleep
research; the other one was a YMCA instructor.
Clearly, the former one represented a more credible source while the latter one The Concepts of
represented a less credible source. Two experts varied their answer about the Social Influence
number of sleeping hours needed every day from eight to zero. Therefore, the
discrepancy between the student’s answer and the expert’s answer increased
from zero to eight.

After consulting the experts, students were asked to give their opinion again about
the number of sleeping hours. When the experts’ opinion was different from that
of students, students were more likely to change their own answers after they got
the advice from the physiologist (more credible source) than from the YMCA
instructor (less credible source). Therefore, a high credibility source makes people
more likely to comply. This may explain why advertisements nowadays always
quote experts’ opinion or construct a sense of expertise by showing a professional
figure.

1.3.2.1.3 Liking/Friendship

People are more likely to say yes to those they know and like because of the
Social Exchange Theory, which states that human relationships are formed by
using a subjective cost-benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives. Thus,
complying with a person we like certainly is more favourable. This principle is
used by salesmen all over the world. The principle of liking is common within
neighbourhoods, neighbours selling and buying things from each other. When you
feel that you trust a person you feel more obliged to buy the thing that they’re
selling.

In an experiment conducted by Dennis (2006), 115 female and 94 male

undergraduate students were requested to complete a questionnaire asking them
the degree of intimacy with their partners. Besides, participants were also asked
to consider 32 behavioural change messages e.g. smoking cessation, safe sex
practice, etc. as if these were delivered to them by their partners and to estimate
their effectiveness on a 5-point scale.

The result showed that higher levels of intimacy within romantic relationships are
significantly and positively correlated with the estimated success of appeals targeted
at health-related behavioural motivations.

1.3.2.1.4 Scarcity

The scarcity effect refers to the influence of perceived scarcity on the subjective
desirability of an object. Individuals do not want to be left alone without an item.
A consumer often infers value in a product that has limited availability or is
promoted as being scarce. The idea of “Limited edition” which can be seen all
over the world is based on the principle of scarcity. When we see that an object
is limited we feel the urge to buy them in order to not be left out. This also relates
to the key explanation to one of the fundamental concepts in economics “Supply
and Demand”.

A classical experiment was done by Worchel et al. (1975). Jars of chocolate chip
cookies were shown to the subjects who were then asked to rate ‘how much do
you like the cookies’, ‘how attractive the cookies are’ and ‘how much would you
pay for the cookies’.

Results found that the rating of liking, attractiveness and cost paid were significantly
17
Process of Social Influence higher in the scarcity condition in which there were only 2 cookies in the jar than
in the abundant condition with 10 cookies in the jar. Therefore, suggesting that the
product is scarce or in limited supply is an effective selling method. People are
more likely to comply with the salesmen’s persuasion and buy the limited edition
products as they value more on scarce products.

1.3.2.1.5 Social Validation

Social Validation, also called “Principle of Conformity and Consensus”, in

compliance is a phenomenon in which people are more willing to take a
recommended step if they see evidence that many others, especially similar others,
are taking it. The human need to fit in is very strong and tends to make us comply
in order to be a part of the majority.

Schultz (1999) had conducted a “Field Experiment on Curbside Recycling” to

observe participants’ curbside recycling behaviours for 17 weeks with different
interventions. In the experiment, 5 conditions namely, ‘plea’, ‘plea plus information’,
‘plea plus neighbourhood feedback’, ‘plea plus individual household feedback’,
or the control condition are observed.

Among these conditions, the ‘Plea plus neighborhood feedback’ condition in

which subjects receive the total amount of each material collected for the duration
of the study and the percentage of households participated that week , shows the
most long lasting participation during post-intervention. This unveils the underlying
strong influence of social validation in compliance.

On business front, manufacturers often persuade purchase by claiming that their

products are the fastest growing or best selling in the market. Cialdini (2001) has
pointed out that this strategy of enhancing compliance by providing information of
others who had already complied was the most widely used principle he
encountered.

1.3.2.1.6 Commitment

Commitment to a store or a company induced by loyalty cards or bonuses can

make it harder for a person to change where they shop or what they purchase.

1.3.2.2 Four Compliance Strategies

Compliance is known to be enhanced by a number of situational manipulations

such as:

l Foot-in-the-door technique
l Door-in-the-face technique
l Low-Ball
l Ingratiation

1.3.2.2.1 Foot-in-the-door technique

Foot-in-the-door technique (FITD) is a compliance tactic that involves getting a

person to agree to a large request by first setting them up by having that person
agreeing to a modest request.

18 In a study, a team of psychologists telephoned housewives in California and asked

if the women would answer a few questions about the household products they The Concepts of
used. Three days later, the psychologists called again. This time, they asked if they Social Influence
could send five or six men into the house to go through cupboards and storage
places as part of a 2-hr enumeration of household products. The investigators
found these women were more than twice as likely to agree to the 2-hr request
as a group of housewives asked only the larger request. Numerous experiments
have shown that foot-in-the-door tactics work well in persuading people to comply,
especially if the request is a pro-social request. Research has shown that FITD
techniques work over the computer via email, in addition to face-to-face requests.

Examples

“Can I go over to Sita’s house for an hour?” followed by “Can I stay the
night?”

“Can I borrow the car for 1 day?” followed by “Can I borrow the car for
the weekend?”

“Would you sign this petition for our cause?” followed by “Would you donate
to our cause?”

“May I re turn the maggine a few hours late?” followed by “May I re turn
it in next week?”

1.3.2.2.2 Door-in-the-face technique

The door-in-the-face (DITF) technique is a persuasion method. Compliance with

the request of concern is enhanced by first making an extremely large request that
the respondent will obviously turn down, with a metaphorical slamming of a door
in the persuader’s face. The respondent is then more likely to accede to a second,
more reasonable request than if this second request were made without the first,
extreme request. Cialdini (Cialdini, 2001) suggests that this is a form of reciprocity,
e.g. the [induced] sharp negative response to the first request creates a sense of
debt or guilt that the second request offers to clear. Alternately, a reference point
(or framing) construal may explain this phenomenon, as the initial bad offer sets
a reference point from which the second offer looks like an improvement.

One of the classic experiments to test the door in the face technique is where
Cialdini asked students to volunteer to counsel juvenile delinquents for two hours
a week for two years. After their refusal, they were asked to chaperone juvenile
delinquents on a one-day trip to the zoo. 50% agreed to chaperone the trip to
the zoo as compared to 17% of participants who only received the zoo request.

Examples

Other examples of the door-in-the-face technique include:

“Will you donate Rs.1000 to our organization?” [Response is no].

“Oh. Well, could you donate Rs.10 ?”

“Can you help me do all this work?”

“Well, can you help me with this bit?”

1.3.2.2.3 Low-Ball Technique

19
Process of Social Influence The low-ball is a persuasion and selling technique in which an item or service is
offered at a lower price than is actually intended to be charged, after which the
price is raised to increase profits.

A successful low-ball relies on the balance of making the initial request attractive
enough to gain agreement, whilst not making the second request so outrageous
that the customer refuses.

First propose an attractive price on an idea/item which you are confident that the
other person/buyer will accept.

Maximise their buy-in, in particular by getting both verbal and public commitment
to this, e.g. down payment or hand-shaking. Make it clear that the decision to
purchase is from their own free will.

Change the agreement to what you really want. The person/buyer may complain,
but they should agree to the change if the low-ball is managed correctly.

The experimenters asked students to participate in an experiment. 56% agreed,

before being told that the experiment started at 7am. They then told the volunteers
that the study was scheduled at 7am, and the volunteers could withdraw if they
wished. None did so, and 95% turned up at the scheduled time (the Low-Ball
group). When a control group were asked to participate and were told the
unsocial timing of the experiment up front, only 24% agreed to participate.

Self Assessment Questions

1) In regard to Compliance, what are principles observed by Cialdini? Support

your arguments with research findings.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

2) What is credibility? Discuss credibilioty factor as influencing compliance.

Give evidence in terms of research findings.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

3) How does liking or friendship affect a person’s compliance? Give suitable

evidences and examples.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
20
 The Concepts of
4) What is meant by scarcity factor? How does it contribute to compliance? Social Influence

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

5) Describe and discuss each of the four compliance strategies. FIDT, DIFT,
LBT

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

1.3.3 Obedience
Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual acts in response
to a direct order from another individual, who is usually an authority figure.
It is assumed that without such an order the person would not have acted in this
way. Obedience occurs when you are told to do something (authority), whereas
conformity happens through social pressure (the norms of the majority). Obedience
involves a hierarchy of power/status.

Therefore, the person giving the order has a higher status than the person receiving
the order. Obedience is the act of obeying orders from others.

As humans we are indoctrinated to obey authority figures. This training begins

from the moment of birth as we are reliant on our parents to take care of our
every need, in turn being subservient to our authority figure or parents. As we
begin to mature and are thrust into society we obtain more influential authority
figures from outside the household.

Schools have a system of order and authority. Teachers give us guidance and
direction academically and even socially because we begin to learn how to act in
a group or societal setting. The school environment is all a preparation for careers.

When we begin working most of us work for a company or organisation with all
levels of management who we must be obedient to. As we mature we are given
more and more responsibility over our actions and judgments, thus making it more
beneficial to our societal advancement to be obedient. Stanley Milgram, a famous
social psychologist, performs a number of experiments on human obedience in the
1960’s.

Obedience, in human behaviour, is the quality of being obedient, which describes

the act of carrying out commands, or being actuated. Obedience differs from
compliance, which is behaviour influenced by peers, and from conformity, which
is behaviour intended to match that of the majority. Humans have been shown to
be surprisingly obedient in the presence of perceived legitimate authority figures,
as demonstrated by the Milgram experiment in the 1960s, which was carried out
by Stanley Milgram to discover how the Nazis managed to get ordinary people
21
Process of Social Influence to take part in the mass murders of the Holocaust. The experiment showed that
obedience to authority was the norm, not the exception

1.3.3.1 Forms of Obedience

Obedience is the tendency to follow orders given by an authority figure. This can
be explained by Milgram’s Agency Theory, which states that we are in either one
of two states. Forms of human obedience include:

l obedience to laws;
l obedience to social norms;
l obedience to a monarch, government, organisation, religion, or church;
l obedience to God;
l obedience to self-imposed constraints, such as a vow of chastity;
l obedience of a spouse or child to a husband/wife or parent respectively;
l obedience to management in the workplace.

1.3.3.2 Cultural Attitudes to Obedience

Obedience is regarded as a virtue in many traditional cultures; historically, children

have been expected to be obedient to their elders, slaves to their owners, serfs
to their lords in feudal society, lords to their king, and everyone to God. Even long
after slavery ended in the United States, the Black codes required black people
to obey and submit to whites, on pain of lynching.

In some Christian weddings, obedience was formally included along with honor
and love as part of a conventional bride’s (but not the bridegroom’s) wedding
vow. This came under attack with women’s suffrage and the feminist movement.
Today its inclusion in marriage vows is optional in some denominations.

As the middle classes have gained political power, the power of authority has
been progressively eroded, with the introduction of democracy as a major turning
point in attitudes to obedience and authority.

Since the democides and genocides of the First World War and Second World
War periods, obedience has come to be regarded as a far less desirable quality
in Western cultures. The civil rights and protest movements in the second half of
the twentieth century marked a remarkable reduction in respect for authority in
Western cultures, and greater respect for individual ethical judgment as a basis for
moral decisions.

1.3.3.3 Obedience Training of Human Beings

Some animals can easily be trained to be obedient by employing operant

conditioning, for example obedience schools exist to condition dogs into obeying
the orders of human owners. Obedience training seems to be particularly effective
on social animals a category that includes human beings; other animals do not
respond well to such training.

Learning to obey adult rules is a major part of the socialisation process in childhood,
and many techniques are used by adults to modify the behaviour of children.
22 Additionally, extensive training is given in armies to make soldiers capable of
obeying orders in situations where an untrained person would not be willing to The Concepts of
Social Influence
follow orders. Soldiers are initially ordered to do seemingly trivial things, such as
picking up the sergeant’s hat off the floor, marching in just the right position, or
marching and standing in formation. The orders gradually become more demanding,
until an order to the soldiers to place themselves into the midst of gunfire gets a
knee-jerk obedient response.

1.3.3.4 Experimental Studies of Human Obedience

Obedience has been extensively studied by psychologists since the Second World
War — the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment are the most
commonly cited experimental studies of human obedience, while the Hofling hospital
experiment was an early field experiment (Hofling CK et al., 1966)

The Milgram experiments, the first of which was carried out in 1961, were the
earliest investigations of the power of authority figures as well as the lengths to
which participants would go as a result of their influence. Milgram’s results showed
that, contrary to expectations, a majority of civilian volunteers would obey orders
to apply electric shocks to another person until they were unconscious or dead.
Prior to these experiments, most of Milgram’s colleagues had predicted that only
sadists would be willing to follow the experiment to their conclusion.

Obedience is a basic human trait and is a deeply ingrained behaviour. Some form
of obedience is a requirement for function in modern society. The Milgram shock
experiment proves these characteristics. The experiments first took place at Yale
University and eventually involved over one thousand participants from all walks
of life.

Two individuals were to enter a psychology laboratory and take part in a study
of memory and learning. One of them was to be the teacher and the other the
student. The student was instructed to learn a list of word pairs and whenever the
student made a mistake would receive an electric shock of increasing intensity.
However the focus of the experiment is the teacher. The teacher watches the
student being strapped into place and then taken to a shock generator. The shock
generator features switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts in 15 volt increments.
If the student gets the answer correct the teacher is to move on to the next
problem. If the answer is wrong the teacher is to shock the student beginning with
15 volts.

The teacher, being the focus of the experiment, does not know that the student
is not really being shocked and that the student is really an actor. Each time the
student answers incorrectly and is shocked, he pretends to be shocked. As the
teacher watches the student being tortured by the electric shocks, he continues
to follow the orders he was instructed. The experiment proves that obedience is
something humans teach one another and follow through with.

Milgram thinks the problems lies in the structure of society, people are just
following orders of superiors and are not directly responsible for his or her
actions.

Also, Milgram himself had already conducted several studies, which had shown
that obedience tended to increase with the prestige of the authority figure. In these
studies, an undergraduate research assistant posing as a Yale professor had a
much greater influence than did someone of lesser status, regardless of the prestige 23
of the institution in which the study was based.
Process of Social Influence 1.3.3.4.1 The Stanford Prison Experiment

Unlike the Milgram experiment, which studied the obedience of individuals, the
1971 Stanford prison experiment studied the behaviour of people in groups, and
in particular the willingness of people to obey orders and adopt abusive roles in
a situation where they were placed in the position of being submissive or dominant
by a higher authority.

In the experiment, a group of volunteers was divided into two groups and placed
in a “prison,” with one group in the position of playing prison guards, and other
group in the position of “prisoners”.

In this case, the experimenters acted as authority figures at the start of the
experiment, but then delegated responsibility to the “guards,” who enthusiastically
followed the experimenters’ instructions, and in turn assumed the roles of abusive
authority figures, eventually going far beyond the experimenters’ original instruction
in their efforts to dominate and brutalize the “prisoners.” At the same time, the
prisoners adopted a submissive role with regard to their tormentors, even though
they knew that they were in an experiment, and that their «captors» were other
volunteers, with no actual authority other than that being role-played in the
experiment.

The Stanford experiment demonstrated not only obedience (of the “guards” to the
experimenters, and the “prisoners” to both the guards and experimenters), but
also high levels of compliance and conformity.

1.3.3.4.2 The Hofling Hospital Experiment

Both the Milgram and Stanford experiments were conducted in experimental

circumstances. In 1966, psychiatrist Charles K. Hofling published the results of
a field experiment on obedience in the nurse-physician relationship in its natural
hospital setting. Nurses, unaware they were taking part in an experiment, were
ordered by unknown doctors to administer dangerous doses of a (fictional) drug
to their patients. Although several hospital rules disallowed administering the drug
under the circumstances, 21 out of the 22 nurses would have given the patient an
overdose of medicine.

1.3.3.4.3 Factors that Increase Obedience

Milgram found that subjects were more likely to obey in some circumstances than
others. Obedience was highest when:

l Commands were given by an authority figure rather than another volunteer

l The experiments were done at a prestigious institution
l The authority figure was present in the room with the subject
l The learner was in another room
l The subject did not see other subjects disobeying commands

In everyday situations, people obey orders because they want to get rewards,
because they want to avoid the negative consequences of disobeying, and because
they believe an authority is legitimate. In more extreme situations, people obey
even when they are required to violate their own values or commit crimes.
24 Researchers think several factors cause people to carry obedience to extremes:
People justify their behaviour by assigning responsibility to the authority rather The Concepts of
than themselves. Social Influence

People define the behaviour that’s expected of them as routine.

People don’t want to be rude or offend the authority.

People obey easy commands first and then feel compelled to obey more and
more difficult commands. This process is called entrapment, and it illustrates the
foot-in-the-door phenomenon.

Stanley Milgram has pointed out a human characteristic that may very well be in
each and every one of us. These experiments show us that ordinary people will
go to any length to be subservient to an authority figure, no matter the moral
dilemma. Only when we can differentiate between being a good subject and
having good morals will we be able to make a distinction between being obedient
and committing crimes by our own individual actions.

Self Assessment Questions

1) What are the various forms of obedience?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

2) How are humans trained to obey?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

3) What factors influence obedience? Put forward experimental studies on

humans in regard to obedience.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4) Describe the Milgram experiment . What did you learn from it in regard to
obedience?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

25
Process of Social Influence
5) What factors increase obedience?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

1.4 LET US SUM UP

Social influence is the change in behaviour that one person causes in another,
intentionally or unintentionally, as a result of the way the changed person perceives
themselves in relationship to the influencer, other people and society in general.
Social influence can also be defined as the process by which individuals make real
changes to their feelings and behaviours as a result of interaction with others who
are perceived to be similar, desirable, or expert. Three areas of social influence
are conformity, compliance and obedience. Conformity is changing how you
behave to be more like others. This plays to belonging and esteem needs as we
seek the approval and friendship of others. Conformity can run very deep, as we
will even change our beliefs and values to be like those of our peers and admired
superiors. Compliance is where a person does something that they are asked to
do by another. They may choose to comply or not to comply, although the
thoughts of social reward and punishment may lead them to compliance when
they really do not want to comply. Obedience is different from compliance in that
it is obeying an order from someone that you accept as an authority figure. In
compliance, you have some choice. In obedience, you believe that you do not
have a choice. Many military officers and commercial managers are interested
only in obedience.

1.5 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1) Define the term Social Influence and discuss its various types.

2) Describe the factors associated with conformity.

3) describe in detail the Asch’s study on conformity.

4) What do you mean by compliance? Discuss various factors leading to compliance.

5) Describe the Stanford Prison experiment and indicate itws contribution in

understanding obedience.

6) What is the significance of Hofling Hospital experiment? Discuss the same in

the context of obedience.

1.6 SUGGESTED READINGS AND

REFERENCES
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2010). Social Psychology (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26
Baron, R. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Byrne, D. (2009). Social Psychology(12th The Concepts of
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Social Influence

References

Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert, A.M. (2007). Social Psychology (6th Ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion
of judgments. Groups, leadership, and men, 177-190.

Bales, R. F. (1950) Interaction Process Analysis. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA

Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable in
conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915-927.

Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. Jr. (1980). Status Organizing
Processes. Annual Review of Sociology 6: 479–508

Bochner, S., & Insko, C. A. (1966). Communicator discrepancy, source credibility,

and opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 614-621.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1985) Processes of Social

Influence: The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In: Kendall, P. C.
(Ed.), Advances in Cognitive-Behavioural Research and Therapy. Academic Press,
San Diego, pp. 215–74.

Cialdini, Robert B. (2001). ‘‘Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.)’’. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.

Darlinton, R. B., & Macker, C. E. (1966). Displacement of guilt-produced altuistic

behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(4), 442-443.

Dennis, M. R. (2006). Compliance and Intimacy: Young Adults’ Attempts to

Motivate Health-Promoting Behaviours by Romantic Partners. Health
Communication, 19 (3), 259-267.

French, J. R. P., Jr. & Raven, B. (1959) The Bases of Social Power. In: Cartwright,
D. (Ed.), Studies in Social Power. Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI,
pp. 150–67.

Friedkin, N. (1998) A Structural Theory of Social Influence. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Hodges, B. H. and A. L. Geyer (2006). A Nonconformist Account of the Asch

Experiments: Values, Pragmatics, and Moral Dilemmas. In:Personality and Social
Psychology Review 10(1), 2–19.

Hofling CK et al. (1966) “An Experimental Study of Nurse-Physician

Relationships”. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 141:171-180.

Latane, B. (1981) The Psychology of Social Impact. American Psychologist 36:

343–56.
27
Process of Social Influence Latane, B. (1996) Dynamic Social Impact: The Creation of Culture by
Communication. Journal of Communication 4: 13–25.

Milgram, Stanley. (1963). “Behavioural Study of Obedience”. [1] Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 371-378

Nemeth, C. & Kwan, J. (1987) Minority Influence, Divergent Thinking and the
Detection of Correct Solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 17: 788–
99.

Reitan, H. T. & Shaw, M. E. (1964). Group membership, sex-composition of the

group, and conformity behaviour. The Journal of Social Psychology, 64, 45-51.

Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behaviour with normative feedback interventions:

A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
21, 25-36.

Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper Collins.

Worchel, S., Lee, J., & Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of supply and demand on
rating of object value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 906-
914.

28