Social Influence
(Chapter 8)
The lighter side of conformity
And the darker side….
David Koresh
Reverend
James Jones
Fundamental attribution error, redux.
Critical issue:
internalized vs. non-internalized
influence
Three historic distinctions
 Conformity
 Compliance
 Obedience
Classic studies
Sherif
(1935)
– Autokinetic effect
– Saccadic eye movements
•Method:
•Phase I (private)
•Phase II (public)
Private trials
Trial 1
Public trials
Trial 110
Important aspects of Sherif (1935)
Highly ambiguous
 Guessing
 Compromise
 Re-test FULL YEAR later (in private)
 Suggests internalization

Asch (1951)
 Original
goal: to critique Sherif (1935)
TEST
A
B
C
Percentage of total sample
Details of results
for 12 “critical” trials
33%
24%
17%
15%
11%
0
1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
Number of times (out of 12) Ss conformed
Implications/summary
 conformity surprisingly high
– Unambiguous
– Strangers
– Low stakes for being wrong
– Asch’s original hunch WRONG
given
What about individual
differences?

24% participants in Asch (1951)
NEVER conformed—why?
 social vs. personality psychology
Informational vs. normative social influence

Informational social influence—
–
–
–
–

Need to know “what’s right”
Arises when correct answer ambiguous (e.g. Sherif, 1935)
Crisis situation (e.g. War of the Worlds)
Importance of task should generally increase conformity
Normative social influence
– Need to be accepted
– Correct answer relatively unambiguous (e.g. Asch, 1951)
– Importance of task should generally decrease conformity
Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman (1996)
Person
A
Actual
perpetrator
Person
A*
Person
B
Person
C
Person
D
“line-up” presented on computer
•Task difficulty: 5 seconds (EASY) vs. 500 milliseconds (HARD)
•Task Importance (high vs. low)
.
PA
PA
PB
PB
PC
PC
PD
PD
Results
Number of
conforming
trials
5
Hard task (fast
exposure)
Easy task
(slow
exposure)
0
LOW
HIGH
IMPORTANCE OF CORRECT IDENTIFICATION
Summary of Baron et al.

When correct answer unclear (ambiguous)
– Informational social influence
– Conformity higher when important

When correct answer clear (unambiguous)
– Normative social influence
Conformity lower when task is important
Milgram (1965)
Slight (0-240)
Intense (255-300 volts)
Extreme intensity (315-360 volts)
Danger: severe shock (375-420 volts)
XXX (435-450 volts)
Initial “prediction” study
Psychiatrists: predict that 1 out of 1,000 would go to
highest level

Results of main study: In actuality, 65% go to highest level
Psychological, moral, and legal
implication of Milgram study:
abuses at Abu Ghraib
Why did American soldiers commit abuses
at Abu Ghraib and record their crimes on
film? For "psy-op reasons," according to
Private Lynndie England (above), who
insists that she was following orders from
"persons in my higher chain of
command."
Social influence and body image
Two
issues
– #1 Variance in societal standards for beauty
 1a. Variation across cultures
 1b. Variation over time, within culture
Variation across 54 cultures
(Anderson, 1994)
high
Preference for heavy body
Preference for thin body
low
Low
(unreliable)
Food supply in that culture
High
(reliable)
Variation over time, within
culture: United States
Mean bust-to-waist ratio (high #s = heavier, more “voluptuous” body type)
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
Issue #2:
Do idealized images of feminine beauty have a
causal (negative) impact on your body
satisfaction?
Allison Hinkamper’s dissertation
“priming”
manipulation
control images (1)
“thin ideal” images
control images (2)
Self-reported mood after exposure to images
ratings of dejection/negative affect
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
inanimate objects
PRIME
people
"thin ideal"
r = .00
.28*
Priming
manipulation
Dejection
/negative
mood
-.21*
Self-rated
satisfaction
with body
A classic mediated effect: (a) presentation of “thin ideal”
leads to increase in dejection, (b) higher levels of
dejection associated with lower levels of body image
Research on culture ideals for male body type
Research on men

Much less attention
 More heterogeneous “ideal” compared to women, but..
 Evidence for increased emphasis on musculature
 Clever study by Pope et al. (2000)-”The Adonis Complex”
– computer-generated image of self
 Actual
+28 lbs
 Self-ideal
muscle
 Image that they guessed women would find
attractive
In actuality, women tended to prefer actual/typical physique
Other studies show parallel effects for women, in terms of thinness.
Power of propaganda
propaganda vs. “ordinary”
advertising
Some techniques of propaganda generation

Appeal to fear
 Conditioning (association)
 Stereotyping/scapegoating
 Direct order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
When will people show
normative social influence?
 Social impact theory
– Strength, immediacy, number

Collectivist vs. individualist cultures
 Self esteem
 Gender
Resisting normative social
influence
Minority influence
 Tyranny
of the Asch position among
American psychologists?
– Serge Moscovici
 Mechanisms
A closer look at norms
 Injunctive vs. descriptive norms
 Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren (1993)
Parking Garage
initial state: already littered vs. clean
Participant’s car
(with handbill attached
to windshield)
confederate
One of three types of behavior
(nothing, drops fast food bag, picks
up fast food bag)
participant
Summary of design
– Two independent variables
1. Behavior of confederate
– Control
– Descriptive norm activated (drop bag)
– Injunctive norm activated (pick up bag)

2. General Cleanliness of setting
– Littered vs. clean
– Dependent variable

what do Ss do with handbill attached to windshield?
Probability of
littering (handbill)
Prior condition of
environment
clean
littered
Control
Descriptive (litters)
Injunctive (picks up)
Norm made salient by confederate
More complex issue

National park anecdote
– Non-linear relation between amount of pre-
existing litter and probability that you will litter
– Suggests that strong injunctive norms can,
ironically, be triggered by small amounts of
litter
– But as litter increases, this trend is reversed
Probability that participant will litter
high
low
control
One piece of litter in
otherwise pristine setting
Lots of litter