186 lines
8.3 KiB
Markdown
186 lines
8.3 KiB
Markdown
# 7. Conformity and compliance
|
||
|
||
> PSYG2504 Social psychology
|
||
|
||
## 7.1 Compliance
|
||
|
||
### 7.1.1 What is compliance (遵守)?
|
||
|
||
*Compliance increased even though the explanation provided no logical justification.*
|
||
|
||
“Mindless conformity”.
|
||
The response is made almost without thinking.
|
||
We spare the mental effort of thinking and simply comply with the situation.
|
||
|
||
#### Underlying Principles (Cialdini, 1994)
|
||
|
||
1. **Friendship/liking** – we are willing to comply with requests from friends and from people we like.
|
||
2. **Commitment/consistency** - once committed to a position/action, more willing to comply with requests for behaviors that are consistent with the position/action.
|
||
3. **Reciprocity** - we feel compelled to pay back ; we are more likely to comply with a request from someone who has previously helped us.
|
||
4. **Scarcity** – we comply with requests that are scarce or decreasing in availability.
|
||
5. **Authority** – we comply with requests that are from someone who holds legitimate authority (obedience).
|
||
6. **Social validation** - We want to be correct: we act or think like others (conformity).
|
||
|
||
### 7.1.2 Compliance techniques?
|
||
|
||
#### Technique based on liking Ingratiation
|
||
|
||
A persuasive technique that involves making the persuasive target like you in order to persuade them by
|
||
|
||
- Agreeing with them
|
||
- Flattering them
|
||
- Being nice to them
|
||
- But may backfire if the ingratiation is too obvious
|
||
|
||
#### Techniques based on commitment or consistency
|
||
|
||
##### Foot-in-the-Door Technique
|
||
*First make a small request (usually so trivial that it is hard to refuse, e.g. free sample) and then follow with a larger request.*
|
||
It may not work if the first request is too small and the second request is too large
|
||
|
||
- Self-perception theory – the individual’s self-image changes (e.g. they are agreeable person) as a result of the initial act of compliance.
|
||
- Desire to be consistent – especially for those who express a strong personal preference for consistency.
|
||
|
||
##### Door-in-the-Face Technique
|
||
*First make a large and unrealistic request before making a smaller, more realistic request.*
|
||
|
||
> Cialdini et al. (1975) stopped college students on the street and asked them to serve as unpaid counselors for juvenile delinquents 2 hours a week for 2 years (83% said no)
|
||
> Scaled down to a 2-hour trip to the zoo with a group of such adolescent (50% agreed!)
|
||
|
||
#### Techniques based on reciprocity
|
||
##### That’s-Not-All Technique
|
||
*First make a large request, then throwing in some ‘added extras’ to pressure the target to reciprocate (e.g. discount, bonus).*
|
||
|
||
> Burger’s (1986) tried to sell one cupcake and two cookies for 75 cents to students on campus
|
||
> Control: a prepackaged (1 cupcake & 2 cookies) set for 75 cents
|
||
> Experimental: 75 cents for the cupcake and then 2 FREE cookies!
|
||
> Results: 40% Vs. 73%.
|
||
|
||
Persons on the receiving end view the “extra” as an added concession, and feel obligated to make a concession themselves.
|
||
|
||
##### Playing Hard to Get Technique
|
||
*Suggesting a person or object is scarce and hard to obtain.*
|
||
|
||
Commonly observed in the area of romance.
|
||
Shown to be effective in job hunting (William et al., 1993).
|
||
|
||
##### Deadline Technique
|
||
*Targets are told that they have only limited time to take advantage of some offer or to obtain some items.*
|
||
|
||
### 7.1.3 How to resist compliance?
|
||
|
||
**Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966):**
|
||
*A negative reaction to an influence attempt that threatens personal freedom*
|
||
*Bensley and Wu (1991).*
|
||
|
||
studied anti-drinking messages of 2 intensities:
|
||
|
||
- Strong: there is “conclusive evidence” of the harm of drinking and that “any reasonable person must acknowledge these conclusions”.
|
||
- Mild: there is “good evidence” and “you may wish to carefully consider” these findings.
|
||
|
||
In a first study, average students reported that they intended to drink less in the coming few days after reading the mild message
|
||
In a second study, fairly heavy alcohol drinkers (college students) actually consumed more beer after reading the strong message
|
||
|
||
## 7.2 Obedience
|
||
### 7.2.1 What is obedience?
|
||
|
||
*An extreme form of social influence involved changing your opinions, judgments, or actions because someone in a position of authority told you to.*
|
||
Obedience is based on the belief that authorities have the right to make requests.
|
||
|
||
### 7.2.2 Milgram’s experiment
|
||
|
||
Milgram was interested in the point at which people would disobey the experimenter in the face of the learner’s protests.
|
||
|
||
#### Method
|
||
|
||
- The learner mentions that he has a slightly weak heart
|
||
- You control an electric shock machine
|
||
- When he is wrong, you have to punish him: first by “15 Volts - Slight Shock” and in the end, “450 Volts - XXX”
|
||
|
||
Sample of the learner’s schedule of protests (recording)
|
||
|
||
- 75V: Ugh!
|
||
- 165V: Ugh! Let me out! (Shouting)
|
||
- 270V: (Screaming) Let me out of here (3 times). Let me out. Do you hear? Let me out of here.
|
||
- 285V: (Screaming)
|
||
- 315V: (Intense screaming) I told you I refuse to answer. I’m no longer part of this experiment.
|
||
- (No more sound in the end)
|
||
|
||
The experiment’s script
|
||
|
||
- Please continue.
|
||
- The experiment requires that you continue.
|
||
- It is absolutely essential that you continue.
|
||
- You have no other choice; you MUST go on.
|
||
|
||
#### Disscussion
|
||
|
||
- imagine you are in Yale Univ. Psy. Dept.
|
||
- the experiment is about the effect of punishment on learning
|
||
- You and another person are teacher and learner
|
||
- You have to read aloud pairs of words that the learner has to memorize
|
||
|
||
The Milgram experiments illustrate what he called the “normality thesis”.
|
||
The idea that evil acts are not necessarily performed by abnormal or “crazy” people.
|
||
He also succeeded in illustrating the power of social situations to influence human behavior.
|
||
His findings were replicated in different countries (e.g., Jordan, Germany, Australia) and with children as well as adults (e.g. Shanab & Yahya, 1977).
|
||
|
||
### 7.2.3 Determinants of obedience
|
||
|
||
#### Emotional distance of the victim
|
||
When the victim is remote and the ‘teachers’ heard no complaints, all teachers obeyed calmly to the end.
|
||
But when the learner was in the same room, ”only” 40% obeyed to 450 volts.
|
||
|
||
#### Closeness and legitimacy of the authority
|
||
When the experimenter is physically close to the ‘teachers’, the compliance increases (if by phone, only 21% fully obeyed).
|
||
Given that the experimenter must be perceived as the authority or legitimate.
|
||
|
||
#### Institutional authority
|
||
The reputation/prestige leads to the obedience.
|
||
#### The liberating effects of group influence
|
||
Milgram placed two confederates to help to conduct the experiment.
|
||
Both confederates defied the experimenter.
|
||
The real participant did not continue the experiment.
|
||
|
||
## 7.3 Conformity
|
||
### 7.3.1 What is conformity?
|
||
|
||
*The desire to be accepted and to avoid rejection from others leads us to conform.*
|
||
Conformity due to normative influence generally changes public behavior but not private beliefs.
|
||
|
||
e.g. speak politely in front of me but swear among the classmates/friends
|
||
However, through dissonance reduction, a behavioral change can lead to a change in beliefs
|
||
|
||
### 7.3.2 Asch’s experiment?
|
||
|
||
> Subjects’ task was to pick the line on the left that best matched the target line on the right in length.
|
||
> Alone, people virtually never erred. But when four or five others before them gave the wrong answer, people erred about 35% of the time. 75% of subjects conformed at least once.
|
||
|
||
### 7.3.3 Why conform?
|
||
|
||
*Others’ behavior often provides useful information.*
|
||
|
||
- Trust in the group affects conformity
|
||
- Task difficulty affects conformity
|
||
|
||
**Informational Influence**: The Desire to Be Right
|
||
|
||
**Normative Influence**:
|
||
|
||
- **The Desire to Be Liked**
|
||
- **Norm**: an understood rule for accepted and expected behavior; prescribes “proper” behavior.
|
||
|
||
### 7.3.4 When conform?
|
||
|
||
1. **Group Size**
|
||
The larger the group, the more conformity—to a point (beyond 5 would diminish returns).
|
||
Gerard et al. (1968) found that 3-5 people elicit more conformity than just 1-2 people.
|
||
2. **Group Unanimity**
|
||
Even one dissenter dramatically drops conformity (Allen & Levine, 1969).
|
||
3. **Status**
|
||
People of lower status accepted the experimenter’s commands more readily than people of higher status.
|
||
4. **Cohesion **
|
||
A “we feeling”.
|
||
The more cohesive group is, the more power it gains over its members.
|
||
5. **Public response**
|
||
People conform more when they must respond in front of others rather than writing their answers privately. |