1Begin Slides for Exam 3ConformitySocial Influence & ConformitySocial Influence: Use of social power to change the attitudes or behavior of others in a particular directionConformity: Change in behavior or belief as a result of real or imagined social influencecpAutokinetic Effect StudyEstimate how far point of light moved in dark roomAfter many trials, individual’s estimates convergedRepeated procedure in a group situationcpAutokinetic Effect StudycpThe Johnny Rocco CasecpModeMost commonviewpointDeviateMost deviantviewpointSliderMost deviantthen most commonviewpointThe Johnny Rocco CaseParticipants rated who they most wanted to leave the groupNot Significantly DifferentWanted Deviate to go the mostMode Slider Deviate4.47 4.76 6.11cp2ReciprocationChristmas Card StudyPhil Kunz, a psychologist at Brigham Young University in Provo Utah sent 578 Christmas cards (signed “Joyce and Phil”) to strangers living in Chicago, Illinois. 117 (over 20%) sent a card in returnA significant number of return cards had notes or letters enclosedOnly 6 of the 117 people who returned a card said they could not remember themcpReciprocationWorks because:– 1st request makes 2nd request seem more moderate and acceptable– By making a 2nd, more moderate, request the requester appears to have made a concession, which makes other person feel obligated to make a reciprocal concessioncpTwo step procedure:1. Large request (get No!)2. Smaller request (get Yes!)County Youth Study: Cialdini et al. (1975)Independent variable: RequestExperimental group: “Would you be willing to serve as unpaid counselors to juvenile delinquents 2 hrs./wk for 2 years?”(inflated request)“No? Ok, would you be willing to serve as unpaid chaperons for juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo?”(concession)Control group: Asked....“Would you be willing to serve as unpaid chaperons for juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo?”cpCounty Youth Studycp0%10%20%30%40%50%60%Control Group Experimental Group% agreeing to go to zooDoor-in-the-Face TechniqueFactors that reduce its effectiveness:–Initial request too extreme–Request for selfish purposes–Delay between 1st and 2nd requestcp3Cupcake Sale: Burger (1986)3 Conditions:That’s Not All: •Cost per cupcake $1.25, then reduced to $1.00Bargain:•Cost per cupcake $1.00, had been $1.25Control:•Cost per cupcake $1.00cpCupcake Salecp0%10%20%30%40%50%60%That's Not All Bargain Control% who bought a cupcakeCommitment & ConsistencyCommitment and ConsistencyOnce we make a commitment, we feel pressure from ourselves and others to behave consistently with that commitment.CPBeach Towel StudyCP0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent who intervenedControl ExperimentalHere’s another example...Researchers asked 1/2 of the residents in an apt. complex to sign a petition to create a recreation center for the handicapped2 weeks later, all residents were approached and asked to donate money to the causeThis reflects a two-step process for the 1/2 of participants who signed the petition:Step 1: obtain commitment (i.e., petition signature) Step 2: get consistency in behavior (i.e., donate $)CP4American Cancer Society Study (Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976)Control Group:“I’m collecting money for the American Cancer Society. Would you be willing to help by giving a donation.”Experimental Group:“I’m collecting money for the American Cancer Society. Would you be willing to help by giving a donation. Even a penny would help.”CPAmerican Cancer Society StudyCP0%10%20%30%40%50%60%Control ExperimentalPercent who donated money$18.55$30.34Commitments “grow their own legs”People add reasons and justifications to support the commitments they have made. This causes prior commitments to be self-perpetuating because people will stick to their prior commitments even when the original factor leading to compliance is gone.CPFactors that Affect Commitment and ConsistencyIs the commitment voluntary or forced?He that complies against his will is of his own opinion stillIs the commitment made in public or private?Is the commitment made actively or passively?Did the commitment take effort or not?CPSocial ProofSocial Proof:Craig & Prkachin (1978)1.Administered shock to participant2.Asked participant how painful shock was3.Took physiological measures of painParticipants felt less shock on both pain indexes if they were in the presence of another participant who was apparently experiencing little or no painCP5Why Social Proof Gains ComplianceWhy does it work?–Following the crowd is easier –takes less mental effort–People make fewer errors when they “follow the crowd”CPFactors that Influence Effectiveness of Social ProofUncertain aboutcorrect behaviorCertain aboutcorrect behaviorSocial Proof works better under conditions of uncertaintyCPFactors that Influence Effectiveness of Social ProofDissimilar SimilarSocial Proof works better when others are similar to the selfCPCopycat SuicidesSchmidtke & Hafter (1988)Examined # of suicides following broadcast of FICTIONAL TV show•TV show lasted 6 weeks•Depicted 19 yr. old male who committed suicide by leaping in front of a trainFollowing the series, railway suicides increased substantiallyThis increase was greatest for males who were same age as TV characterCPCopy cat suicides called the Werther Effect-500050010001500-10123MonthsFluctuations in U.S. suicides before, during, and after 26 publicized suicide stories (Phillips, 1974).Number ofsuicides in comparison to to what would have normallybeen expectedCPScarcity6Strategies Derived from Scarcity Principle1. Limited Numbers:–Customer told that a particular product is in short supply2. Time Limits:–Customer told that there is a deadline to the sale of a productcpReactance and Toy PreferenceBrehm & Weintraub (1977)Toddlers put in room with attractive toysOne toy behind a Plexiglas sheet that was:–1 foot high (no barrier) –2 feet high (barrier)Toddlers made contact with toy behind the barrier 3 times fastercpReactance and Teen LoveDriscoll, Davis, & Lipetz (1972)The more parents objected to their teens’ relationship, the more in love the couples said they were, and the more the couples wanted to get married.The couples’ love increased as parental interference increased and decreased as parental interference decreasedcpFactors that Influence Effectiveness of Scarcity1. New scarcityPeople are more likely to want something that has just become scarce than something that has already