5/28/21
1
2
Social Proof:
Cialdini, Chapter 4
Social Proof
Laugh track
One means we use to determine what is correct is to
find out what other people think is correct.
Turkey polecat study image
Albert Bandura and puppies
The greater number of people who find an idea
correct, the more the idea will be correct.
Robert O’Connor on social exclusion
Pluralistic ignorance: each person decides that since
nobody is concerned, nothing is wrong
Festinger and Guardians cult
Similarity: social proof operates most powerfully
when we observe people just like us
Cialdini
3
4
Group Discussion: 5m
1 What are negative social
influences on critical
thinking?
2 Why did they evolve in
our species?
3 How do they differ, if
they do, by culture?
Hypotheses?
5
Rolf Dobelli Interruption
Chapter 4 Social Proof
6
1
5/28/21
Social Proof &
Disconfirmation Bias
The Guardians’ Cult
What unreasonable ideas
did the group belief?
Bias inhibiting impartial
processing of counterevidence
What reasonable ideas did
they then disbelieve?
Cognitive Dissonance
Theory & L. Festinger’s
research
Edgar C. Whisenant: 88
reasons in 1988
7
8
Conclusions from Cults
Commitment of members
was very high
Sold possessions
Angered parents and
siblings
Rolf Dobelli Interruption
Lost jobs
Targets of shame
Chapter 50 Cognitive Dissonance
Inaction towards others
Did not warn victims
Could have saved world
Practiced secrecy
9
10
Data from Cognitive Science:
Motivated Skepticism & Preferred Beliefs
(Ditto & Lopez 1992)
Information consistent with a preferred conclusion was examined
less critically than information with a non-preferred conclusion
(Ditto and Lopez 1992)
“Much of the bias in the perception of preference-relevant
information may result not from a tendency to be hypercritical
of preference-inconsistent information, but rather from a
tendency to quickly and uncritically accept information with
desirable implications” (1992, 574).
Pluralistic Ignorance (110)
=tendency for everyone to look at what everyone else
is doing...
Or, more precisely: behavior of individuals based
upon generally false beliefs that are attributed to the
group, regardless of their own beliefs
“People are less skeptical consumers of desirable than
undesirable information” (1992, 568).
11
12
2
5/28/21
Sex in College:
Pluralistic Ignorance
Brief Group Chat
In the U.S. between 65-80% of college students surveyed
have had a ‘hook-up’
=sexual behavior occurring without expectation of romantic
involvement, i.e. ‘no strings attached’ sex
Background on male vs. female interest in sex
Men want sex with more partners than women b/c
reproductive costs are...low.
Women have lower reproductive rate than men and higher
cost of reproduction, so seek security, resources and/or
commitment
So: why do so many female college students in U.S.
participate in hook-ups?
13
14
Pluralistic Ignorance:
Conclusions
Women experience effects of pluralistic ignorance on
their sexual behavior
They perform sexual acts that they and other women
are in fact uncomfortable with
Pluralistic ignorance explains the high rate of these
behaviors despite discomfort ratings
15
16
Bystander Effect on Medical
Emergencies (113)
Catherine Genovese Case
Epileptic seizures prompt need for treatment
What happened to
Genovese?
People experiencing seizures calling for help
What did other people do,
or not do?
85% receive help when an individual is present
31% receive help when five bystandars are there
How did social
psychologists explain this?
17
What must people do to fight against bystander effect
when strangers are present?
18
3
5/28/21
Bystander Effect on Suicides
(120)
Werther Effect
Suicide
Following public suicide
rates of suicide increase
rates of lethal accidents increase
Additional effects
Accidents after a public
suicide are more violent
Does bereavement or social conditions effect explain
data?
Plane crashes after cause
more deaths
People who kill
themselves after public
suicide are
demographically similar,
e.g. same age
No, b/c data are more specific
Suicides of one person cause wrecks of one person but
suicide-murders cause wrecks w/ multiple deaths
19
Homicide
Heavyweight prize fights
prompt bump in
homicides
Effects on race
Poisoning baby food
School shootings
20
Cialdini’s Six
Weapons of Influence
Summarizing Robert Cialdini’s
“Weapons of Influence”
1.
Reciprocity: we want to repay, in kind, what another person has
provided us
2.
Consistency
3.
Social proof
4.
Authority
5.
Likeability
6.
Scarcity
Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (revised; New
York: Quill, 1993)
21
22
I. Social Psychology
1.
Rolf Dobelli
Interruption
Reciprocity: we want to repay, in kind, what another person has
provided us
2.
Consistency: desire to be (and to appear) consistent with what we
have already done
Chapter 6 Reciprocity
3.
Social proof
4.
Authority
5.
Likeability
6.
Scarcity
Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (revised; New
York: Quill, 1993)
23
24
4
5/28/21
I. Social Psychology
I. Social Psychology
Reciprocity: we want to repay, in kind, what another person has
provided us
1.
Reciprocity: we want to repay, in kind, what another person has
2.
Consistency: desire to be (and to appear) consistent with what we
have already done
2.
Consistency: desire to be (and to appear) consistent with what we
3.
Social proof: to determine what is correct find out what other
people think is correct
3.
4.
Authority
4.
Authority: deep-seated sense of duty to authority
5.
Likeability
5.
Likeability
6.
Scarcity
6.
Scarcity
1.
have already done
Social proof: to determine what is correct find out what other people
think is correct
Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (revised; New
York: Quill, 1993)
25
provided us
Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (revised; New
York: Quill, 1993)
26
I. Social Psychology
I. Social Psychology
1.
Reciprocity: we want to repay, in kind, what another person has
provided us
1.
Reciprocity: we want to repay, in kind, what another person has
provided us
2.
Consistency: desire to be (and to appear) consistent with what we
have already done
2.
Consistency: desire to be (and to appear) consistent with what we
have already done
3.
Social proof: to determine what is correct find out what other
people think is correct
3.
Social proof: to determine what is correct find out what other
people think is correct
4.
Authority: deep-seated sense of duty to authority
4.
Authority: deep-seated sense of duty to authority
5.
Likeability: we say yes to someone we like
5.
Likeability: we say yes to someone we like
6.
Scarcity
6.
Scarcity: limitation enhances desirability
Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (revised; New
York: Quill, 1993)
27
Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (revised; New
York: Quill, 1993)
28
I. Social Psychology
1.
Reciprocity: we want to repay, in kind, what another person has
provided us
2.
Consistency: desire to be (and to appear) consistent with what we
have already done
3.
Social proof: to determine what is correct find out what other
people think is correct
4.
Authority: deep-seated sense of duty to authority
5.
Likeability: we say yes to someone we like
6.
Scarcity: limitation enhances desirability
Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (revised; New
York: Quill, 1993)
29
5