Chapter 9

Chapter Outline

Learning Objectives

1. Define conformity. Describe explicit and implicit norms. Indicate why we need to conform. Outline the Asch procedure for studying conformity. Know the results of Asch’s studies (percentages conforming). [356-359]

2. Provide some explanations for failure to conform. Describe the "ally" effect. Contrast public conformity to private acceptance. Define cohesiveness and indicate how it affects conformity. Discuss the "group size" controversy. [350-351]

3. Define "descriptive" and "injunctive norms" and when and why the latter are effective. Describe Cialdini’s and colleagues’ (Reno et al., 1993) "drop the fast food bag" study in which injunctive and descriptive norms were compared. [361-362]

4. Describe the Southern/Western "code of honor" and its origins. Discuss the Cohen’s and Nisbett’s (1997) "murder of thief" letter of application study and its implications for the code, as well as its power and persistence as a norm. [362-364]

5. List some reasons for conformity. Contrast normative and informational social influence. Describe the procedure and results of the Robert S. Baron and colleagues (1996) study involving the facial drawings shown for short and long periods. [364-365]

6. Discuss how we justify conforming and how do we deal with it after we conform? Indicate the role of culture in justification of conformity. [365-366]

7. Describe the role of "need for control" and "need to individuate" in resistance to conformity. Contrast collectivistic and individualistic cultures in amount of conformity. [366-367]

8. Describe the tension between the desire for control and to be unique on the one hand and the desire to be liked and to be accurate on the other. Discuss the "visit to the Vatican" where descriptive and injunctive norms clashed. [368-369]

9. Discuss the three avenues to minority influence on majorities. Do they rely on informational or normative influence or both? Define "systematic processing" and its role in minority influence. [369-370]

10. Describe the procedure and results of the Zdaniuk and Levine (1996) "comprehensive exam" study and its implications for minority status and systematic processing. Discuss the value for the majority of minority opposition. [370-372]

11. Define compliance. How frequently used a form of social influence is it? Identify the "compliance professionals" and describe their six basic principles. Impression management is often used for what purpose? [372-373]

12. Describe methods of flattery. Discuss the foot-in-the-door technique and the compliance principle it rests on. Discuss the "low ball" technique and the Cialdini and colleagues (1978) "early hour experiment" study. [373-374]

13. Describe the "door-in-the-face" technique and its reliance on reciprocity. Discuss Cialdini and colleagues (1975) "work with juvenile delinquents" study. Describe the "that’s not all" technique and relate it to reciprocity. [374-376]

14. Discuss the rarity of commodities and the fast-approaching deadline techniques. Describe the William’s and colleagues (1993) "hard to get", "easy to get" job-candidate study. How did the low-qualified, hard to get candidate fare? [376-377]

15. Explain why the deadline technique works? Define "complaining" and indicate how it can be used as a social influence tactic. List and describe the Alicke et al’s (1992) types of complaints and their frequency of use. [377-378]

16. Discuss why people complain and gender differences in response to complaints. Describe how manipulating others’ mood gains compliance with reference to Rind’s and Bordia’s (1995) happy faces study. Was there a gender difference? [378-379]

17. Discuss the Affective Infusion Model. Indicate how Forgas’ (1998) study supports this model (subjects found a mood altering sheet of paper). How did "depth of thinking" influence results? Define "pressure tactics." [379-381]

18. Relate individual differences in preferences for compliance techniques to the Big 5 of Caldwell and Burger (1997). Define "need for cognition" and relate it to success at influencing others. Define Obedience and the "velvet glove". Is obtaining obedience limited to the powerful? [381-382]

19. Examine what inspired Milgram to do his famous obedience studies? Describe the procedure of his "pounding on the wall study." What % obeyed in this study? Compare obedience in the U. S. to that of other countries. Consider the ethical questions related to Milgram’s research. [383-385]

20. Discuss the causes of destructive obedience, particularly the less obvious ones, gradualism and the pace of events. Know the role of perceived responsibility for the outcome of obeying. Consider disobedient models, challenging the expertise of authority, and knowledge of obedience research in resisting orders. [385-387]

Lecture Ideas

Conforming to Voice Amplitude
Begin a lecture talking in an unusually low voice approaching a whisper. Tape the session without students’ knowledge by placing a tape recorder where you can see it, but the students cannot. While the tape is running, elicit questions and comments from class members. As the lecture continues, slowly begin to raise your voice until it goes well above its normal level, again asking for questions and comments.

Before playing back the tape, ask the students if they are, at this point, aware of conforming to subtle pressure applied by you. Pick out a few students you have on the tape and ask each if he or she felt any pressure to conform to your voice amplitude. If they deny it, play the tape back for her or him. Ultimately, this exercise can demonstrate the often subtle nature of conformity.

Facing a Unanimous Majority
Asch’s (1951) studies clearly illustrate the impact that an ally can have on resisting conformity. Facing a unanimous majority alone can be a daunting experience, especially a hostile majority. For example, take the case of Shannon Faulkner, the first woman admitted into the all-male military academy, The Citadel. After quitting The Citadel, she was quoted as saying, "Even if just one female had been there with me, there would have been someone to share it [stress] with…."

"People don’t know how much hell I’ve been through". (1995, August 28). Newsweek. p. 40.

Subtle Methods of Ingratiation
Have students discuss subtle methods of ingratiation used by salespeople (e.g., encourage other people to talk about themselves, point out feelings in common, suggest trivial similarities). Discuss how ingratiation can backfire.

Blind Obedience?
At the start of class, arbitrarily start reseating students to new locations. Giving no reason, order some students to sit in the front row and others to sit in the back, the aisles or in the center portion. Then reshuffle them again, until someone asks "Why?" Discuss what was going through their minds as they were arbitrarily pushed and pulled about and, more importantly, why they complied (e.g., to save themselves or you from embarrassment).

An interesting twist on this exercise might occur if someone other than the instructor (e.g., a colleague) conduct this "rearrangement" of the class. How far will students comply or obey when a "stranger" gives them orders? Ask students to consider under what circumstances is obedience and resistance to obedience more likely to occur.

Can People be Trained to Become Torturers?
Numerous studies in social psychology have shown how everyday people can commit unthinkable acts caused by the step-by-step power of the situation. Many of the same mechanisms manipulated in laboratory studies have been shown to underlie the origins of human torture and slaughter (Staub, 1989). In one study, Gibson and Haritos-Fatouros (1986) investigated the procedures used to train Greek military police to become willing torturers. They discuss such foot-in-the-door techniques as:

basic training

• physically brutal initiation rites
• swear allegiance to symbol of authority

reducing sensitivity to torture

• recruits had to endure torture, and scream chants about violence and killing

systematic desensitization and social modeling

• recruits gradually exposed to prisoners (bring food)--> watch veterans torture and get rewarded--> participate in group beatings--> eventually perform solo beatings

Demonstrations/Activities

Symbols for the Study of Aesthetics (see Handout 9-1)
Before getting into the conformity material, tell your students that you would like to replicate an experiment on "aesthetics." Tell them you are interested in comparing results from this class with the results from previous classes.

Prior to distributing the handout, pick one symbol for each row (e.g., 1-C, 2-A, etc.). After distributing the handout, tell the students that for each row previous students tend to find one symbol more interesting than the others. Tell them which symbol (randomly chosen by you) was rated highest for each row. Then ask the students to pick the symbol they think is the most interesting and intriguing for each row. Then ask the students to exchange sheets and score each other’s sheets. Beginning with row 1, call out the "previous students’ favorite" and tell them to circle the number for each row that matches the previous students’ favorites.

After collecting the sheets, explain that actually the symbols were picked at random. Report to the class the percentage of students who "agreed" with the "phantom" student responses at least 6 out of 10 times. Similar to Asch, you may find that at least 30 percent of students will have "gone along" in a majority of the ten cases. Explain to them how the previous students may have been exerting subtle pressure on them to make the same choices they supposedly made.

How Do We Treat Nonconformists? (see Handout 9-2a and 9-2b)
To determine how nonconformists are treated, Schachter (1951) asked a small group of subjects to determine the fate of Johnny Rocco, a juvenile delinquent. One of the subjects was a confederate (a young Bibb Latané) who was instructed by Schachter to pick a deviant, unpopular response and refuse to give in to group pressure. Needless to say, Bibb’s nonconformity led the group to dislike him the most.

To replicate this finding, Goethals (1998) suggests having your class work on a similar scenario. The step-by-step procedure is as follows:

The Set-up (do this the class before you do this exercise)
1. At the end of class as students are leaving, wait until there are a handful of students remaining (these will be your confederates). Ideally you want one confederate in each group (5 people per group)

2. Briefly explain to them the scenario (i.e., Reggie is a juvenile delinquent whose gotten into trouble with the law- you must determine the severity of his punishment) (see Handout 9-2a).

3. To ensure the confederates pick an unpopular response, tell them to choose the most severe punishment (#7- see Handout 9-2b).

4. Tell them they will be discussing the level of punishment in small groups, and that no matter how much pressure they feel to conform, they should stick with their initial, extreme response. (To help them, I suggest arming them with arguments such as: society needs to be protected, punishment is needed to unlearn the crimes, and Reggie took advantage of the system).

   The Big Day

5. Instruct your students to get into small groups of 5 (make sure each confederate is in a different group).

6. Distribute Handout 9-2a and Handout 9-2b to each student and have them read the scenario individually. Then ask them to discuss as a group what punishment Reggie should receive. Tell them their goal is to try to reach consensus as a group.

7. After the groups deliberate for 10-15 minutes, go around to each group and ask if they have reached consensus (of course none of them will, and many will say "well we would if it wasn’t for this one person"). While doing this assign each member a number from 1 to 5 always making sure the confederate receives the #5.

8. Tell each student to individually rank order each member of the group from highest to lowest on "who you would most likely want to serve on a jury with."

9. When everyone is finished ranking, ask them "how many of you ranked #5 lowest?"

Typically I find that over 80% rank #5 the lowest. After telling the class that I planted a nonconformist in each group (much to their surprise), an insightful discussion ensues on how we treat those who dissent from the majority.

Three Basic Appeals Used in Advertising
Makosky (1985) suggests asking students to bring in magazines so they can identify the three basic appeals used in advertising. The first of these appeals is "the appeal to or creation of needs." It is based on four of the needs in Maslow’s hierarchy. Examples include:

• "Aren’t you hungry for Burger King now?" (physiological needs)
• "Get a piece of the rock" (safety and security needs)
• "Brush your breath with Dentine" (belongingness and love needs)
• "When E. F. Hutton speaks..." (self-esteem and status needs)

• the "Pepsi generation"
• Michael Jordan for Wheaties, various famous athletes for light beer

The third, and most subtle, kind of appeal is "loaded words and images." Examples include:

• ads with attractive, athletic people touting snacks like Snickers candy bars
• the use of buzzwords such as "natural" for beauty products or foods
• "light" in order to make all kinds of foods seem dietetic
• the BMW emblem which suggests wealth and status

When discussing the ads, other questions for groups to consider are: What kinds of ads appeal to men and what kinds to women? What kinds of ads may actually backfire? What kinds of ads are most effective for what kinds of products? What kinds of ads are most effective for which age groups? What is true meaning of the ad? For example, "Buy a BMW so people will think you are rich, sporty, and sexy" or "Eat Wheaties so you can be more like Michael Jordan."

Anti-Smoking Advertisements
Are certain types of anti-smoking advertisements more effective than others in curbing teen smoking? Should different ads be used for different audiences? After analyzing over 100 anti-smoking advertisements, researchers (cf. Goldman & Glantz, 1998) found that the most effective advertisements for both adults and young people were those that (1) discredited the tobacco industry, (2) illustrated the dangers of secondhand smoke, and (3) provided nonsmoking peer role models. Surprisingly health-related messages and scare tactics (e.g, aorta spewing fatty deposits) have not fared as well.

According to Bandura’s social cognitive theory, the best way to change behavior is to shift people’s overall image of what behaviors are considered normative within one’s peer group. In support of this theory, researchers found that children exposed to an advertising campaign featuring nonsmoking role models were less likely to smoke four years later than children not exposed to the campaign. Thus, ads showing young peer role models choosing not to smoke and those showing the negative perceptions of what their peers think about smoking appear to be most effective.

For this exercise, have your students work in groups to design an effective ad campaign targeted at teens to curb smoking. Tell the students that the antismoking messages should not only grab the attention of the audience, but also address ways to change attitudes about what’s considered normative behavior.

Foot-in-the-Door Example
To illustrate the foot-in-the-door technique, ask students to write their phone numbers on the cards and place them in a receptacle by the door as they leave if they are willing to "donate two out-of-class hours of their time to colleague’s research project."

In your social psychology class, ask your students to stay beyond class time for a few minutes to help you with your research. After class, simply write a phone number on the board and indicate a time to call that is convenient to you or your assistant. Make sure that this process only takes a couple of minutes. To those who call, ask whether they are willing to "donate two out-of-class hours of their time to a colleague’s research project."

Compare the number of cards you collected with the number of affirmative answers from the social psychology students who called. Theoretically, the number of students who volunteer to participate in the two-hour out-of-class "research" should be greater for the social psychology class because they were exposed to the multiple requests.

Using Compliance Techniques for Flu Shots
Despite the fact that many companies absorb the $8-10 cost per flu shot, the majority of employees still refuse to get them (USA Today, Oct 9, 1997). After discussing the different compliance techniques with your students, ask them to get into small groups and develop a strategy for getting more employees to "roll up their sleeves." Students in my classes have come up with great examples utilizing foot-in-the-door, door-in-the-face, contrast effect, cognitive dissonance, ingratiation, systematic processing, and reactance.

Milgram’s Obedience Study (see Handout 9-3)
To introduce the study of obedience, read the following scenario used in Migram’s studies:

Imagine you and another participant arrive at a laboratory for an experiment called "The Effects of Punishment on Learning." After being greeted by an experimenter, he randomly assigns you to be the "teacher" and the other participant to be the "learner." The learner is led to another room and hooked up to a machine that will give the learner shock for each mistake that they make. Your job as teacher is to read a list of word pairs to the learner, and the learner’s job is to remember these pairs. After reading the list of word pairs, you will go back though the list and read the first word of the pair followed by several word options. The learner will attempt to come up with the right answer. If the learner gives the right answer go onto the next word pair. If the learner gives the wrong answer, you must press a lever on the shock generator. With each mistake the learner makes, you are to move to the next lever.

After reading the scenario, distribute Handout 9-3 that asks students to predict at what point they would refuse to continue shocking the learner, and at what point the average college would disobey. Typically, most students will pick low levels of shock (slight to moderate), and many will assume their peers would go higher.

To help students appreciate the powerful situational determinants used in this study discuss such factors as proximity of authority figure, use of prompts, and gradual increments of the shock generator. Following this discussion, many students will admit they would probably have gone further (however, of course, very few would admit going to 450 volts as 65% did in Milgram’s study).

Estimates of Level of Obedience (see Handout 9-4)
As an alternative to the exercise above, show the students one segment from the film Obedience (1965) focusing on one subject in the standard experiment, but do not reveal Milgram’s overall findings. Instead, have the students estimate how many out of 100 would obey, and whether they personally would obey. Define "obey" as "go all the way to the last switch" (450 volts). Also ask students to indicate whether they had previously heard of or read about Milgram’s work.

Separate the responses into those who have heard of Milgram’s research and those who have not. For both groups, determine students’ estimates of how many people out of 100 will obey. You will almost certainly find that students think that fewer than 65 percent of others would obey and that an even smaller proportion of would obey themselves, regardless of the group. Students with prior information will probably come closer to estimating correctly the proportion of others who would obey, but such knowledge should not affect their estimates of their own behavior very much.

What Were Milgram’s Subjects Thinking? (see Handout 9-5)
Students are often fascinated by the findings reported by Milgram (1963), but many fail to appreciate the subtle situational factors that may influence the thoughts of the subjects. The following handout can provide a useful overhead to discuss some of the possible cognitions elicited by the different situational factors.

Handout 9-1

Symbols for the Study of Aesthetics

Please circle the one symbol from each row you find the most interesting or aesthetically pleasing.

Column

Handout 9-2a

Case History: Reggie Johnson
Reggie Johnson was born in Bellevue Hospital in New York City in the fall of 1977. He was the sixth of eight children born before Mr. Johnson abandoned the family once and for all in January, 1982. Between 1982 and 1987, Mrs. Johnson and her eight children lived in a number of different apartments in the Bronx. Sometimes they moved because they could no longer pay the rent, and sometimes they moved simply because Mrs. Johnson feared her children would be hurt or become involved with drugs or in serious crime if they stayed where they were any longer.

After 1987, Mrs. Johnson’ health declined and Tommy, the oldest, assumed the authority in the family. Mrs. Johnson relied heavily on Tommy to discipline the other children and to hold the family together. When the younger children got out of hand at home or in trouble at school or with the police, Tommy would slap them around, often brutally. Reggie and the younger children were terrified of their oldest brother and were relieved when he left in early 1989 to join the army. Two other older brothers, Ray and Earl, twins, a year younger than Tommy, left the Johnson family six months later when they were convicted of selling narcotics to other high school students.

After Tommy left for the army, Reggie began to get in more and more trouble at school. While his elementary school teachers had described him as "scared," "anxious," "sullen," "uncommunicative," and "quiet," his 8th grade American History teacher called him "openly hostile, aggressive, and disruptive." His English teacher called him an "unruly animal." Reggie never studied out of class and had to repeat the 8th grade.

At the Same time, Reggie fell into more and more trouble with the police. In July, 1990, Reggie and a friend were arrested for stealing a case of beer off a delivery truck. They were taken to the neighborhood police station. As Reggie described the incident, "Tony and me was sitting there waiting and these two cops come along and ask me if Earl and Ray were my brothers so I said yes. One grabs me by the arm, twists it real hard, and says, ‘Are you a junkie too, you little bastard?’.... I hate them fuckin’ cops." The police stated that Reggie was quite unruly and verbally abusive to them and that he had not been provoked.

After several more run-ins with the police in August, 1990, Reggie was assigned to a juvenile court parole officer, Mr. Simmons. Mr. Simmons was friendly and at first spent a good deal of time with him. Reggie’s teachers found that he was making a tremendous effort to behave himself and complete his schoolwork. Despite his progress, however, one teacher described him as "a lit time bomb about to explode."

As the year passed, Mr. Simmons spent less time with Reggie. Bobby managed to get through the school year without much trouble, but a possible job Mr. Simmons had mentioned never materialized. The summer had scarcely begun before Reggie was arrested for selling some marijuana to some other teenagers from the Junior High School. Before he appeared in court, Mr. Simmons visited him. "Reggie," Mr. Simmons reported, "seemed unhappy but cool and detached, though once or twice, as we talked, he looked like he might cry. Perhaps if I had been able to spend more time with him, this wouldn’t have happened."

Handout 9-2b

Kindness-Punishment Scale

1. Love, kindness, and friendship are all that are necessary to make Reggie a better kid. If he can be placed in a less hostile environment - with a warm, friendly atmosphere - his troubles will clear up.

2. Reggie should be put into new surroundings, where most emphasis will be placed on providing him with warmth and affection, but where he will be punished if he really gets out of hand.

3. Reggie should be sent into an environment where providing him with warmth and affection will be emphasized slightly more than punishing him, but where he’ll have to shoulder some responsibility, and discipline and punishment will be frequent if his behavior warrants it.

4. Reggie needs an equal measure of both love and discipline. Thus he should be placed in an atmosphere where he will be disciplined and punished if he does wrong, but rewarded and given affection if he behaves himself.

5. Though they should not be too strong and frequent, punishment and discipline should be emphasized more than kindness and affection. Thus Reggie should be placed in an atmosphere of serious discipline but which will allow opportunities for warmth and kindness.

6. Reggie should be sent into surroundings where the most emphasis will be placed on discipline and punishment, but there should be the possibility for praise and kindness if he really behaves himself.

7. There’s very little you can do with a kid like this but put him in a very severe disciplinary environment. Only by punishing him strongly can we change his behavior.

Handout 9-3

Below is a diagram of the levels on the shock generator.

1. At what voltage level would you refuse to continue shocking the learner? ________________

2. At what voltage level would the average college student refuse to continue shocking the learner? ________________

3. What percentage of Milgram’s went all the way to the end (450 volts)? ________________

Handout 9-4

Estimates of Level of Obedience

1. My sex is ____.

2. My age is ____.

3. Based on the description of Milgram’s study, how many U. S. citizens out of 100 would obey fully and use all the switches including the one marked 450 volts? (circle one number).

   0 5 10 15  20  25  30  35  40  45  50  55  60  65  70  75  80  85  90  95  100

4. I myself would ___ would not ___ obey fully and use all the switches including the one marked 450 volts?

5. Check one of the following.
   
   ___ Before today, I had never before heard of the Milgram obedience experiment, or I have heard about it but cannot remember the results.
   
   ___ I have heard about the Milgram obedience experiment and have at least some recollection regarding its results.

Handout 9-5

Possible Thoughts of Subjects in the Milgram Experiment

situational factor	thoughts of subject
Yale University	"prestigious, scientific university"
authority figure	"experimenter looks distinguished in lab coat"
ambiguous situation	"I’ve never been in a situation like this"
volunteered for study	"he volunteered, so he’s obligated to finish" or "I volunteered, so I must stay committed"
teacher-learner by chance	"I could have just as easily ended up the learner"
foot-in-the-door	"learner seems willing to play the game for a while" and "Well, I’ve already given 15 shocks, might as well keep going"
worthy purpose	"momentary discomfort of learner is outweighed by long-term benefits for scientific community"
diffusion of responsibility	"I was only carrying out orders"
depersonalize victim	"I can’t see the victim’s face"
dehumanize victim	"victim is ignorant and deserves to be shocked"

Relevant Sources

Baron, R. S., Vandello. J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915-927.

• Examines how incentives for accuracy (task importance) affects the social influence of inaccurate confederates in a modified Asch situation.

Blass, T. (1996). Attribution of responsibility and trust in the Milgram obedience experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1529-1535.

• Uses portions of the film Obedience (Milgram, 1965) to explore the naïve social perceiver’s attributions about obedience to authority.

Dillard, J. P. (1991). The current status of research on sequential-request compliance technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 283-288.

• Uses meta-analyses to compare the outcomes of foot-in-the-door research and door-in-the-face research.

Miller, A. G., Collins, B. E., & Brief, D. E. (1995). Perspectives on obedience to authority: The legacy of the Milgram Experiments. Journal of Social issues, 51, 1-20.

• Discusses the impact that Milgram’s research had on contemporary research and thought in social psychology.

Nissani, M. (1990). A cognitive reinterpretation of Stanley Milgram’s observations of obedience to authority. American Psychologist, 45, 1384-1385.

• Provides a cognitive reinterpretation to explain the behavior of subjects in Milgram’s experiments.

Patch, M. E., Hoang, V. R., & Stahelski, A. J. (1997). The use of metacommunication in compliance: Door-in-the-face and single-request strategies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 88-94.

• Proposes that compliance techniques can be enhanced when the target is asked to metacommunicate about the request.

Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Stathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high- and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5-20.

• Explores under what conditions positive moods can lead to persuasion using the Elaboration Likelihood Model.

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 243-256.

• Explores how "pluralistic ignorance," everyone does what the majority is doing even though it is wrong, may create an alcohol norm on college campuses that may not exist.

Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 104-112.

• Investigates the impact of descriptive and injunctive norms on littering.

Santos, M. D., Leve, C., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Hey buddy, can you spare seventeen cents? Mindful persuasion and pique technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 755-764.

• Demonstrates how people are more likely to comply with a panhandler’s request if mindless refusal is disrupted by a strange or unusual request.

Internet Resources

http://www.public.asu.edu/~kelton/

• This site provides a brief introduction to persuasion, compliance, and propaganda from a scientific viewpoint.

http://www.csj.org/

• This site, maintained by the American Family Foundation (AFF), is dedicated to the study of cults and psychological manipulation.

Films and Videos