Скачать презентацию PSY 321 Conformity and Compliance Dr Sanchez 1 Скачать презентацию PSY 321 Conformity and Compliance Dr Sanchez 1

4a4403ccad3024d9844944d250b8606e.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 51

PSY 321 Conformity and Compliance Dr. Sanchez 1 PSY 321 Conformity and Compliance Dr. Sanchez 1

Today’s Outline • Compliance – Techniques and Experiments • Conformity – Techniques and Experiments Today’s Outline • Compliance – Techniques and Experiments • Conformity – Techniques and Experiments • Majority vs. Minority Influence 2

Compliance • Changes in behavior that are elicited by direct requests. 3 Compliance • Changes in behavior that are elicited by direct requests. 3

The Language of Requests • Talking fast and catching people off guard can improve The Language of Requests • Talking fast and catching people off guard can improve compliance rates. • People can be disarmed by the simple phrasing of the request. 4

The language of requests: Experiment Langer et al. , 1978 • IV: Request did The language of requests: Experiment Langer et al. , 1978 • IV: Request did or did not include a reason o “I have five copies. May I use the Xerox machine? ” o “I have five copies. May I use the Xerox machine, because I’m in a rush? ” o “I have five copies. May I use the Xerox machine, because I have to make copies? ” 5

Langer et al. (1978) 6 Langer et al. (1978) 6

Breaking the Mindless Routine (Santos et al. 1994) 7 Breaking the Mindless Routine (Santos et al. 1994) 7

Norm of Reciprocity • The powerful norm of reciprocity dictates that we treat others Norm of Reciprocity • The powerful norm of reciprocity dictates that we treat others as they have treated us. § Example: writing “thank you” on back of check increases tip § Coca-Cola study • Norm of reciprocity is relatively short-lived. 8

Sequential Request Strategies: Foot-in-the-Door Technique • Person begins with a very small request; secures Sequential Request Strategies: Foot-in-the-Door Technique • Person begins with a very small request; secures agreement; then makes a separate larger request. • Why is it effective? 9

Foot-in-the-Door: Experiment Freedman & Fraser, 1966 • IV: Small request first, or not • Foot-in-the-Door: Experiment Freedman & Fraser, 1966 • IV: Small request first, or not • Initial request (small): – By phone, asked women to complete short survey on household products • Intrusive request (big): – 3 days later, asked women to allow a few men into the house for 2 hours to rummage through drawers 10

Freedman & Fraser (1966) 11 Freedman & Fraser (1966) 11

Sequential Request Strategies: Low-Balling • Person secures agreement with a request and then increases Sequential Request Strategies: Low-Balling • Person secures agreement with a request and then increases the size of that request by revealing hidden costs. • Why is it effective? 12

Low-balling: Experiment Cialdini et al. , 1978 • Asked intro psych students to participate Low-balling: Experiment Cialdini et al. , 1978 • Asked intro psych students to participate in experiment • IV: low-balling or upfront – half were told in advance that it would start at 7 am; – half were told after agreeing that it would start at 7 am 13

Cialdini et al. (1978) 14 Cialdini et al. (1978) 14

Sequential Request Strategies: Door-in-the-Face Technique • Person begins with a very large request that Sequential Request Strategies: Door-in-the-Face Technique • Person begins with a very large request that will be rejected; then follows that up with a more moderate request. • Why is it effective? 15

Door-in-the-Face Technique: Experiment Cialdini et al. , 1975 • IV: Large request first? • Door-in-the-Face Technique: Experiment Cialdini et al. , 1975 • IV: Large request first? • Asked students to volunteer for 2 hrs/week for 2 yrs to work with juvenile delinquents • Or no large request first • Followed by smaller request: Will you escort juvenile delinquents to zoo? 16

Cialdini et al. (1975) 17 Cialdini et al. (1975) 17

Sequential Request Strategies: That’s Not All, Folks! • Person begins with a somewhat inflated Sequential Request Strategies: That’s Not All, Folks! • Person begins with a somewhat inflated request; then immediately decreases the apparent size of the request by offering a discount or bonus. • Why? 18

That’s-Not-All Technique: Experiment Burger, 1986 • IV: Did the deal get “sweeter”? – ½ That’s-Not-All Technique: Experiment Burger, 1986 • IV: Did the deal get “sweeter”? – ½ of Ps told cupcakes cost 75 cents – ½ of Ps first told cupcakes cost $1, then told the price would be reduced to 75 cents 19

Burger (1986) 20 Burger (1986) 20

Sequential Request Strategies 21 Sequential Request Strategies 21

Assertiveness: When People Say No • To be able to resist the trap of Assertiveness: When People Say No • To be able to resist the trap of compliance techniques…. . 22

Conformity • Tendency to change perceptions, opinions, or behavior in ways that are consistent Conformity • Tendency to change perceptions, opinions, or behavior in ways that are consistent with group norms. 23

The Chameleon Effect 24 The Chameleon Effect 24

Conformity: Autokinetic Phenomenon • Sherif (1935, 1937) • Study of “norm formation” • Dark Conformity: Autokinetic Phenomenon • Sherif (1935, 1937) • Study of “norm formation” • Dark room, pinpoint of light appears 15 feet in front of you • Asked, “How far did light move? ” • First time, you’re alone • Subsequent times, you’re with others (this is the IV) 25

A Classic Case of Suggestibility 26 A Classic Case of Suggestibility 26

Conformity: Asch Line-Matching • P surrounded by 6 confederates • Asked to judge length Conformity: Asch Line-Matching • P surrounded by 6 confederates • Asked to judge length of a line • IV: Confederates give correct or incorrect answer 27

Line Judgment Task Used in Asch’s Conformity Studies Asch, 1955. 28 Line Judgment Task Used in Asch’s Conformity Studies Asch, 1955. 28

What Did Asch’s Participants Do? • Participants went along 37% of the time. • What Did Asch’s Participants Do? • Participants went along 37% of the time. • 25% of the participants NEVER conformed • Of the conformists, 50% conformed for at least half of the critical presentations. 29

Sherif’s vs. Asch’s Studies • Sherif: Because of ambiguity, participants turned to each other Sherif’s vs. Asch’s Studies • Sherif: Because of ambiguity, participants turned to each other for guidance. • Asch: Found self in awkward position. 30

Why Do People Conform? • Informational Influence: People conform because they believe others are Why Do People Conform? • Informational Influence: People conform because they believe others are correct in their judgments – Sherif autokinetic effect – 2 heads better than one? – Implications for eyewitness testimonies 31

Why Do People Conform? • Normative Influence: People conform because they fear the consequences Why Do People Conform? • Normative Influence: People conform because they fear the consequences of appearing deviant. – Asch line-matching – Effects of Ostracism • Cyberball • “Minority Slowness Effect” 32

Types of Conformity • Private Conformity: Changes in both overt behavior and beliefs. – Types of Conformity • Private Conformity: Changes in both overt behavior and beliefs. – Sherif autokinetic effect – Enduring conformity • Public Conformity: Superficial change in overt behavior only. – Asch line-matching – If wrote answers privately, effect went away 33

Distinguishing Types of Conformity From Robert Baron et al. , (1996) Journal of Personality Distinguishing Types of Conformity From Robert Baron et al. , (1996) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915 -927. Copyright (c) 1996 by the American Psychological Association. Adapted with permission. 34

Model of the Types of Conformity 35 Model of the Types of Conformity 35

Majority Influence: Group Size • Conformity increases with group size -- but only up Majority Influence: Group Size • Conformity increases with group size -- but only up to a point. • Why? – Law of “diminishing returns”? – Perception that others are either in “collusion” or “spineless sheep”? 36

Majority Influence: Having an Ally in Dissent • When there was an ally in Majority Influence: Having an Ally in Dissent • When there was an ally in Asch’s study, conformity dropped by almost 80%. • Why does having an ally reduce majority influence on our behavior? 37

Majority Influence and Gender Differences • IV: Masculine, Feminine, or Stereotype Neutral Q’s • Majority Influence and Gender Differences • IV: Masculine, Feminine, or Stereotype Neutral Q’s • DV: Percent agreeing w/majority response • Results? – Men conformed more to feminine qs – Women conformed more to masculine qs – No difference on neutral items 38

Majority Influence and Gender Differences • Conceptual IV: Social Pressure • IV: Public v. Majority Influence and Gender Differences • Conceptual IV: Social Pressure • IV: Public v. Private • DV: Percent agreeing w/majority response • Results? – Men conformed less – Women conformed more • Why? 39

Majority Influence and Gender Differences • Sex differences appear to depend on: – How Majority Influence and Gender Differences • Sex differences appear to depend on: – How comfortable people are with the experimental task. – Type of social pressure people face. 40

Majority Influence and Culture • Cultures differ in the extent to which people adhere Majority Influence and Culture • Cultures differ in the extent to which people adhere to social norms. • What determines whether a culture becomes individualistic or collectivistic? 41

Individualistic / Collectivistic • US • Australia • Great Britain • Canada • Netherlands Individualistic / Collectivistic • US • Australia • Great Britain • Canada • Netherlands • Asia • Africa • South America 42

Non-Conformists • Asch’s study = 63% did not conform!!! 43 Non-Conformists • Asch’s study = 63% did not conform!!! 43

Minority Influence • Def. Process by which dissenters produce change • Moscovici: Nonconformists derive Minority Influence • Def. Process by which dissenters produce change • Moscovici: Nonconformists derive power from the style of their behavior. – “Consistent dissent” approach – “The color study” • Why? 44

Minority Influence • Hollander: Minorities influence by first accumulating idiosyncrasy credits. – “First conform, Minority Influence • Hollander: Minorities influence by first accumulating idiosyncrasy credits. – “First conform, then dissent” strategy. • Why? 45

Obedience • Behavior change produced by the commands of authority • Remember: – Compliance Obedience • Behavior change produced by the commands of authority • Remember: – Compliance is a behavior change elicited by a direct request – Conformity is a change of perceptions, opinions, or behaviors in ways that are consistent with group norms 46

Milgram’s Research: Forces of Destructive Obedience • Conducted his experiments during the time that Milgram’s Research: Forces of Destructive Obedience • Conducted his experiments during the time that Adolph Eichmann was being tried for Nazi war crimes. • Symbols of authority • His unorthodox methods have been the subject of much ethical debate. 47

The Prods Used in Milgram’s Experiment • “Please continue (or please go on). ” The Prods Used in Milgram’s Experiment • “Please continue (or please go on). ” • “The experiment requires that you continue. ” • “It is absolutely essential that you continue. ” • “You have no other choice; you must go on. ” 48

Milgram’s Baseline Results 49 Milgram’s Baseline Results 49

The Obedient Participant • No gender differences observed in level of obedience. • Milgram’s The Obedient Participant • No gender differences observed in level of obedience. • Milgram’s basic findings have been replicated in several different countries and among different age groups. • Milgram’s participants were tormented by experience. 50

Are We All Nazis? • No, an individual’s character can make a difference. • Are We All Nazis? • No, an individual’s character can make a difference. • Authoritarian Personality: Submissive toward figures of authority but aggressive toward subordinates. 51