Obedience to authority/ Status of Source

Study have shown that when ask to do something that will harm others, we will still comply when asked by someone to do so.

(Eg. Milgram experiment- 1963- Electric shock to learner- 68% went all the way in 'electrocuting' learner)

Another example- Bickman, 1974- Participants more likley to comply with requests made by people dressed as security guards.

Yale vs run down office (Milgram, 1974)- More likely to comply when brought to Yale.

Status of source- Tend to jaywalk if see other people in business suits doing the same thing- Lefkowitz et. al., 1955

Group convergence/conformity- convergence of individual thoughts and behaviour towards a group norm.

Example If group gives wrong answer individuals tend to comply and also give the wrong answer.

(Asch, 1951; Sherif, 1936- Autokinetic effect study- Ask how far the point has moved)

Mediating factors that stop group conformity

1. If more self confident- more likely to not comply

2. Social support for deviant position- less likely to comply.

Look at Punk and Accountant study- beep estimation task

Think/primed about accountant- more conformist- comply with confederates and give the wrong answer

Think/primed about punk- less conformist- give own answer which was closer to the accurate answer of 100 beeps

Factors that increase group conformity

1. Task difficulty- More difficult = more likely to defer to group.

2. Group size- conformity plateaus at 30-35% for group consisting of 3)

3. Cultural norms

Descriptive norms- What is typically done? Description of typical behaviour.

Injunctive- What should be done? What is typically approved or disapproved of?

Descriptive norms have been shown to work better. When there was a description that people typically tend to re-use the towel, participants more likely to comply (Goldstein et. al., 2008).

Broken window theory- violation of norms cause other norms to  be violated (chaos spreads more chaos)

Example- Keizer et. al., 2008

69 % of participants littered (threw leaflets) when there was graffiti on the wall despite a sign clearly prohibiting vandalism.

Does liking somebody make us more likely to comply with that person's wishes? Cite a study.

How does relate to unconscious mimicry? Why does mimicry result in higher compliance?

Liking someone/Physical similarity

1. We comply more with people we like more.

Example- If requester is physically attractive, participants more compliant.

Females more willing to donate to the arts if know that man who wrote the article was attractive (Pallak, 1983).

2.Physical similarity- We tend to comply more with the request of people who look similar to us.

Example- Dimes and Dress study- more Hippies gave to hippies requester; more businessmen gave to businessmen requester (Emswiller et al., 1971)

Unconscious mimicry and compliance

Tendency to unconsciously mimick people we interact with (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999)

Why?

1.Mimicry increase liking (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999)

Waitresses who mimicked their customers = get tipped more (Van Baareen et al. 2003)

2.Mimicry used as a way to reconnect with people. Ostracised people mimicked more in Lakin and Chartrand's (2003) study.

We feel obligated to return the favour for the gifts/services offered to us.

Example: Participants were more likley to comply with request to buy raffle tickets when given cola. This happened even when confederate was rude (Regan, 1971).

People are more likely to comply if had earlier agreed to honour their agreement and obligations.

Low balling- secure a deal first without revealing all the details of the requests. After securing the deal, will reveal hidden costs and increase size of request.

Cialdini et al. (1987)- If participants had intially committed, 56% still willing to comply even when subsequently told that study commences at 7am. (Hidden cost was the 7am start time).

When encouraging attitude change using a message, what are the two model of processing? (Peripheral and Central route)

What factors lead to someone taking one route over the other?

What are important issues for each route?

Central (Systematic) route- Taken when people are motivated and capable of thinking carefully about message content.

Peripheral (heuristic) route- Taken when people are unwilling or unable to think carefully about message content.

Factors that lead to taking one route

Situational context:

1. Mood:

Happy/positive= peripheral

sad/negative= central

2.Importance to self/ relevance of message to self interests:

Important to self= Central

Not important= Peripheral

Individual differences:

1. Need for cognition.

High need for cognition= central

Low need for cognition= peripheral

Important issues for Central route

1. Message content matters- high argument quality in order to bring about attitude change. Especially for highly involved people whose self interests are relevant to message content/proposal

See Petty and Cacioppo (1984)- The new university policy/proposal implementation study

Important issues for peripheral route

Focused on the superficial rather than the quality of arguments.

Examples:

1. Source expertise- If argument was given by an expert more likely to be convinced.

See Petty and Cacioppo (1984)

2.Source attractiveness- if physical more attractive person giving proposal- more convinced/willing to comply.

(Pallak, 1983- Donation to the arts article- ladies more inclined to donate if was shown the visibly attractive photo of the man who wrote article)