Social Influence Research Paper

This sample Social Influence Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of psychology research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

A fundamental requirement for successful navigation of the social world is the ability to generate behavioral change in others and to properly adjust one’s own behaviors in response to others. It is through the process of social influence that this successful navigation is fully achieved. Attempts at influence vary greatly in effectiveness, working successfully, unsuccessfully, or even contrary to our goals. As such, it is important to understand the social influence process to move others successfully and to resist undue influence directed toward us. To this end, a large body of work exists within the social sciences aimed toward a better understanding of when and why social influence is effective.

In this research-paper, we will explore the influence process primarily from the perspective of the influence target: What qualities of a person or situation are likely to lead us to exhibit behavioral change, and what motivates us to do so? Social psychologists typically categorize this behavioral change into three classes of social influence: obedience, when behavioral change results from a directive from an authority figure; conformity, when behavioral change results from following the behaviors of others; and compliance, when behavioral change results from a direct request. In this research-paper, we shall explore each of these in turn.

Obedience

Throughout history, horrific atrocities have resulted from the immoral and appalling orders of legitimate authorities, those whose authority is rooted in superior rank or position. From systematic abuses to ritualistic suicides and even genocide, the commands of legitimate authorities have led to immeasurable harm throughout human history. Following these shocking events, people often believe those who committed these atrocities were just a few bad apples, individuals with unusually obedient tendencies. They think, “This wouldn’t happen where I live.”

Social psychological research, however, indicates otherwise. In a well-known series of studies, Stanley Milgram (1974) recruited men through advertisements in local newspapers to participate in what was billed as a “memory experiment” at Yale University. Upon entering the lab, participants were greeted by a man donning a laboratory coat who informed them that the experiment would explore the effect of punishment on memory. They also were told that the requirements for payment were met simply by arriving to the laboratory; the money was already theirs to keep.

Participants then drew slips of paper out of a hat to determine their roles in the study. One participant was assigned to be the “teacher,” whose job would be teaching a series of word pairs to the other participant, the “learner.” These pairings were to be memorized, and punishment would be administered to the learner following any errors. The punishment, the participants soon learned, would be in the form of electrical shocks and would be quite painful, although, in a somewhat discomforting caveat, the experimenter added that the shocks would not cause any “permanent tissue damage.”

The experimenter led participants to an adjoining room, where the learner was secured in a chair and fitted with a series of electrodes. The experimenter and teacher then returned to the experimental room, occupied by an ominous-looking shock delivery machine. Here, experimenter instructed the teacher to read the first word of each word pair followed by four options. The learner’s task was to choose which of the four had been previously paired with the first word. Each time the learner was incorrect, the teacher was to administer an electric shock. Additionally, with each successive incorrect response, the severity of the shock was to be increased. The lowest level was relatively harmless, just 15 volts, and labeled on the machine as a “slight shock.” As the severity of the shock increased, so did the machine’s labels, through “Moderate,” “Strong,” “Very Strong,” “Intense,” “Extreme intensity,” and “Danger: Severe shock” until finally reaching a level the English language apparently had no words to describe, starkly labeled “XXX,” marking the final two levers designed to deliver 435- and 450-volt shocks, respectively.

Before beginning, the teacher was administered a 45-volt shock to provide some perspective regarding the shocks’ severity, and the teachers typically found even this low level of shock to be quite uncomfortable. The experimenter then instructed the teacher to begin. Initially, when a shock was administered, the learner simply cried out, “Ugh!” Eventually, when the severity increased to 120 volts, the learner began to complain, “Hey, this really hurts!” As the shock increased further, he began to protest more profusely until reaching 150 volts, at which point he finally asked to be let out, stating that he refused to go on, citing a heart condition he had not previously mentioned.

What did the teachers do at this point? If the teacher protested as well, and wanted to stop, the experimenter replied stoically, “Please continue.” If the teacher did not then continue, the experimenter insisted, “The experiment requires that you continue.” If the teacher continued to object, the experimenter stated, “It’s absolutely essential that you go on.” Finally, if the teacher protested further, the experimenter would demand, “You have no choice, you must go on.” Throughout the study, if the teacher mentioned any desire to stop, the experimenter commanded that he continue.

As the shocks increased in intensity, so did the learner’s responses. He began to shout, demanding to be let out, exclaiming, “You have no right to hold me here!” Shouting turned to agonized screams as the voltage reached 270 volts. At 300 volts, the learner declared that he would no longer even attempt to answer, and at the next shock of 315 volts, he carried out this promise, offering no answer to the teacher’s memory test.

In turn, the experimenter instructed the teacher to consider no response to be an incorrect response, and to administer the shock as before. Despite offering no answers to the word-pair questions, the learner’s responses to the shocks remained distressingly intense until the “Danger” level was reached, when the learner’s reactions to the shocks turned deadly silent.

Most people could not imagine continuing on at this point. In fact, knowing that there were no real negative repercussions for quitting—the participants received payment even if they did not complete the study, and no threats, physical or otherwise, prevented participants from leaving—40 psychiatrists at Yale’s medical school predicted that fewer than 4 percent of participants would continue past this point, and that only 0.01 percent would continue all the way to the highest level of shock.

Sadly, obedience to authority was greatly underestimated. In stark contrast to the psychiatrists’ predictions, more than 80 percent of the participants continued to issue shocks even after the learner became completely silent. Furthermore, 65 percent of the teachers issued the highest level of shock available, administering a full 450 volts to their potentially unconscious or lifeless victim at the behest of the uncaring scientist.

Luckily, in reality, the only shock delivered in this study was the initial 45-volt shock given to the teacher. The learner was not an unsuspecting participant, but an actor hired to simulate his experiences systematically. Still, as far as the real participants—the teachers—in this study knew, the situation was very real, and simply being told to continue by a man in a lab coat was enough to lead the majority of them to administer what they perceived to be lethal shocks, a level of obedience that continues to this very day (Blass, 1999).

Were these participants apathetic, or perhaps sadistic? Hardly. As they followed the orders of the experimenter, they exhibited signs of extreme distress: perspiring, digging their fingernails into their own flesh, and begging the experimenter to let the learner go. Yet, they still continued on simply because an authority figure directed them to do so.

What factors of the situation contributed to the extraordinary degree of obedience displayed by the participants? Some answers lie in alternative versions of the experiment just described (Milgram, 1974). One such factor is the credibility of the authority. In one variation, Milgram completely removed the “Yale University” label from the study and conducted the study in a rented office in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Lacking the credibility allotted by the prestigious title, the number of participants who persisted to the very end dropped by 17 percent. Another factor contributing to obedience is the proximity of the authority. If the experimenter issued his commands over a telephone rather than from a desk adjacent to the teacher, the number of participants who issued the highest level of shock decreased dramatically by 44 percent. The victim’s proximity had an effect as well. In one version, the learner was moved to a chair next to the teacher, and when the learner refused to accept his shocks, the teacher had to physically hold the learner’s arm to a shock plate. Here, persistence to the highest level of shock dropped to 35 percent. However, it is important to note the high levels of obedience participants displayed even under these conditions, in which the experimenter’s authority was not optimal. Even when the authority merely phoned in his orders, over 20 percent of the participants still delivered the lethal “XXX” shocks to the victim.

Also important to note is the minimal presence of the authority in these studies. The authority was simply a Yale scientist in a lab coat whom the participants had just met; the participants held no allegiance to him (and certainly no more allegiance to him than to the victim receiving the shocks), and there were no consequences to the participant for refusing to administer shocks. In the real world outside of Milgram’s lab, however, authorities often hold far more legitimate power, making their orders more difficult to resist. Recent work has found high levels of obedience to the unethical commands of authority figures in organizations. Personnel managers, for instance, have been shown to engage in behavior they know to be unethical, exhibiting racial discrimination when instructed to do so by superiors (Brief, Buttram, & Dukerich, 2001).

The presence of an authority figure is not always necessary, however. Simply observing the behavior of others can radically change our behavior.

Conformity

Alan Funt’s classic television show “Candid Camera” once featured a segment where an unsuspecting victim enters an elevator. Initially, he follows the normal elevator procedure, facing front and looking straight ahead. Soon, four other passengers on the elevator turn and face the rear of the compartment just as the doors are closing. When the doors reopen, we see that the victim of this gag is now facing the rear as well. The four other passengers then all turn to face the side, and again he immediately follows suit, turning to face the same direction. Like a soldier following the orders of a drill sergeant he can’t hear, the “foolish victim” automatically performs sudden turns along with his elevator platoon. Why did he behave this way? Why, in this situation, would a man automatically conform to the ridiculous and unexplainable behavior of others?

Musafir Sherif (1936) designed an experiment to explore just this question. Participants in this study entered a dark room and were asked to judge the movement exhibited by a small beam of light shining on a far wall. Unknown to participants, these judgments were truly ambiguous. The light did not actually move at all, but due to a visual illusion referred to as the autokinetic effect, the light’s location appeared to fluctuate. Judgments in this task varied. Some believed the light moved as much as 10 inches, with others believing it moved only an inch or 2.

Subsequently, the situation ceased to be an individual task and instead became a group task, with participants now viewing the light in small groups of strangers and calling out their answers publicly. Interestingly, this change in procedure led estimates of the light’s movement to change. In succeeding rounds, participants’ judgments converged until a group consensus was reached. In this ambiguous situation, the group members used one another as guides, conforming with the answers given by the other group members. The group’s answers not only changed participants’ behaviors but also appeared to change participants’ private beliefs as well. Once removed from the group, Sherif once again asked participants to report the light’s movement privately, thus eliminating any concerns about the group’s opinion regarding their answers. When answering privately this second time, participants’ responses did not differ from those provided during the group task. Even after the group itself was gone, the group’s beliefs persisted.

So, why did opinions shift toward a group consensus in these studies? One answer lies in our desire to be correct. When a situation is ambiguous, we look to the behaviors of others as guides toward the best course of action. These behaviors are referred to as descriptive norms, norms that define what behaviors are typically performed (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990).

What if we already know what behavior is correct, but this belief is contradicted by the descriptive norms of the group? Will we still conform to the group, or resist defiantly, comforted by the knowledge that we are correct?

In a scenario reminiscent of Sherif’s, Solomon Asch (1956) asked participants to report publicly their judgments in the presence of others, but this study incorporated some key differences. First, the judgments were no longer ambiguous. Participants in this study were shown a single standard line and three comparison lines. Their task was to answer which of the three comparison lines was the same length as the standard line. The answer was so obvious that when answering privately, 95 percent of the participants provided the correct answer on all 12 of the task’s trials. When responses were made publicly in the presence of a group, the situation became more complicated. This group was not composed of naive participants, as in Sherif’s auto-kinetic effect studies, but, rather, a group of actors posing as participants. Furthermore, the lone “real” participant in the study was positioned such that five actors called out their answers before it was the participant’s turn to respond.

At first, all of the actors answered correctly, and the participants did as well, but on the following trial, the first actor picked a line that was obviously incorrect. More baffling to the participant, the next four actors each followed suit, confidently providing the same incorrect response.

In this situation, Asch had expected the participants to hold firm and provide the answer they knew to be correct because he had designed the study to demonstrate the limits of human conformity. After all, why would people conform to a group of complete strangers providing clearly incorrect answers? On the contrary, participants displayed an alarming degree of conformity, with 75 percent of the participants conforming to the group in at least one of the 12 trials.

This result highlights a second goal of conformity: gaining the approval of others. Though their own two eyes told them the group’s answers were incorrect, participants in Asch’s line study did not want to earn the disdain of others, even that of the complete strangers in their group. When we guide our behavior toward what would lead to social acceptance, we are following injunctive norms, norms that define what most people approve or disapprove (Cialdini et al., 1990).

In society, descriptive norms and injunctive norms often overlap, as people typically behave in ways that are approved by others and vice versa. How, then, do we behave when these two types of norms contradict each other? As discovered by Cialdini et al. (1990), the answer depends heavily on which norm people are primarily focused on.

In a study exploring littering behaviors, the researchers placed handbills on the windshields of vehicles parked in a public parking garage. The researchers manipulated two variables in this experiment. First, the garage either was heavily littered with an unswept assortment of candy wrappers, cigarette butts, paper cups, and handbills like those placed on the participants’ windshields (communicating a pro-littering descriptive norm), or contained litter that was, instead, neatly swept into piles (a pro-littering descriptive norm with an opposing anti-littering injunctive norm). Second, as participants entered the garage, an actor conspicuously dropped a piece of litter (a handbill like the one placed on the participant’s windshield) or walked by without littering. When the confederate did not litter, and thus did not focus participants on any specific norm, the state of the environment had little effect, with 33 percent of participants littering in the unswept environment, and 29 percent littering in the swept environment. When the confederate littered, and thus focused participants on normative cues in the environment, the results were quite different. In the unswept environment, participants were focused on a pro-littering descriptive norm, and littering rates increased to 45 percent. When the actor dropped a handbill in the littered but cleanly swept environment, however, this focused participants on a pro-littering descriptive norm, but also an anti-littering injunctive norm. This change in focus dropped littering rates to 18 percent. In a subsequent study, Reno, Cialdini, and Kallgren (1993) included a condition where an actor picked up a piece of litter, thus focusing participants strongly on an injunctive norm against littering. In this case, even when the garage was heavily littered and unswept, a mere 4 percent of the participants littered. Overall, it was the focus on certain norms that most affected behavior.

The importance of normative focus is further illustrated in a study conducted at the Petrified Forest National Park (Cialdini, 2003). Researchers found that informing visitors verbally of the regrettable frequency with which theft occurs (e.g., “Your heritage is being vandalized every day by theft losses of petrified wood of 14 tons a year, mostly a small piece at a time”) actually led to more theft than by using a sign that asked visitors not to take the wood.

If we conform to make correct decisions and to get along with others, then certain qualities of groups should lead people to conform to the degree that these qualities promote the achievement of one or both of these goals. One such quality is similarity. If others in a group are similar to us, then they should function as better guides for our own behaviors (Festinger, 1954). The powerful effects that similar others have on behavior have been found in such diverse activities as altruism (e.g., Hornstein, Fisch, & Holmes, 1968), paint store purchases (Brock, 1965), and even suicides (Phillips, 1974). In each of these cases, as similarity increased, so did conformity. Another such quality is consensus. When group opinion is unanimous, it serves to indicate the opinion’s correctness. A single dissenter in a group destroys this unanimity, severely lowering confidence and conformity to the group (Asch, 1956). Similarly, as group size increases, so does confidence, which in turn tends to increase conformity, but with diminishing returns. Increased conformity caused by adding more people to a unanimous group quickly levels off (Asch, 1956).

Personal qualities can have effects on conformity as well, one of the more powerful of these being uncertainty (Tesser, Campbell, & Mickler, 1983). To the degree that people are uncertain of the best course of action, they will use others’ behaviors as a guide. Uncertainty also determines the differential effects task importance has on conformity. When uncertainty is high, conformity increases with the importance of being correct. When one is certain of which course of action is correct, however, conformity to others believed to be incorrect will decrease as correctness becomes more important (Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman, 1996). When being correct is particularly crucial, it trumps the goal of getting along with others and leads to nonconformity.

Under certain motivations, nonconformity can also occur in situations where no correct answer even exists. In an experiment by Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini, and Kenrick (2006), participants experienced one of two particular fundamental motivations, attracting a mate or protecting oneself before entering a chat room setting similar to that of Asch’s (1956) famous line study to rate the degree to which they found an abstract shape interesting.

When experiencing a motivation to engage in self-protection, men and women tended to conform more. Because self-protection motivations lead people to lower conspicuousness and affiliate with others (Dijksterhuis, Bargh, & Miedema, 2000), conformity was facilitated. When motivated to attract a romantic partner, women again tended to conform more, signaling the desirable ability to develop group cohesiveness (Eder & Sandford, 1986). Men, on the other hand, did not conform to the group, which served to differentiate them from the group in a positive way and show desirable qualities such as leadership skills and independence (Buss, 2003). This conformity did not occur when someone else had already dissented from the group, when nonconformity would lead the participant to appear negative, or when there was an objectively correct answer.

Thus, even when differentiating oneself was thought to be advantageous, it did not occur when it worked against the goals of being correct and getting along with others.

The actions of those around us provide us with valuable information regarding appropriate behavior. Under most circumstances, the lead of others guides us toward behavior that is correct and approved, and conformity to group norms is increasingly prevalent to the degree that cues indicate following the norms is wise, but the pull of group norms is strong even when the group is known to be incorrect. In cases where group norms are conflicting, the degree to which one is focused on a particular norm will determine the likely course of action. Nonconformity, on the other hand, occurs in cases where one desires to be correct more than to get along with an incorrect group, or desires to differentiate oneself positively from a group’s subjective opinion.

Though authorities and the behaviors of others can have powerful effects on our behaviors, sometimes we are influenced simply through a request. However, the way in which a request is phrased can drastically alter our likelihood of saying “yes.”

Compliance

Compliance can be defined as acquiescence to a request. This request can be explicit, such as when a Girl Scout asks you to buy some of her delicious cookies, or implicit, as in an advertisement for a pain reliever that presents its popularity among doctors without directly requesting that you purchase it. Key to compliance is the target’s under-standing that he or she is being urged (but not commanded) to behave in a particular way. In explaining what the social sciences have discovered regarding compliance tactics, we will concentrate on six key principles of influence that categorize the most powerful tactics people put to use (Cialdini, 2001). Interestingly, these six principles came not from their prevalence in the psychological literature, but from the prevalence with which they are put to practice by those whose careers are based around gaining the compliance of others (e.g., salespersons, advertisers, con artists). These principles include (a) reciprocity—we feel compelled to return gifts, favors, or services of others in kind; (b) commitment and consistency—we desire to remain consistent with our past commitments; (c) friendship/liking—we tend to accommodate the requests of close others; (d) authority—we should follow the directives of those who hold power or knowledge; (e) social proof—we conform to the behaviors of similar others; and (f) scarcity—opportunities that are limited in availability tend to be more valuable. Each of these principles is grounded in the idea that, typically, the urge to follow the course of action prescribed by the principle will lead to a wise decision. However, those wishing to gain our compliance can use these urges to direct our actions toward compliance to their requests. We shall discuss each of these principles in turn.

Reciprocity

The norm of reciprocity is an implicit rule stating that we are obliged to meet gifts, favors, and goods in kind. It is a powerful rule, found universally across all cultures and societies (Gouldner, 1960). Its importance to human society cannot be understated. Reciprocity allows us to give to those in need knowing we can expect the same in our times of need, or to divide labor among many individuals knowing that what we contribute will be repaid. We detect and remember those who take without giving with great ease (Sugiyama, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2004), and have labels for them: moochers, takers, or ingrates. Men even take pleasure in the punishment of those who do not contribute (Singer et al., 2006).

The power of the reciprocity norm compels us to repay our debts, which usually enhances our ability to gain rewards and avoid punishments, but the powerful need to reciprocate can be manipulated using a variety of compliance techniques. Many organizations simply use free gifts to initiate compliance via a felt need to reciprocate. For example, when soliciting donations, the American Disabled Veterans Association found that they could nearly double their response rate from 18 to 35 percent by including an item that cost them a mere nine cents—personalized address labels. This tactic paid off for them, primarily because people often reciprocate with an overpayment. Dennis Regan (1971) demonstrated this point by conducting an experiment involving an actor who posed as a participant and, in some conditions, left for a moment and returned with a soft drink that was given to the actual participant. Upon completion of the study, the actor asked participants if they were willing to purchase some raffle tickets. Not only were participants significantly more likely to purchase tickets from the actor if they had received a soda, but they spent money on tickets in excess of the cost of the soda they had received.

It is important to distinguish gifts, which activate reciprocity norms, from rewards, which trigger no obligation. The reciprocity norm does not state that actions should be taken to earn rewards, but to repay gifts. Offering a reward requires no obligation, only a decision as to whether to enter into a contract, whereas a gift obligates the receiver to give back.

The norm of reciprocity requires that less tangible acts be repaid as well. When involved in negotiations for a house or a car, it is typical for a potential buyer to offer less than the asking price, to which the seller responds by lowering the asking price. The buyer and seller are then expected to take turns making concessions until an amount is agreed upon or the deal falls through. This expectation of reciprocal concessions functions well in negotiations, but can be manipulated by those wishing to gain compliance. One such use is through the door-in-the-face technique (Cialdini, 1975). This technique is utilized by first asking for a large favor that is expected to be rejected and followed by a second, smaller request. Following this concession by the requester—a new willingness to accept a smaller favor— people are more likely to comply with the second request than if they had not been asked the first, larger request. Cialdini et al. (1975) found that people were three times as likely to comply with a request to take juvenile delinquents to the zoo for two hours if they had been previously asked to take the delinquents to the zoo for two hours every week for two years (which every person declined). One must be careful in choosing an initial request, however. If the initial request is so large as to seem unreasonable, the technique backfires (Schwarzwald, Raz, & Zvibel, 1979).

One need not always have a first offer rejected to invoke the principle of reciprocity. Concessions can also be made by quickly adding benefits to an offer, using the that’s-not-all technique. Jerry Burger (1986) demonstrated this technique in an experiment conducted at a psychology club bake sale. Customers who approached the table were given one of two offers. The first was a package deal of one cupcake and two cookies for 75 cents. The second offer, utilizing the that’s-not-all technique, was initially just one cupcake for 75 cents, but before the potential customer had a chance to respond to this offer, it was improved to include two cookies for free. Though in the end the two offers were identical, 73 percent of the customers given the that’s-not-all offer purchased the package, compared with only 40 percent of the customers who were told of the complete deal initially. As with the door-in-the-face technique, making a concession led to greater compliance.

Commitment and Consistency

Some time ago, researchers made an interesting discovery. They asked bettors at a Vancouver horse racetrack to report their confidence in their chosen horses and found that the bettors were significantly more confident in their choice after placing a bet than they were when asked beforehand (Knox & Inkster, 1968). The simple act of putting down money increased their estimates of their horses’ chances. Why would this small act make such a difference? The answer lies in the principle of commitment and consistency. People desire consistency in themselves and others (Heider, 1958), and will adjust behaviors or attitudes (Goldstein & Cialdini, 2007) to maintain this consistency. This point is especially true when past commitments are made in public (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), are made actively (Cioffi & Garner, 1996), and are voluntary (Freedman, 1965).

As an influence tactic, past commitments can be used to garner compliance on consistent requests. Though this tactic can be as simple as making past commitments salient before making a consistent request (e.g., “You donated to our foundation last year, demonstrating a commitment to our cause. Would you like to donate again this year?”), there are other, less obvious ways to exploit our desire to remain consistent.

One such exploitation is the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). Use of the FITD technique involves first asking a target individual for a small favor, one that will almost certainly produce compliance. Subsequently, one asks for a larger, related favor. The target wishes to remain consistent with the behavior exhibited following the first request and will be more likely to comply now than if asked for the second, larger favor alone. In one study of this technique (Freedman & Fraser, 1966), housewives in the mid-1960s were asked if a team of men could enter their home for two hours and inventory all of their cleaning products. However, half of these women had also been asked several weeks prior if they would be willing to participate in a brief phone survey regarding cleaning products. Compliance with the larger request more than doubled from 22 to 53 percent if it followed this prior, related request. The FITD technique works because compliance to the initial request leads people to redefine their self-image to match their behavior (e.g., “I’m the type of person who is nice and helps out survey-takers”). When the second request is made, it would then be inconsistent to decline, thus increasing compliance (Burger & Caldwell, 2003).

Though the FITD technique has been found to work reliably, if executed incorrectly, it can also backfire. Chartrand, Pinckert, and Burger (1999) showed that if the second request immediately follows the first request, it can not only fail to increase compliance, but actually decrease it. They suggested that, in this case, the second request violates the norm of reciprocity, as discussed above. In accordance with the norm, the target now expects a favor in return after complying with the first request, not another request.

A similar strategy, known as the lowball technique (Cialdini, Cacioppo, Bassett, & Miller, 1978), also employs the commitment/consistency principle. Its execution involves gaining compliance from a target, and then adding costs to the request that would not have been acceptable initially. Automobile salespersons may “throw the low ball” by inducing a customer to agree to the purchase of a car before informing them of a pricing error. Though the cost of the vehicle increases, the customer is more likely to accept this higher price after previously committing to purchase the vehicle than if the higher price had been quoted to begin with, or if the price had been raised before committing to the lower price (Burger & Cornelius, 2003).

Related to the lowball technique is the bait-and-switch technique (Cialdini, 2001). In this procedure, instead of gaining compliance to a request and then changing the terms of the agreement, the target is enticed (“baited”) to make a commitment to a general course of action, which is then redirected toward compliance to a different request with a higher cost. This technique is frequently employed on the day after Thanksgiving, one of the busiest shopping days of the year. On this day, stores advertise “Black Friday” sales, featuring products for unusually low prices. In response, customers visit these stores with the intention of purchasing a new television for far lower than the normal price, only to find the store to be out of stock of the particular product they had in mind. However, having already decided to purchase the product, they are now more likely to purchase a pricier television than they would have been otherwise. In contrast to the lowball technique, in which targets make a specific commitment to a specific product that subsequently becomes more costly, the bait-and-switch induces a general commitment and then redirects that commitment to a different product entirely.

In all of these techniques, targets are induced to make initial commitments and then asked for compliance on separate, related requests after targets have redefined their self-concept to match the initial commitment. Another technique can successfully bypass the initial consistency step entirely. Known as the labeling technique, it involves assigning a positive label to a target, and then making a request that would lead targets to appear inconsistent with the label if they did not comply. For instance, elementary school children who were told they “look … like the kind of girl (or boy) who understands how important it is to write correctly” became more likely to choose privately to work on a penmanship task three to nine days later (Cialdini, Eisenberg, Green, Rhoads, & Bator, 1998).

Friendship/Liking

Those wishing to gain compliance can increase their chances by inducing their targets to like them more. One creator of liking is similarity—we tend to like people more when they are similar to us in some way, whether it is because they are from the same city or state, graduated from the same university, or share similar interests. Even something as simple (and arbitrary) as a shared name or birthday (Burger, Messian, Patel, del Prado, & Anderson, 2004) can lead to increased compliance.

Dozens of studies have shown that being physically attractive garners people many advantages in social interactions. The positive quality of attractiveness is generally associated with other favorable traits such as talent, kindness, honesty, and intelligence (see Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991, for a review), and as a result, attractive individuals are better able to acquire compliance from others (Benson, Karabenick, & Lerner, 1976). Attractiveness has even been shown to affect the results of court trials. John Stewart (1980) had 74 separate male defendants rated on their physical attractiveness. Upon the conclusion of their court cases, attractive defendants were found to receive significantly lighter sentences. In fact, the better-looking men were twice as likely to avoid incarceration than their less attractive counterparts.

Cooperation is another factor that has been shown to enhance positive feelings and behavior (Aronson, Bridgeman, & Geffner, 1978). When we cooperate with others toward a common goal, we are more helpful toward them and evaluate them more favorably as a result. The benefits of perceived cooperation can assist in gaining compliance as well. This strategy is well utilized in the infamous “good cop, bad cop” scenario. During questioning of an alleged criminal, one officer takes on the role of a “bad cop,” insulting, threatening, and acting aggressively toward the suspect. Another officer, playing the role of the “good cop,” then acts sympathetic, and cooperates with the suspect in defending against the actions of the “bad cop.” Ideally, this cooperation ultimately concludes with the suspect cooperating with the “good cop” and admitting guilt.

Not surprisingly, liking can also be brought about through ingratiation strategies such as issuing flattering compliments. More surprising, however, is the infrequency with which people detect flattering compliments as insincere, unless they are directed toward someone else (Vonk, 2002). Flattery can get you somewhere after all, it seems.

Even the manner in which one communicates can promote compliance via the friendship/liking principle. Dolinski, Nawrat, and Rudak (2001) argued that the presence of friendship cues can lead us to treat strangers more like friends or acquaintances. In particular, the use of casual dialogues, as opposed to monologues, carries with it associations with close relationships. Simply preceding a request with a short, trivial dialogue created greater compliance than when the request was preceded by a short monologue.

Authority

With a position of power comes influence. A striking example of this idea is the surprising level of obedience to a Yale scientist in a lab coat shown in Milgram’s shock study (Milgram, 1974), where 65 percent of the participants delivered a deadly amount of shock to a possibly unconscious or dead victim merely because an authority commanded it. This behavior is not limited to the laboratory or rare circumstances in history. Take, for example, the phenomenon airline industry officials have dubbed “captainitis” (Foushee, 1984), as illustrated in the following dialogue between a captain and his copilot recovered from the black box of a crashed airliner in the Potomac River.

Copilot: Let’s check those tops [wings] again since we’ve been sitting awhile.

Captain: No, I think we get to go in a minute.

Copilot: [Referring to an instrument reading] That doesn’t seem

right, does it? Uuh, that’s not right

Captain: Yes it is….

Copilot: Oh, maybe it is. [Sound of plane straining unsuccessfully to gain altitude] Copilot: Larry, we’re going down.

Captain: I know it! [Sound of impact that killed the captain, copilot, and 67 passengers]

Accident investigators from the Federal Aviation Administration have noted that, in many accidents, the crash resulted from an obvious error made by the captain that was not corrected by the other crewmembers. It seems that, because of the captain’s authority, the rest of the crew either failed to notice, or failed to correct, the disastrous mistake (Harper, Kidera, & Cullen, 1971). The trappings of authority can have negative effects in hospitals as well. In one study, 95 percent of nurses showed a willingness to administer an unsafe level of a drug in response to a telephone request, simply because the caller claimed to be a doctor (Hofling, Brotzman, Dalrymple, Graves, & Pierce, 1966).

Authority can be split into two categories. The first of these is legitimate authority, where authority is held because someone possesses a higher rank or higher status. The other category is expert authority, which is gained through the possession of special knowledge. Both are quite powerful, and influence professionals often use them to their advantage.

One way of utilizing this principle is by employing symbols of authority such as titles and clothing. As seen in the previous examples, titles such as “doctor” or “captain,” and the uniforms that accompany these titles, can have a strong influence in guiding the behavior of others. Even a business suit can be an influential tool. Lefkowitz, Blake, and Mouton (1955) found that three and a half times as many people followed a jaywalker into traffic when he wore a suit and tie than did when he wore a work shirt and trousers.

Research has shown that we are also susceptible to recommendations made by those feigning expertise (such as an actor playing a doctor in an advertisement) or holding expertise in a wholly unrelated area (such as Tiger Woods as a spokesman for Buick), which is largely due to the use of mental shortcuts (see Cialdini, 2001) and our illusion that we are invulnerable to undue influence attempts (Sagarin, Cialdini, Rice, & Serna, 2002). Sagarin et al. found, however, that demonstrating for people that they could, indeed, be influenced by ads with illegitimate authorities dispelled the illusion of invulnerability, leading to more critical analyses of advertisements utilizing authority principles and to the rejection of advertisements with illegitimate authorities.

Social Proof

As compensation for the lack of a real television audience, laugh tracks began their life in the 1950s, and their use in sitcoms has thrived to this day. Though they sound artificial, and punctuate all jokes equally (regardless of how funny they actually are), laugh tracks are still used for one big reason: They work. Laughter, as they say, is contagious (even when it is fake). When many other people behave in a certain way, it is usually in our own self-interest to conform, and thus we often follow others almost automatically.

People wishing to gain compliance can use this principle to their advantage by citing the large number of people who have complied already. This principle is put to use by those who “salt the tip jar”—putting in some of their own money to give the impression that multiple others have been tipping. It is also seen in movie advertisements claiming a movie to be the “number one romantic comedy of the year” (sometimes even if it is the second week of January and the movie happens to be the ONLY romantic comedy of the year!).

Another technique used by compliance professionals to exploit the social proof principle is the “list technique,” whereby people making a request ensure that targets see a long list of the others who have previously complied. For example, Reingen (1982) asked college students or homeowners to donate blood or to contribute money to a charitable cause. Individuals who first saw a list of previous donators were more likely to volunteer. Furthermore, compliance increased as the list of names lengthened.

Along with an increase in the number of people who have previously complied, compliance increases with the presence of other qualities that were previously discussed to increase conformity, such as uncertainty (Tesser et al., 1983) and similarity (Schultz, 1999).

Culture also plays a role in the effectiveness of social proof. For example, Cialdini, Wosinska, Barrett, Butner, and Gormik-Durose (1999) found that the use of social proof tactics may be more effective in collectivistic cultures, where people tend to define themselves in relation to the groups to which they belong, than in individualistic cultures, where people think of themselves as autonomous and independent. However, commitment and consistency tactics, which require that we maintain our existing self-concept, function more effectively in individualistic cultures (Petrova, Cialdini, & Sills, 2007).

Scarcity

As an opportunity becomes less available, we come to see it as more valuable, even when that opportunity is not particularly attractive on its own merits. For example, students at Florida State University, like most students, were not particularly satisfied with the quality of food in their school cafeteria, and rated it accordingly on a student survey. Just nine days later, their ratings of the cafeteria food on a second survey suddenly increased significantly. What steps did the cafeteria make to improve the quality of their food so suddenly? Absolutely nothing. On the day of the second survey, the students had learned that, due to a fire, they would not be able to eat at the cafeteria for two weeks (West, 1975). With a reduction in availability came a sudden increase in perceived quality.

Collectors know the power of scarcity well, where a printing error on an “inverted Jenny” stamp or a hidden expletive on a baseball card can drastically increase the value of the item after the error is quickly corrected, making the original, flawed item more rare.

Scarcity increases desirability for two main reasons. The first of these is that the rarity of an item is a good shortcut cue to its value. As resources dwindle, they become more important, and as quality increases in an item, its availability decreases. The second reason scarcity increases desirability is because as something becomes less available, we lament our dwindling ability to get it. According to psychological reactance theory (Brehm, 1966), when we lose personal freedoms or personal control, we will take actions to reclaim them. Thus, as our freedom of choice is threatened by scarcity, desirability of the scarce item increases. This principle applies as well to when our freedom of choice is threatened by perceived censorship (e.g., Worchel, 1992). In fact, the idea of losing something is so distasteful that simply framing noncompliance as causing a loss rather than missing out on a benefit or gain can often increase compliance (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). In one study, describing how much money could be lost through inadequate insulation rather than describing how much money could be saved led homeowners to be significantly more likely to insulate their homes (Gonzales, Aronson, & Costanzo, 1988).

One influence tactic that takes advantage of the scarcity principle is the “limited-number” tactic, in which a customer is informed that an opportunity is limited in quantity. Often, producers of collector’s items take advantage of this principle by manufacturing coins or albums in limited quantities and individually numbered, thus making the scarcity of the item more salient (as well as making each item more rare in its own right—only one item can be “#1 out of 5000”).

Similarly, the principle of scarcity is also utilized in the “deadline” technique, in which someone must “act now” to take advantage of a “limited time offer.” Using an extreme version of this technique, one large child photography company encouraged parents to buy as many different photos as they could immediately because “stocking limitations force us to burn the unsold pictures of your children within 24 hours.”

Ethics

Much of the research on compliance is based in the study of the practices of persuasion professionals. Something akin to natural selection operates for marketers, market researchers, advertisers, and fund-raisers in that successful techniques tend to flourish because they are reused and passed down to new generations of people who wish to induce others to say “yes.” By observing their techniques, and testing these strategies empirically, we can learn which of them are effective, and why. Less considered, however, is the ethicality of their use.

Marketers and advertisers who use influence principles honestly and ethically do a service to themselves and others. Each of the principles is based on mental shortcuts that usually lead to accurate perceptions and behavior. For instance, as previously discussed, it is typically wise to follow the advice of expert authorities. If an advertising agency advertises a client’s pain reliever by citing genuine authoritative research favoring its use, everybody benefits. If, instead, the agency fabricates authoritative support through the use of actors posing as scientists, it is using the principle unethically. By understanding the distinction between utilizing factors genuinely in a situation to influence others ethically and importing unnatural qualities to spur behavior unethically, we can powerfully and legitimately commission the six principles of influence to create change. In seeking to persuade by pointing to the presence of genuine expertise, true consensus, long-standing commitments, or real opportunities for cooperation, we serve the interests of all involved.

Summary

The social influence process is of central importance when navigating the social world around us. As such, a deeper understanding of its inner workings can serve to improve our navigational skills. Many stimuli create powerful pressures to behave in certain ways, such as an authority’s command, the actions of multiple similar others, or a request highlighting a social debt, past commitment, close relationship, expert’s opinion, or the dwindling availability of an opportunity. The principles described in this research-paper serve as cues, typically leading to wise behaviors. In some cases, however, following these cues mindlessly can result instead in negative outcomes. By understanding the principles through which behavior is influenced, we can recognize their presence in a situation and, as a result, guide the behaviors of others in an ethical fashion. Additionally, we can recognize when our behavior is being spurred by these principles toward an unwise decision, as long as we first recognize that we are ourselves vulnerable.

References:

Aronson, E., Bridgeman, D. L., & Geffner, R. (1978). Interdependent interactions and prosocial behavior. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 12, 16-27.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70, 70.
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.
Benson, P. L., Karabenick, S. A., & Lerner, R. M. (1976). Pretty pleases: The effects of physical attractiveness, race, and sex on receiving help. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 409-415.
Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 955-978.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, UK: Academic Press.
Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. (2001). Collective corruption in the corporate world: Toward a process model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 471-499). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brock, T. C. (1965). Communicator-recipient similarity and decision change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 650-654.
Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that’s-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 277-283.
Burger, J. M., & Caldwell, D. F. (2003). The effects of monetary incentives and labeling on the foot-in-the-door effect: Evidence for a self-perception process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 235-241.
Burger, J. M., & Cornelius, T. (2003). Raising the price of agreement: Public commitment and the lowball compliance procedure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 923-934.
Burger, J. M., Messian, N., Patel, S., del Prado, A., & Anderson, C. (2004). What a coincidence! The effects of incidental similarity on compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 35-43.
Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Chartrand, T., Pinckert, S., & Burger, J. M. (1999). When manipulation backfires: The effects of time delay and requester on the foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 211-221.
Cialdini, R. B. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206215.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105-109.
Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T., Bassett, R., & Miller, J. A. (1978). Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 463-476.
Cialdini, R. B., Eisenberg, N., Green, B. L., Rhoads, K., & Bator, R. (1998). Undermining the undermining effect of reward on sustained interest. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 249-263.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.
Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D. W., Butner, J., & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999). Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1242-1253.
Cioffi, D., & Garner, R. (1996). On doing the decision: Effects of active versus passive choice on commitment and self-perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 133-147.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
Dijksterhuis, A., Bargh, J. A., & Miedema, J. (2000). Of men and mackerels: Attention, subjective experience, and automatic social behavior. In H. Bless & J. P. Forgas (Eds.), The message within: The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior (pp. 37-51). New York: Psychology Press.
Dolinski, D., Nawrat, M., & Rudak, I. (2001). Dialogue involvement as a social influence technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1395-1406.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but . . .: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.
Eder, D., & Sandford, S. (1986). The development and maintenance of interactional norms among early adolescents. Sociological Studies of Child Development, 1, 283-300.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Foushee, H. C. (1984). Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet: Factors affecting group process and aircrew performance. American Psychologist, 39, 885-893.
Freedman, J. L. (1965). Long-term behavioral effects of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 145-155.
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.
Goldstein, N. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). The spyglass self: A model of vicarious self-perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 402-417.
Gonzales, M. H., Aronson, E., & Costanzo, M. A. (1988). Using social cognition and persuasion to promote energy conservation: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1049-1066.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281-294.
Harper, C. R., Kidera, C. J., & Cullen, J. F. (1971). Study of simulated airplane pilot incapacitation. Aerospace Medicine, 42, 946-948.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Hofling, C. K., Brotzman, E., Dalrymple, S., Graves, N., & Pierce, C. M. (1966). An experimental study in nursephysician relationships. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143, 171-180.
Hornstein, H. A., Fisch, E., & Holmes, M. (1968). Influence of a model’s feeling about his behavior and his relevance as a comparison other on observers’ helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 222-226.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
Knox, R. E., & Inkster, J. A. (1968). Postdecisional dissonance at post time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 319-323.
Lefkowitz, M., Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1955). Status factors in pedestrian violation of traffic signals. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 51, 704-706.
Levine, R. (2003). The power of persuasion: How we’re bought and sold. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper and Row.
Petrova, P. K., Cialdini, R. B., & Sills, S. J. (2007). Consistency-based compliance across cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 104-111.
Phillips, D. P. (1974). The influence of suggestion on suicide: Substantive and theoretical implications of the Werther effect. American Sociological Review, 3, 340-354.
Pratkanis, A. J., & Aronson, E. (2000). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Pratkanis, A. J., & Shadel, D. (2007). Weapons of fraud. Seattle, WA: AARP Washington.
Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627-639.
Reingen, P. H. (1982). Test of a list procedure for inducing compliance with a request to donate money. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 110-118.
Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The trans-situational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 104-112.
Sagarin, B. J., Cialdini, R. B., Rice, W. E., & Serna, S. B. (2002). Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: The motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 526-541.
Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 25-36.
Schwarzwald, J., Raz, M., & Zvibel, M. (1979). The application of the door-in-the-face technique when established behavioral customs exist. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 576-586.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Oxford, UK: Harper.
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2006). Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439, 466-469.
Stewart, J. E. (1980). Defendant’s attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of criminal trials: An observational study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 348-361.
Sugiyama, L. S., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2004). Cross-cultural evidence of cognitive adaptations for social exchange among the Shiwiar of Ecuadorian Amazonia. Auckland, NZ: Pearson Education New Zealand.
Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Tesser, A., Campbell, J., & Mickler, S. (1983). The role of social pressure, attention to the stimulus, and self-doubt in conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 217-233.
Vonk, R. (2002). Self-serving interpretations of flattery: Why ingratiation works. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 515-526.
West, S. G. (1975). Increasing the attractiveness of college cafeteria food: A reactance theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 656-658.
Worchel, S. (1992). Beyond a commodity theory analysis of censorship: When abundance and personalism enhance scarcity effects. Basic and Applied Social Psychology Special Issue: The psychology of unavailability: Explaining scarcity and cost effects on value, 13, 79-92.