General Psych 2
Social Influence – Module 54
March 2, 2004
Class # 11
Mass Hysteria




In 1761, after two earthquakes some guy starts
spreading the rumor that a third more destructive
one would soon occur
People initially laughed at him
But after watching a few of his friends started
moving their things to the surrounding area
Within a week or so a near panic takes place and
those that had initially laughed paid outrageous
prices for motels in a nearby town
Uncertainty

In ambiguous situations, people tend to rely
on information provided by others


Muzafer Sherif asked students to judge the
apparent movement of a stationary light on a wall
Autokinetic Effect

A stationary spot of light in a dark room appears
to move
Sherif (1937)


Put yourself in the role of the participant…
Day 1


Participant stares at a pinpoint of light about 15 feet away
The light seems to be moving but you can’t be sure…after
a few seconds it disappears
 Sherif: How far did it move?
 Participant: I’m not really sure but maybe about 8
inches
Sherif (1937)

Day 2




The participant is now joined by three confederates
This time all four stare at the pinpoint of light about 15
feet away
Again, you think it moved about 8 inches
 Sherif: How far did it move?
 Confederate 1: 2 inches
 Confederate 2: an inch or two
 Confederate 3: oh, no it can’t be more than one
inch
 Participant: oh, I guess about 6 inches
Everyone else looks at you as if you are
crazy
Sherif (1937)

Day 3


The same situation as Day 2 except this time you
reply “about 4 inches”
Day 4

The same situation as Day 2 except this time you
reply “its probably like 2 inches”
Consensus and Similarity

We are especially likely to follow the behavior
of others when:

There is strong consensus among the others
(example: a large group all agrees that the
shorter line is the longest one)
Consensus and Similarity

We are especially likely to follow the behavior
of others when:
 The others are highly similar to us…
 Example: “copycat” suicides involve
individuals similar in age and sex to the
victim in highly publicized cases
Uncertainty and the Desire for Accuracy



High motivation to be accurate will:
Increase conformity among people who are
uncertain of their judgments
Decrease conformity among people who are
certain of their judgments
Uncertainty and the Desire for Accuracy

Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman (1996)


Asked students to choose a criminal suspect from a
line-up…
 Some saw the pictures so quickly it was hard to be
certain about their conclusions
 Others had ample time to be certain
Additionally…
 Some were motivated to be accurate with the
promise of a $20 prize
 Others had no incentive
Okay so we have these IV’s…


IV1: Motivation (high vs. low)
IV2: Certainty (high vs. low)
Experimental groups




Group 1: High and High
Group 2: High and Low
Group 3: Low and High
Group 4: Low and Low
When participants
were uncertain of their
own judgments,
motivation to be
accurate INCREASED
conformity
Percent Conforming
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
LOW
HIGH
Importance of Accuracy
When
participants were
certain,
motivation to be
accurate
DECREASED
conformity
Managing Self-Image

Personal commitments tie an individual’s
identity (or self-image) to a position or course
of action, making it more likely that he or she
will follow through
Conformity:
Asch’s Research on Group Influence

Lets look at some classic research studies
involving group pressure…

Asch (1951, 1952, 1956)
Asch (1951)

Which of the lines on the left most closely matches
line A on the right?

1 2 3
In this early version,
Asch had 16 “naïve”
participants with 1
confederate who gave
incorrect answers
A
Asch (1951)

Results:

Participants laughed at and ridiculed the
confederate
Conformity:
Asch’s Research on Group Influence (1951, 1952, 1956)


Series of experiments most done with 1
participant and 5-8 confederates
Real participant would give their judgment
after several confederates had already given
theirs
Asch (1956)

Which of the lines on the left most closely matches
line A on the right?

1 2 3
What would you say if
you were in a group
of 6 others, and all
agreed the answer
was 3?
A
Asch (1956)

When alone, 95% of participants got all the
answers correct…

1 2 3
When confronted by the
unanimous incorrect
majority, participants
conformed 37% of the
time…in fact 75% went
against their own eyes at
least once if the group
gave a wrong answer
A
Asch (1956)

Some participants said they didn’t want to look silly
or be rejected by the rest of the group


Normative social influence – they wanted to “fit in” with the
others
Some participants said it was because they thought
the others must have had better eyesight or be
better informed in some way

Informational social influence – they were basically utilizing
others as a source of information
Asch’s conclusions…conditions that
strengthen conformity

The following were influential insofar as
conformity was concerned...



Group size
Incompetent and insecure individuals
Group’s status and attractiveness
Group size

As the number of people increases so does
conformity…


Asch varied the size of his groups using 1 to 15
confederates in his many studies
Once there was 3 or 4 confederates, the amount
of additional influence was negligible
Incompetent and insecure
individuals

When one is made to feel incompetent or
insecure conformity is likely
Group’s status and attractiveness

Kind of goes without saying…if its a group
you want to be a part of – you will likely
conform to its opinions
Asch’s conclusions…conditions that
weaken conformity


Presence of an ally (the “true partner effect”)
Independence
Presence of an ally


The presence of a true partner, who agreed
with the subject, reduced conformity by 80%
When we have an ally, we can diffuse the
pressure because we are not the only one
breaking the norm
Independence


Some people care more about standing up
for their rights than being disliked
In the movie, “12 Angry Men” – a lone
dissenter resisted the pressure to conform
Asch (1956)

Bottom-line Conclusion:


People faced with strong group consensus
sometimes go along even though they think the
others may be wrong
And these are strangers…what if they were
member’s of your own circle of friends?
Obedience

Milgram (1964, 1974)


Obedience experiments
The behavior change that comes in response
to a demand from an authority figure
Observed Behavior

Surprisingly, 26/40 went all the way to the
final switch

Why the gap between the behavior predicted by
experts in human motivation, and the actual
behavior???

Acknowledgments: Several of the slides containing graphics were obtained from
wattlab.com.uconn.edu
Results of Milgram’s Obedience Experiment
Adapted from S. Milgram "Behavioral Study of Obedience" from Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Used by permission of Alexandra Milgram.
Factors Affecting Obedience

Prestige and status of authority figure


Person giving orders was close at hand


Supported by prestigious institution
Milgram was right there
Presence of others who disobey


Here, no role models who disobeyed
Out of sight
Determining Factors
1) Emotional Distance



When learner was in the same room, full compliance dropped to
40%
When teacher applied learner’s hand to shock plate, compliance
fell to 30%
Victims were depersonalized in original study
2) Proximity of Authority Figure

When Milgram gave commands by telephone, compliance
dropped to 21%
3) Legitimacy of Authority



When a “clerk” gave the orders, compliance was 20%
Prestige and status of authority figure
Supported by prestigious institution
Determining Factors
4) Group Influence


When two confederates “refused” to keep going,
only 10% of real subjects fully complied with the
orders
No “role model” who didn’t go all the way
Another Possible Explanation…

Cognitive Dissonance


Behavior (shocking learner) conflicted with belief
(learner is a decent person)
So solution is to alter belief: “He’s such an idiot he
deserves to get shocked”
Milgram’s Experiments: Points to Ponder…

Consider the role of the fundamental
attribution error in explaining people’s
predictions of obedience in the Milgram
procedure


The psychiatrists’ predictions were way off…
Ethical questions surrounding Milgram’s
obedience experiments

Would it have been better from an ethical
perspective if Milgram’s research had never been
conducted?
What would you have done had you been
a participant in that original study?

Don’t commit the Fundamental Attribution
Error!
Social Facilitation

If performance can be individually evaluated,
the presence of others will be arousing
(improve performance on simple tasks but
interfere with performance on complex tasks)
Triplett (1898)


Was one of the first scientists to ask the
question "What happens when individuals
join together with other individuals?"
Triplett, who was a bicycling enthusiast,
noticed that cyclists performed better in races
than they did when they were paced by motordriven cycles or when they were timed riding
the course alone
Zajonc (1965)

Proposed that the mere presence of others
increases arousal which in turn affects our
performance
Zajonc (1969)

Cockroach study


Cockroach placed in a tube with a bright light at one
end of the tube…
To escape the light, the cockroach had to run down
the tube and into a darkened box at the other end of
the tube…



IV: Presence or absence of other cockroaches
DV: Speed of escape
Results: Cockroaches were faster to escape when
other cockroaches were present
Criticisms of Zajonc


Support for this model was eroded when later
studies showed that the type of audience was
important e.g. home or away fans
The exact mechanism behind the social
facilitation has yet to be determined but all of
the following have been proposed: heightened
self-awareness, self-consciousness, selfpresentation concern, self-monitoring and
self-attention
Michaels et al. (1982)

Secretly rated pool players in a hall as above
average or below average ability…



Then a group of confederates came and stood by
their table as they played
The above average players' shot accuracy improved
from 71 to 80% accurate, while the below average
players slipped from 36 to 25% accurate
Does the Yerkes-Dodson Law applies here?
Social Loafing

If performance cannot be individually
evaluated, the presence of others will lead to
a diminished effort on the part each person
Latane et al. (1979)



IV: clapping alone vs. clapping in groups of 2,
4, or 6 people
DV: amount of noise made by each
participant
Results:

As the size of the group, individual sound
decreased
Why the lack of effort?

They feel less accountable and therefore
worry less about what others think
They view their contribution as dispensable
Often feel they can get away with “free-riding”

Plain and simple reality?



People are motivated by rewards…if they don’t
feel they’ll get any credit then they probably won’t
bust their…
Group Polarization


The exaggeration through group discussion
on initial tendencies in the thinking of group
members
For example:

Low prejudice groups can become less prejudiced
and high prejudiced groups can become more
prejudiced
Groupthink


Group decision-making that is not optimal,
sometimes disastrous, because the group’s
primary goal is consensus instead of
accuracy
Example:

U.S. Space Shuttle Challenger explosion
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

When an initially inaccurate expectation leads
to actions that cause the expectation to come
true