Social proof can have important
consequences
Orson Wells: War of the World Broadcast
Mercury Theatre Radio Drama, October 30th, 1938
Text of NYTimes report
2
Kitty Genovese Case
Martin Gansberg: 38 who saw murder didn’t
call police (NYT article)
For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, law-abiding
citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in
three separate attacks in Kew Gardens. Twice, the sound of
their voices and the sudden glow of their bedroom lights
interrupted him and frightened him off. Each time he returned,
sought her out and stabbed her again. Not one person
telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called
after the woman was dead. (Gansberg, 1964, p. 1)
Controversy over the accuracy of the original
reports
Fewer than 38 eye witnesses
Some did intervene (e.g., shouting, maybe calling of police)
Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty
Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The
parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist, 62(6),
555.
4
Bystander Intervention Research
Darley & Latané: Research
program to understand Kitty
Genovese murder
• Naive subject alone
• Naive subject with two
calm confederates
• Three naive subjects
Cumulative proportion reporting
smoke
Smoke study
• Subject recruited to a lab
to fill out questionnaires
• Smoke seeps into the
study room & eventually
fills it
• Social condition
Cumulative proportion of subjects reporting the
smoke over time
100
hypothetical 3 person group
90
80
70
alone
60
50
40
30
3 person group
20
10
subject + 2 confederates
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Minutes from start of smoke infusion
6
5
Epileptic study
• Subjects go round robin, introducing themselves. The
victim discusses difficulties adjusting to NYC and admits to
epileptic seizures under pressure. In round two, victim
becomes increasingly incoherent, spluttering that he is
having a seizure and needs help
• Naive subject is paired with victim only, victim + 1 stranger,
victim + 4 strangers
6
Literature review
• Group inhibition
greatest when:
• Ambiguous situation
e.g., audio only
• Older > younger kids
• Strangers > friends
Study typel
Lab - 1 subject +
confederates
Field - real groups
N
studies
56
38
%
% in
%
alone groups alone
helping helping helping
75%
53%
75%
50%
22%
50%
• No influence:
• Bystander gender,
age, ability to
communicate with
others
[1] Latane, B. and Nida, S. Ten years of research on group size and
helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 2 (Mar 1981), 308-324.
7
Bystander Intervention Process
Social comparison processes
Notice
event
Evaluate costs & rewards
Define as
emergency
Accept personal
responsibility for
action
What is the effect of others’ being present?
Select mode of
intervention
Implement
intervention
• Increases likelihood of noticing the event
• Depending on others' demeanor, may decrease the likelihood of
interpreting event as an emergency
• Informal norm of looking "cool" while assessing the situation biases
others to interpret the situation as "cool"
• Diffuses responsibility
8
Defense
• Identify a particular helper
• Be explicit about the nature
of the emergency
• Be explicit about what you
want them to do
Milgram experiment
• Subjects believe they are participants in a study of effects of
punishment on learning
• They are asked to shock a partner (stooge) when the partner
makes learning mistakes
• Dependent variable is number of subjects who “go all the way”,
delivering 300+ volts of electricity
QuickTi me™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Strapping the
learning in
QuickTi me™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Teacher
experiences shock
QuickTi me™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Teacher refuses
Milgram video
10
Obedience to authority
In Milgram shock experiments, all
teacher subjects did some
shocking and 65% shocked at the
maximum level (450 volts), even
when thinking the learner was
suffering a heart attack
40%
20%
435
375
315
255
0%
195
• When victim is physically &
psychologically distant from the
teacher
60%
135
• When "commander" is
physically & psychologically
close to the teacher
80%
75
• When "commander" is an
authority figure
100%
15
Effects greater
120%
Percent still shocking
• Experts predicted 1-2%
compliance rate
% of subjects shocking at various
voltage levels
Voltage
11
Variations
Teacher's proximity to victim
Tou ch
Compliance decreased as
closeness to victim increased
Same room
Voi ce
fee dback
Remote fm
victim
0
20
40
60
80
% stopping the expe riment
Teachers proximity to
experimenter
Compliance increased as
closeness to authority increased
Ta pe
recorde r
Te leph one
conta ct
Sam e
roo m
0
50
10 0
% stopping the experiment
12
Latane’s Social Impact Theory
• Impact of social influence
attempt on an individual
increases with
• Number of influencers
Effectiveness of Get Out the Vote
Techniques
Modality
In person canvassing
1 new voter per 14
contacts=$18.67/new voter
Personal phone calls
1 new voter per 50
contacts=$45/new voter
• Up to a point
• Strength
• Status
• Ability
• Relationship to target
• Immediacy
• Proximity in time
• Proximity in space
Effectiveness
Robo-phone calls
Direct mail
Email
No discernable
effect=infinite cost
1 new voter per 200
contacts=$100/new voter
No discernable
effect=infinite cost
13
Other examples of authority (Cialdini)
•
•
•
•
•
Higher manuscript acceptance rates when coming from a high-prestige
university
Less horn honking at luxury car vs. economy model
Greater compliance to a request when requester wears a security
uniform than when dressed in civvies
Innovations flow through a group faster when introduced by high status
member (e.g., Michael Jordan & Energy Booster bars)
Deference to doctors
•
•
21/22 Nurses would give harmful medicine to a patient, when it is prescribed
over the phone by a strange “doctor”
Ear drops in R(ight) ear
15
Challenger Disaster, 1985
• Video
• Jan 28, 1986, Space Shuttle Challenger takes off
from Kennedy Space Center
• Explodes 73 seconds after take-off
• Dead:
• Francis R. (Dick) Scobee, pilot Michael J. Smith; specialists
Judith A. Resnik, Ronald E. McNair and Ellison S. Onizuka;
payload specialist Gregory B. Jarvis, a Hughes Aircraft
Corp. employee.
• Managerial reconstruction at
http://onlineethics.org/essays/shuttle/index.html#abstr
16
Crew
•
•
From left to right are Ellison
Onizuka, Mike Smith,
Christa McAuliffe, Dick
Scobee, Greg Jarvis, Ron
McNair and Judy Resnick.
Resnick, BS in EE, CMU
1970.
17
Background
• O-rings seal sections
of booster rocket
• Morton Thiokol had
evidence since Jan,
1985 of damage to Orings (Flight 51E)
18
Damage to O-rings & link to cold weather
noted by March, 1985
• No problems at 100F, loss
of seal for 2.4 sec at 75oF &
for 10 sec at 50oF
• 7/1/85 , M-T provides results
of weather tests to NASA
• 7/31/85 , M-T engineer
writes memo to VP of
Engineering
• “Management at Thiokol and
NASA shows no interest in
planning a design change”
19
Memo Excerpt
•
"Subject: SRM O-Ring Erosion/Potential Failure Criticality. This letter
is written to insure that management is fully aware of the seriousness
of the current O-ring erosion problem in the SRM joints from an
engineering standpoint. The mistakenly accepted position on the joint
problem was to fly without fear of failure and to run a series of design
evaluations which would ultimately lead to a solution or at least a
significant reduction of the erosion problem. This position is now
drastically changed as a result of the SRM 16A nozzle joint erosion
which eroded a secondary O-ring with the primary O-ring never
sealing."
•
"If the same scenario should occur in a field joint (and it could), then it
is a jump ball as to the success or failure of the joint because the
secondary O-ring cannot respond to the clevis opening rate and may
not be capable of pressurization. The result would be a catastrophe of
the highest order---of of human life."
20
Dramatization of final teleconference, night
before launch
• Weather on launch day
predicted to be 18oF
• Two teleconferences
btw Kennedy Space
Center, Marshal Space
Flight Center & Morton
Thiokol
• Video
Roger Boisjoly
M-T Engineer reporting failures
21
Discussion
• Why did this decision happen?
•
...failures in communication... resulted in a
decision to launch 51-L based on incomplete and
sometimes misleading information, a conflict
between engineering data and management
judgments, and a NASA management structure
that permitted internal flight safety problems to
bypass key Shuttle managers (Rodgers Commission)
• What should the engineers have done?
22
What should the engineers
have done?
• Engineering notebook:
• The caucus constituted the unethical decisionmaking forum resulting from intense customer
intimidation. NASA placed MTI in the position of
proving that it was not safe to fly instead of
proving that it was safe to fly. Also, note that
NASA immediately accepted the new decision to
launch because it was consistent with their
desires and please note that no probing
questions were asked.
23
Depth of processing in attitude change
Systematic processing
• Occurs when we think
deeply about a message
• Persuaded by the
strength of the
arguments
• Requires the motivation
and the ability to think
deeply about the
message:
Heuristic processing
• Occurs when we don’t
think deeply about a
message
• Persuaded by cues in the
message or situation
• Happens automatically
when we lack the
motivation or ability to
process deep1y
25
Heuristic Processing
• Use superficial cues to assess the validity of
message
• Heuristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Social Proof
Authority
Liking
Reciprocity
Commitment and Consistency
Scarcity
26
Liking-based influence
We tend to be more influenced by people we like
Physical
attractiveness
Similarity
Familiarity
Ingratiation
Cooperation
Conditioning
Beliefs
consistent with
persuasion
attempt
Liking
X
Influence attempt
Liking for object
Imitation
27
Role of Non-Verbal Behavior
• Meta-analysis of effects of non-verbal behavior on
compliance with requests
Behavior
• Formal clothes
• Gaze
• Touch
• Closeness
Mean r
.16
.23
.21
.18
• Why? Communicating power & intimacy
Segrin, C. (1993). The effects of nonverbal behavior on outcomes of
compliance gaining attempts. Communication Studies, 44(3-4), 169-187.
28
Increasing tips
Tactic
Introduce yourself by name.
Personalize your appearance.
Kneel down next to tables.
Smile.
Tell a joke
Touch customers.
Thank customers.
Draw a picture on the check.
Call customers by name.
After-dinner candy
Use credit-card tip trays.
Msg abt upcoming dinner special
Give interesting task
Literally repeat customer order (Netherlands)
Give card with joke
Sell more expensive meals (x15%)
Increase
15%-23%
15%
>$1.00/order
18%
43%
25%
12%
36%
10%
21%
20%
17%
20%
68%
Lynn, M. (1996). Seven ways to increase your servers’ tips. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37, 24-29.
29
Physical attractiveness
Cognition: "halo effects“
Attractive people are
•
•
Viewed as more intelligent, talented, honest, kind, etc.
Can be self-fulfilling prophesies, but, find effects even when targets rate
newborns
Evaluation: More attractive people are better liked
Behaviors: preferential treatment
•
•
•
•
•
More likely to be hired, at better salary
More likely to be elected
More likely to receive help when requested
More likely to get better tort settlements
More likely to get lenient sentences in court
30
Evaluations
• Who is most
-- Intelligent -- Friendly
1
4
2
--Honest --Successful
3
5
6
31
What Leads to Physical Attractiveness?
• Averageness
• Skin texture
• Not facial shape
• More originals averaged  More attractive
• Females: r (number faces X attractiveness) =.64
• Males: r (number faces X attractiveness) =.57
1
2
3
4
32
Why? Cue for health
• Both facial averageness
& symmetry asc. with
perceived health
• Distinctiveness (nonaverageness) at age 17
is asc with poorer
health
• Symmetry is not asc
with poorer health
33
Female Facial Features
•Suntanned skin
•Narrower facial shape
•Less fat
•Fuller lips
•Slightly bigger distance of eyes
•Darker, narrower eye brows
•More, longer and darker lashes
•Higher cheek bones
•Narrower nose
•No eye rings
•Thinner lids
34
Male Facial Features
•Browner skin
•Narrower facial shape
•Less fat
•Fuller and more symmetrical lips
•Darker eye brows
•More and darker lashes
•Upper half of the face broader in relation to
the lower
•Higher cheek bones
•Prominent lower jaw
•More prominent chin
•No receding brows
•Thinner lids
•No wrinkles between nose and corner of
the mouth
35
Why? Hormone Markers of Mate Quality
Males
• High testosterone/estrogen ratios

•
•
Lateral growth of cheekbones,
mandibles & chin
Forward growth of eyebrow
ridges
• Signals strength & likely
reproductive success
• Smooth skinfreedom from
disease
• Women prefer “masculinized”
faces most during most fertile
time in menstrual cycle & when
judging a short-term mate
• Women who consider themselves
attractive had largest preference
for masculinized faces
Females
• High estrogen/testosterone
ratios
• Prominent cheekbones & other
attractive features
• Little facial hair
• Larger hips & breasts
• Signals reproductive status &
likely reproductive success
• Smooth skin with few defects 
have dealt with possible toxic
effects of estrogen
36
Similarity
• Cognition: Perceive people as similar if they are like us in any number
of ways :
• Ascribed characteristics: e.g., age, gender, racial/ethnic
background
• Attained characteristics: e.g., social status, educational level
• Opinions, attitudes: e.g., liberal vs. conservative
• Hobbies, interests: e.g., sports, music, movies
• Dress
• Verbal & nonverbal style
•
Evaluation: People who are more similar to us are better
liked
•
Behaviors:
• More likely to help similar others
• More likely to be convinced by similar others' arguments
39
Physical similarity
S sees candidates morphed with
themselves or stranger
S likes physically similar candidate most
High facial similarity
Low facial similarity
55%
43%
Expt 1
48%
43%
Expt 2
44% 41%
Expt 3
Effect strongest for unfamiliar candidates
40
Behavioral similarity
• Subject listens to an
avatar delivering a
persuasive message
• Avatar was
prerecorded or
mimicked S’s head
movements with 4-sec
delay
• Ss judged mimicking
avatar
• More effective, more
persuasive & more
positive
The immersive virtual environment system used in this
study (top), a participant’s view of the virtual room
(middle), and a close-up view of the three-dimensional
models of female and male embodied agents (bottom).
41
Familiarity
• Evaluation: Repeated exposure to an object, person, or
idea increases liking
• effect occurs even if we can't perceive the stimulus
• effect occurs even if the stimulus is a meaningless object
• effect occurs even prenatally
• Behaviors: Widespread use in many social arenas
• election campaigns
• product sales
• interpersonal interaction
• Exception:
• when we already dislike the object, person or idea repeated exposure
often doesn't increase liking and may decrease it
42
Source of Familiarity Effect
• Evidence:
• Zajonc’s 5x5 repeated ideographs vs.
25 unique exposures
• We’re in better moods after repeated
exposures
• Effects generalize to new stimuli
• Absence of aversive event as stimulus
(Zajonc)
• We learn to like something because
each time they appear we are
rewarded with a lack of a punishment
 safety
43
Reciprocity
• Repay, in kind, what another person has provided us
• Universal
• All human societies have this rule (Gouldner, 1960)
• “an honored network of obligation” (Leakey & Lewin, 1978); “web of
indebtedness” (Tiger & Fox, 1971); inclusive fitness
• Enables division of labor
• Creates interdependence and societal bonds
• Application: Best way to increase response to mail survey is
give potential respondent money before the complete the survey
– “as a token of appreciation”
• $5 now for everyone is much more effective than a promise to pay
$100 for completing the survey
44
Reciprocity
•People feel obligated to return
gifts given to them
•Charity appeals: Calendars,
greeting card, return address
stamps, pencils, & cash used
to increase contributions
•Survey research: Small cash
gift increases response rates.
Effects much larger than
promise of larger incentive for
completion
45
Reciprocity in the hotel, 3/3/2011
• Resulted in a $5 tip
46
Ingratiation as strategic self-presentation
• Communicate
• Similarity/Conformity
• Competence
• Attraction
• Sociability
• Flattery
• Effects dependent upon
• Status relationship
• Suspicion
• Relevance
47
Audiences typically accept the performance
• Considerateness rule: We expect others to honor and even
collaborate in maintaining our line
• Fundamental attribution error: As audience, we tend to over attribute a
person's behavior to their stable properties
• Discounting rules
• Discount self-promoting behavior
• Discount controllable behavior
• But we under discount
48
Compliance: What actually works (meta-analysis)?
Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic
investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 54.
49
Flattery (Other enhancement)
• We believe praise & like the
praise regardless of whether
the praise is true
• We like & are more
persuaded by those who
praise us
• Obviousness of ulterior
motive (transparency)
reduces effects of praise, but
doesn’t eliminate it
• Fundamental attribution error
50
What do people do in job interviews?
51
Opinion Conformity
52
What works: Ingratiation & rationality
Average Correlation (corrected)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
[1] Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A. and Ferris, G. R. Influence tactics and work outcomes: a
meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1 2003), 89-106.
[1] Higgins, C. A. and Judge, T. A. The effect of applicant influence tactics on recruiter
perceptions of fit and hiring recommendations: a field study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 4 2004), 622.
53
Ingratiation Strategies Work Better When:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Influences the target > bystanders
Downward > upward
Verbal content > non-verbal
Modesty & apology > self-promotion
Subtle > transparent
By high status ingratiater > low status
54
What works in the job interview?
55