Social Influence and ELM Quiz

Social Influence

• Social influence is the effect of other people's words, actions, or presence on our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
• Conformity refers to changes in our behavior due to real or imagined influence from others, as seen in Asch’s line study.
• Obedience involves changes in behavior in response to direct orders from authority, evidenced by Milgram's electric shock experiment.
• The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) explains two distinct ways we process social influences.

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

• Central Route: This route involves deliberate and thoughtful consideration of information, requiring motivation, ability, and opportunity. It leads to longer-lasting attitude changes and more predictable behaviors.
• Peripheral Route: This route relies on heuristics (mental shortcuts) and automatic responses, lacking motivation, ability, and opportunity for critical thinking. It often results in less durable attitude changes.
• Langer et al. (1978) demonstrated the peripheral route with a photocopier line experiment, where people complied with requests using "because" regardless of the excuse, even though the reasons were irrelevant.

Tactics of Manipulation

• Manipulation often relies on heuristics, causing people to respond automatically without much thought.
• Factors influencing manipulation include:
  • Reciprocation: We feel obligated to repay favors or gifts.
  • Liking: We are more likely to comply with those we know and like.
  • Consistency and Commitment: We desire to appear consistent with our actions and beliefs.
  • Social Validation/Proof: We look to others for cues on how to think, feel, and behave.
  • Authority: We defer to experts and authority figures for guidance.
  • Scarcity: We value rare things more highly.
  • Unity: We feel more connected to those who are like us.

Tactic of Manipulation 1: Authority

• We trust experts and authority figures, deferring to them when unsure how to behave, especially in ambiguous situations.
• Authority doesn't have to be legitimate, as simple portrayals of expertise can influence us.

Tactic of Manipulation 2: Scarcity

• We perceive rare items as more valuable, creating a sense of urgency and desire to possess them before they are gone.
• "Closing down sales" and limited-time offers exploit this principle.

Tactic of Manipulation 3: Reciprocity

• Regan (1971) - Free Coke Study: Participants who received a free Coke purchased significantly more raffle tickets.
• We feel obligated to repay favors, even if we don't know the person or want the gift.
• We often repay with favors exceeding the original favor's value to reduce discomfort and maintain social ties.
• Hitokoto (2016) found higher feelings of indebtedness in collectivist cultures compared to individualistic cultures.
• We feel more indebted to strangers who help us than to friends.

Tactic of Manipulation 4: Reciprocity and Concessions

• The "Door-in-the-Face" Tactic:
  • A high initial request is rejected, followed by a lower, more desirable request that's more likely to be accepted.
  • It exploits reciprocity via concessions.
• Cialdini et al. (1975) and Miller et al. (1976) demonstrated that people feel a sense of responsibility and are more likely to comply with a smaller request after rejecting a larger one.

Tactic of Manipulation 5: Liking

• Regan (1971) found that people comply more with those they like.
• Heuristics influencing liking:
  • Contact and Cooperation: We like those we interact with more frequently.
  • Conditioning and Association: We associate good feelings with objects or people through pairing them with positive stimuli.
  • Physical Attractiveness: We attribute positive qualities to attractive individuals.
  • Similarity: We prefer people who are similar to us.

Tactic of Manipulation 6: Liking and Physical Attractiveness

• The "Halo Effect": We assume physically attractive people possess other desirable traits like expertise, trustworthiness, intelligence, kindness, social skills, etc., even automatically.
• Studies:
  • Clifford & Walster (1973) - Attractive children were rated as brighter and more successful.
  • Pfann et al. (2000); Johnson (2010) - Attractive individuals earn higher salaries.
  • Dipboye et al. (1977) - Attractive candidates are more likely to be hired.
  • Berggren et al. (2017) - Attractive candidates receive more votes in political elections.
  • Kurtzburg et al. (1968) - Attractive individuals are less likely to return to prison.

Tactic of Manipulation 7: Liking and Conditioning and Association

• Praxmarer (2011) found a positive correlation between attractiveness and perceived expertise and trustworthiness in advertisements.

Tactic of Manipulation 8: Liking and Similarity

• Heider (1958): People who are together often share similar characteristics, creating a bond.
• We like people similar to us.
• Burger et al. (2004): Sharing the same birthday increased compliance compared to those with different birthdays.
• Jiang et al. (2010): Similarity improves positive attitudes.
• Emswiller et al. (1971); Suedfeld et al. (1971) - People who share similar dress style more willing to sign petitions.

Tactic of Manipulation 9: Liking and the Chameleon Effect

• Chartrand & Bargh (1999): We unconsciously mimic others' postures, mannerisms, and facial expressions to build rapport and create social connection.
• Kulesza et al. (2016): The chameleon effect only works if the person mimicking is unaware of being mimicked.

Tactic of Manipulation 10: Liking and The Echo Effect

• Van Baaren et al. (2003); Kulesza et al. (2018): Copying or paraphrasing someone's speech increases their liking of you, and subsequently, their willingness to donate.

Tactic of Manipulation 11: Consistency and Commitment

• Humans desire to appear consistent with their actions, statements, and beliefs.
• Openness to experience is negatively correlated with consistency, while conscientiousness is positively correlated. **
• Consistency reduces cognitive dissonance and simplifies decision-making.

Tactic of Manipulation 12: Consistency and Commitment: The Foot-in-the-door Tactic

• A small request is made, followed by a larger request that the person is more likely to agree to.
• Freedman & Fraser (1966) - This tactic can lead to a change in the person's feelings about getting involved or taking action.

Tactic of Manipulation 13: Consistency and Commitment: The Low-Ball Tactic

• An attractive offer is presented with hidden additional costs not mentioned initially.
• Example: Cheap airline tickets with hidden baggage fees.

Tactic of Manipulation 14: Consistency and Commitment: The Bait-and-Switch Tactic

• A desirable product is presented, agreement secured, and then it's replaced with a less desirable product.

Tactic of Manipulation 15: Social Validation

• Guadagno et al. (2013): We look to others for cues on how to think, feel, and behave.
• Others' actions validate our own.
• We are more likely to comply if we see others doing it, as seen in:
  • Tip jars: More money in the jar leads to higher tipping.
  • Canned laughter: Artificial laughter enhances real laughter.
  • Facebook likes: More likes indicate more positive quality.
  • Nightclub lines: Long lines suggest popularity.
  • "Fastest-growing" and "Best-selling": These labels trigger social validation.

Tactic of Manipulation 16: Social Validation and Liking

• Social validation is more effective when the person performing the act is similar to us.

Tactic of Manipulation 17: Cultural Differences

• Collectivist vs. Individualistic Personalities:
  • Collectivist personalities: More susceptible to social validation.
  • Individualistic personalities: More influenced by personal consistency and commitment.