Week 6: Social Influence PDF

**Week 6: Social Influence** - **Social Influence** is the effect that words, actions or the mere presence of people has on our attitudes, thoughts, feelings and behaviours. **Change in thoughts, feelings and behaviour due to the behaviour or existence of other people** - **Conformity...

**Week 6: Social Influence** - **Social Influence** is the effect that words, actions or the mere presence of people has on our attitudes, thoughts, feelings and behaviours. **Change in thoughts, feelings and behaviour due to the behaviour or existence of other people** - **Conformity** is the change in one's behaviour due to the real or imagined influence of other people. Asher's line study examined this. **Change in behaviour due to the behaviour or existence of other people** - **Obedience** is the change in behaviour in response to direct order from authority. Migrams electric shock experiment. **Change in thoughts, feelings or behaviours in accordance with orders from authority** **Social Influence Type 1 is the** **Elaboration Likelihood Model** - **Two dual ways we process social influences** 1. **Central Route**: used to respond to persuasion, we need all the information at hand, we need time to consider our options, we must use objective information - **Critical thinking** - **Person has motivation** - **Has the ability** - **Has the opportunity to consider information** - **Attitude changes last longer** - **Cognitive more predictable behaviour** 2. **Peripheral Route:** We use heuristics, rules of thumb, quick thinking, our frequent common response, and very automatic responses. - **Heuristic** - **Lacks motivation to decide** - **Lacks the ability to decide** - **Lacks opportunity to consider things critically** - **Durable attitude change is less likely** **(Langer et al 1978) Peripheral Route** - Line up for photocopier - Gave any excuse to cut in line worked 94% of the time - People respond automatically when they hear "because.." regardless of the excuse that follows. - We don't really listen, the heuristic takes over and triggers compliance **Tactics of Manipulations** - All manipulation relies on heuristics ( mental shortcuts) - Replying automatically without much thought before responding - Happens when we are familiar with a stimuli - Influence peoples attitudes **Tactic of Manipulation 1** **AUTHORITY** - When someone says something and we interpret them as being an expert, they can manipulate us easily - We defer to credible experts and authority figures to help us decide how to behave - We defer to experts when we feel ambivalent - We defer to experts when it feels ambiguous situation - They don't have to be real authority **Tactic of Manipulation 2** **SCARCITY** - If its rare its valuable - The shorter supply the more desirable - " closing down sales" - People don't want to miss out **Tactic of Manipulation 3** **RECIPROCITY** - We feel the need to repay others for gifts or favours **REGAN (1971): Reciprocity Study FREE COKE** - Raffle tickets purchased after free Coke-Cola - People bought 500% more raffle tickets after being given a free drink - We repay favours even if we don't know the person or want the gift - We repay favours that are different from the exact one they gave us - We will return the favour worth more than the original favour was valued - Feel a strong sense of owing a person - Repaying reduces our discomfort and guilt and keeps social favour **HITOKOTO (2016): Reciprocity North America Vs Japan** - Collectivist cultures have higher feelings about indebtedness to others when someone does them a favour compared to individualistic cultures - We feel more indebted to a stranger who helps us than a friend - Collectivists are less likely to accept gifts or favours that they are unable to return. **Tactic of Manipulation 4** **RECIPROCITY VS CONCESSIONS** **THE DOOR IN THE FACE TACTIC.** **Big request, followed by rejection, small request accepted** 1. Used by salespeople 2. Offer high price first 3. Offer is rejected 4. Lower the price 5. Offer is accepted RECIPROCITY **via concessions** **CIALDINI ET AL. (1975, Study 1): Chaperone juvenile detention center inmates on a trip to the zoo** - Use of heuristics and peripheral route quick thinking happened - The way you structure your request leads to greater compliance RECIPROCITY **via concessions** **MILLER ET AL. (1976):** - We are more likely to actually do the smaller favour after a larger favour was offered first - People feel responsible for the outcome when people make a concession for them and offer a lower rate, they are more likely to follow through and purchase or act **Tactic of Manipulation 5.** **LIKING** **Regan (1971)** - People tend to favour and comply with people they know and like - Liking someone leads to higher compliance rates **4 LIKING HEURISTIC MENTAL SHORTCUTS** 1. **CONTACT AND COOPERATION** - We like people the more we interact with them - The more we cooperate with them - The more repeated exposure the more we like them 2. **CONDITIONING AND ASSOCIATION** - We can be conditioned to like people or objects that we associate with goodness - Positive associations are connected to the other message through conditioning: - Using conditioning and association to increase liking a product In an add 3. **PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS** 4. **SIMILARITY** **Tactic of Manipulation 6.** **LIKING: PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS** - **HALO EFFECT** - We tend to think people who are physically attractive must have other attractive qualities, such as: - Expertise - Trustworthiness - We automatically assume attractive people are - Smarter - Kinder - Socially skilled - This is automatic heuristic shortcut (Clifford & Walster, 1973) - More attractive kids rated brighter and more successful on school report card (Pfann et al., 2000; Johnson, 2010) - More attractive earned more money (Dipboye et al., 1977) - More likely to be hired for a job (Berggren et al., 2017) - Receive more votes in politics (Kurtzburg et al., 1968) - Less likely to return to jail **Tactic of Manipulation 7.** **LIKING: PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS:** **CONDITIONING AND ASSOCIATION** LIKING **VIA PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS and conditioning and association** **PRAXMARER (2011):** - Positive correlation between attractiveness and expertise and trustworthiness - The more attractive a person in an ad the more likely we are to believe the information **Tactic of Manipulation 8.** **LIKING: SIMILARITIES** **(Heider, 1958)** - People who are together tend to be similar on a range of variables, age, education, race - Similarities create an instant bond - We like people similar to us **BURGER ET AL. (2004, STUDY 1): Similarity** - People who share the same birthday were more likely to comply than those who didn't - Similarities make people comply - Make you more willing to donate to charity when believe you share the same first name as requester - More willing to help others with a common finger print similarity **(Jiang et al., 2010)** - Similarities Improve positive attitudes (Emswiller et al., 1971; Suedfeld et al., 1971) - Similar dress style more willing to sign a petition **Tactic of Manipulation 9.** **LIKING: SIMILARITY** **CHAMELEON EFFECT** - Non-couscious mimicry of postures, mannerisms, facial expressions and others' behaviours when interacting - Smooths social relationships - Rapport building - Can mistake someone for a friend **CHARTRAND & BARGH (1999): Chameleon Effect** - We unconsciously mimic others **KULESZA ET AL. (2016):Chameleon Effect** - The chameleon effect of mimicking only works if the person is unaware the other person is mimicking them **Tactic of Manipulation 10.** **LIKING: SIMILARITY** **THE ECHO EFFECT** - Copying a persons speech and paraphrasing (Van Barren et al., 2003) (Kulesza et al., 2018) - Copying or paraphrasing results in a larger donation - The echo effect makes people like you more **Tactic of Manipulation 11.** **CONSISTENCY AND COMMITMENT** - Humans have a fundamental desire to be and appear consistent with their actions, statements and beliefs - Higher openness less affected by consistency - Higher in conscientiousness more effected by consistency and commitment - Constancy is valued - Inconsistency is not valued  - Consistency is efficient - We only need to make one choice or take one option and stand by it - Consistency in others is desirable - Efficient use of heuristics - Less effort required - Reduces cognitive dissonance **Tactic of Manipulation 12.** **CONSISTENCY AND COMMITMENT** **FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR TACTIC** **Small request accepted, changed to big request now also accepted to remain consistent and commited** - Make a small request - Get the person to agree - Make a larger request - Person feels pressured to agree - If you agree to a small request you are more likely to agree to large request after **FREEDMAN & FRASER (1966, Study 2): Foot in the Door Tactic of Consistency** - What may occur is a **change in the person's feelings about getting involved or about taking action**. **Tactic of Manipulation 13.** **CONSISTENCY AND COMMITMENT** **LOW-BALL TACTIC** - Offer products at good value and price - Has hidden extras you have to purchase not mentioned earlier  **Tactic of Manipulation 14.** **CONSISTENCY AND COMMITMENT** **BAIT AND SWITCH** - Present product or good offer - Get agreement - Now not available or sold out - Change for a worse or more expensive product **Tactic of Manipulation 15.** **SOCIAL VALIDATION** - We look to others for cues on how to think, feel and behave - Others' actions validate our own - When we are uncertain we turn to others on how to correctly behave - Responsible for bystander effect **GUADAGNO ET AL. (2013):Social Validation** - **Quantity means good Quality** - Social validation increases behaviour - We are more likely to tip if there is money in the jar already - Canned laughter - Facebook likes - Night club line-up - " fastest-growing" - "best-selling" **Tactic of Manipulation 16.** **SOCIAL VALIDATION & LIKING** - Social validation is MORE effective when the person performing the act is similar to us **Tactic of Manipulation 17.** **CULTURAL DIFFERENCE** - **Collectivist Vs Individualistic Personality** - **Consistency and Commitment Vs Social Validation** - **Which has the biggest influence?** - Collectivist people NOT collectivist cultures increase the likelihood a person will comply when social validation is used - Individualist people, not cultures were more likely to comply when their OWN commitment and consistency is considered - Your personal style regardless of your culture is the strongest predictor of willingness to comply - A collectivist personality more influenced by social validation - More Individualist personalities more influenced by consistent behaviour and commitment behavours.