Compliance

-getting other people to do what you want them to do even though you dont have the ability to threaten them

4 factos that influence willingness to comply

1. status of the requester

2. # of requesters

3. proximity of requestor

4. being alone (more vulnerable-fear)

Cialdini's 5 methods of obtaining compliance

1. Four Walls Technique

2. Low Ball Technique

3. Foot-in-the-Door Technique

4. Reciprocity Norm

5. Door-in-the-Face Technique

Four Walls Technique

-set up idea through questions

-->if dont buy it puts them in cognitive dissonance 

("walled in")

Low Ball Technique

-agree to sell at a certain price

-->they become more certain of decision

-->then INC $ (take advantage of cog dissonance)

Foot-in-the-Door Technique

-1st make small request and have it granted

-->2nd make larger request

(more likely to grant 2nd if they had already granted 1st)

Reciprocity Norm

-takes advantage of idea if "they do something for you do you something for them back"

-fell indebted

Door-in-the-Face Technique

-asks for something large 1st (turned down)

-->asks for something smaller

obedience

-getting people to do what you want w/the threat of punishment

Milgram Study

Hollocaust-believed it had to do w/German culture

*revolution in ethics after this study*

more likely to agree if -experimenter self assurance and acceptance of responsibility

-experimenter is near, confederate in other room

-SEQUENTIAL nature of the tasks (foot in door technique)

-->everytime they want to stop have to admit they already did wrong

Dual task performance

doing 2 things at once

-after learning can do both tasks as well as doing them individually

interference

new tasks

facilitation

-tasks are well learned

social facilitation

-your performance improves

(due to excitment)

social interference

-performance gets worse

-excitments leads to being nervouse

Unresponsive Bystander Phenomenon

-dont help ohters when they need help (city)

causes:

(1) social referencing

(2) evaluation of anxiety

-no one wants to act foolish in front of people (if more people less likely to help)

(3) diffusion of responsibility

-makes for inaction in crowds (feel less responsible w/more people)

-->responsibility falls below the threshold for action

crowd mentality

-people more likely to take action vs when they were alone

deindividuation

-feel less accountable for actions therefore more likely to take action that inhibition previously prevented

-reduced accountability (anonymity) causes dishibition

-shuffled attention from self-->group

-uniforms and masks heighten the effect

Asch's Experiment

-about conformity

-unamitity is crucial

-informational influence  vs normative influence

informational influence

-going along b/c i think they know more

(conformity)

normative influence

-conforming b/c doesnt want to be alone

*more important than informational influence*

Risky shift

-will take a risk for a big reward

-->group is more likely to make risky decision

group polarization

-if youre ina  group theat all have similar mids you will all polarize and make yourself more radical

informational hypothesis

-people intelligent-->have a good reason why they're right

normative hypothesis

-group stereotyping 

(everyone thinks others are more radical-->try to conform to image of group that doesnt really exist-->polarize each other to conform)

one upmanship

-group polarization

-respect for people w/stronger opinion

-->everyone polarizes eachother

Ingroup-outgroup

-group polarization

-stray from middle to be further from otugroup

-->your opinion becomes stronger

3 Topics of group-think

(Janis-studied crisis)

(1) strive for unity

-unity not a good thing want diversity before a decision is made (hear all sides)

(2) Defend Leaders decision

-rather than giving alt decisions

(2) Suppress criticisim

-always need to listen to other criticisim

Social Dilemmas

-actin benefits an idividual who takes it

-the same action harms others

-more harm than good comes if all take the action

*need to cooperate and fix them together* 

Prisoner's Dilemma Games

-Papoports TFT

1-nice= willing to cooperate

2-not exploitable=will compete (has control)

3-forgiving=willing to go back to cooperate

4-transparent=easy to figure out

(trust is built)