Social proof can have important consequences

22

Orson Wells: War of the World Broadcast

Mercury Theatre Radio Drama, October 30th, 1938

Text of NYTimes report

44

Kitty Genovese Case

Martin Gansberg: 38 who saw murder didn’t call police (NYT article)

For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens. Twice, the sound of their voices and the sudden glow of their bedroom lights interrupted him and frightened him off. Each time he returned, sought her out and stabbed her again. Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called after the woman was dead. (Gansberg, 1964, p. 1)

Controversy over the accuracy of the original reports

Fewer than 38 eye witnesses

Some did intervene (e.g., shouting, maybe calling of police)

Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist, 62(6), 555.

55

Bystander

Intervention

ResearchDarley & Latané: Research program to understand Kitty Genovese murder

Smoke study •Subject recruited to a lab to fill out questionnaires•Smoke seeps into the study room & eventually fills it•Social condition

• Naive subject alone

• Naive subject with two calm confederates

• Three naive subjects

Cumulative proportion of subjects reporting the smoke over time

010

203040

50607080

90100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6Minutes from start of smoke infusion

Cum

ulat

ive

prop

ortio

n re

port

ing

smok

e alone

hypothetical 3 person group

3 person group

subject + 2 confederates

66

Epileptic study

• Subjects go round robin, introducing themselves. The victim discusses difficulties adjusting to NYC and admits to epileptic seizures under pressure. In round two, victim becomes increasingly incoherent, spluttering that he is having a seizure and needs help

• Naive subject is paired with victim only, victim + 1 stranger, victim + 4 strangers

77

Literature review

• Group inhibition greatest when:• Ambiguous situation

e.g., audio only• Older > younger kids• Strangers > friends

• No influence:• Bystander gender,

age, ability to communicate with others

[1] Latane, B. and Nida, S. Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 2 (Mar 1981), 308-324.

Study typel N studies

% alone helping

% in groups helping

% alone helping

Lab - 1 subject + confederates

56 75% 53% 75%

Field - real groups 38 50% 22% 50%

88

Bystander Intervention Process

What is the effect of others’ being present?

• Increases likelihood of noticing the event

• Depending on others' demeanor, may decrease the likelihood of interpreting event as an emergency

• Informal norm of looking "cool" while assessing the situation biases others to interpret the situation as "cool"

• Diffuses responsibility

Social comparison processes Evaluate costs & rewards

Noticeevent

Define asemergency

Accept personal

responsibility for action

Select mode of intervention

Implement intervention

Defense

• Identify a particular helper• Be explicit about the nature of the emergency

• Be explicit about what you want them to do

1010

Milgram experiment

• Subjects believe they are participants in a study of effects of punishment on learning

• They are asked to shock a partner (stooge) when the partner makes learning mistakes

• Dependent variable is number of subjects who “go all the way”, delivering 300+ volts of electricity

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Strapping the learning in

Teacher experiences shock

Teacher refuses

Milgram video

1111

Obedience to authority

In Milgram shock experiments, all teacher subjects did some shocking and 65% shocked at the maximum level (450 volts), even when thinking the learner was suffering a heart attack

• Experts predicted 1-2% compliance rate

Effects greater

• When "commander" is an authority figure

• When "commander" is physically & psychologically close to the teacher

• When victim is physically & psychologically distant from the teacher

% of subjects shocking at various voltage levels

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

15 75 135

195

255

315

375

435

Voltage

Per

cent

sti

ll s

hock

ing

1212

Compliance decreased as closeness to victim increased

Teacher's proximity to victim

0 20 40 60 80

Remote fmvictim

Voicefeedback

Same room

Touch

% stopping the experiment

Compliance increased as closeness to authority increased

Teachers proximity to experimenter

0 50 100

Sameroom

Telephonecontact

Taperecorder

% stopping the experiment

Variations

1313

Latane’s Social Impact Theory

• Impact of social influence attempt on an individual increases with • Number of influencers

• Up to a point

• Strength • Status• Ability• Relationship to target

• Immediacy• Proximity in time • Proximity in space

Modality Effectiveness

In person canvassing 1 new voter per 14 contacts=$18.67/new voter

Personal phone calls 1 new voter per 50 contacts=$45/new voter

Robo-phone calls No discernable effect=infinite cost

Direct mail 1 new voter per 200 contacts=$100/new voter

Email No discernable effect=infinite cost

Effectiveness of Get Out the Vote Techniques

1515

Other examples of authority (Cialdini)

• Higher manuscript acceptance rates when coming from a high-prestige university

• Less horn honking at luxury car vs. economy model

• Greater compliance to a request when requester wears a security uniform than when dressed in civvies

• Innovations flow through a group faster when introduced by high status member (e.g., Michael Jordan & Energy Booster bars)

• Deference to doctors• 21/22 Nurses would give harmful medicine to a patient, when it is prescribed

over the phone by a strange “doctor”• Ear drops in R(ight) ear

1616

Challenger Disaster, 1985

• Video• Jan 28, 1986, Space Shuttle Challenger takes off

from Kennedy Space Center• Explodes 73 seconds after take-off• Dead:

• Francis R. (Dick) Scobee, pilot Michael J. Smith; specialists Judith A. Resnik, Ronald E. McNair and Ellison S. Onizuka; payload specialist Gregory B. Jarvis, a Hughes Aircraft Corp. employee.

• Managerial reconstruction athttp://onlineethics.org/essays/shuttle/index.html#abstr

1717

Crew

• From left to right are Ellison Onizuka, Mike Smith, Christa McAuliffe, Dick Scobee, Greg Jarvis, Ron McNair and Judy Resnick.

• Resnick, BS in EE, CMU 1970.

1818

Background

• O-rings seal sections of booster rocket

• Morton Thiokol had evidence since Jan, 1985 of damage to O-rings (Flight 51E)

1919

Damage to O-rings & link to cold weather noted by March, 1985

• No problems at 100F, loss of seal for 2.4 sec at 75oF & for 10 sec at 50oF

• 7/1/85 , M-T provides results of weather tests to NASA

• 7/31/85 , M-T engineer writes memo to VP of Engineering

• “Management at Thiokol and NASA shows no interest in planning a design change”

2020

Memo Excerpt• "Subject: SRM O-Ring Erosion/Potential Failure Criticality. This letter

is written to insure that management is fully aware of the seriousness of the current O-ring erosion problem in the SRM joints from an engineering standpoint. The mistakenly accepted position on the joint problem was to fly without fear of failure and to run a series of design evaluations which would ultimately lead to a solution or at least a significant reduction of the erosion problem. This position is now drastically changed as a result of the SRM 16A nozzle joint erosion which eroded a secondary O-ring with the primary O-ring never sealing."

• "If the same scenario should occur in a field joint (and it could), then it is a jump ball as to the success or failure of the joint because the secondary O-ring cannot respond to the clevis opening rate and may not be capable of pressurization. The result would be a catastrophe of the highest order---of of human life."

2121

Dramatization of final teleconference, night before launch

• Weather on launch day predicted to be 18oF

• Two teleconferences btw Kennedy Space Center, Marshal Space Flight Center & Morton Thiokol

• Video

Roger BoisjolyM-T Engineer reporting failures

2222

Discussion

• Why did this decision happen?•     ...failures in communication... resulted in a

decision to launch 51-L based on incomplete and sometimes misleading information, a conflict between engineering data and management judgments, and a NASA management structure that permitted internal flight safety problems to bypass key Shuttle managers (Rodgers Commission)

• What should the engineers have done?

2323

What should the engineers have done?

• Engineering notebook:• The caucus constituted the unethical decision-

making forum resulting from intense customer intimidation. NASA placed MTI in the position of proving that it was not safe to fly instead of proving that it was safe to fly. Also, note that NASA immediately accepted the new decision to launch because it was consistent with their desires and please note that no probing questions were asked.

2525

Depth of processing in attitude change

Systematic processing• Occurs when we think

deeply about a message• Persuaded by the

strength of the arguments

• Requires the motivation and the ability to think deeply about the message:

Heuristic processing• Occurs when we don’t

think deeply about a message

• Persuaded by cues in the message or situation

• Happens automatically when we lack the motivation or ability to process deep1y

2626

Heuristic Processing

• Use superficial cues to assess the validity of message

• Heuristics:• Social Proof• Authority• Liking• Reciprocity• Commitment and Consistency• Scarcity

2727

Liking-based influence

We tend to be more influenced by people we like

Physical attractiveness

SimilarityFamiliarityIngratiationCooperationConditioning

Liking

Influence attempt

X

Beliefs consistent with persuasion attempt

Liking for object

Imitation

2828

Role of Non-Verbal Behavior

• Meta-analysis of effects of non-verbal behavior on compliance with requests

Behavior Mean r

• Formal clothes .16

• Gaze .23

• Touch .21

• Closeness .18

• Why? Communicating power & intimacy

Segrin, C. (1993). The effects of nonverbal behavior on outcomes of compliance gaining attempts. Communication Studies, 44(3-4), 169-187.

2929

Increasing tips

Tactic IncreaseIntroduce yourself by name. 15%-23%Personalize your appearance. 15%Kneel down next to tables. >$1.00/orderSmile. 18%Tell a joke 43%Touch customers. 25%Thank customers. 12%Draw a picture on the check. 36%Call customers by name. 10%After-dinner candy 21%Use credit-card tip trays. 20%Msg abt upcoming dinner special 17%Give interesting task 20%Literally repeat customer order (Netherlands) 68%Give card with jokeSell more expensive meals (x15%)

Lynn, M. (1996). Seven ways to increase your servers’ tips. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37, 24-29.

3030

Physical attractiveness

Cognition: "halo effects“Attractive people are

• Viewed as more intelligent, talented, honest, kind, etc.

• Can be self-fulfilling prophesies, but, find effects even when targets rate newborns

Evaluation: More attractive people are better liked

Behaviors: preferential treatment• More likely to be hired, at better salary

• More likely to be elected

• More likely to receive help when requested

• More likely to get better tort settlements

• More likely to get lenient sentences in court

3131

Evaluations

1

5 64

2 3

• Who is most-- Intelligent -- Friendly --Honest --Successful

3232

What Leads to Physical Attractiveness?

• Averageness• Skin texture• Not facial shape

• More originals averaged More attractive• Females: r (number faces X attractiveness) =.64• Males: r (number faces X attractiveness) =.57

1 2 3 4

3333

Why? Cue for health

• Both facial averageness & symmetry asc. with perceived health

• Distinctiveness (non-averageness) at age 17 is asc with poorer health

• Symmetry is not asc with poorer health

3434

Female Facial Features

•Suntanned skin  •Narrower facial shape  •Less fat  •Fuller lips  •Slightly bigger distance of eyes  •Darker, narrower eye brows 

•More, longer and darker lashes  •Higher cheek bones  •Narrower nose  •No eye rings  •Thinner lids 

3535

Male Facial Features

•Browner skin  •Narrower facial shape  •Less fat  •Fuller and more symmetrical lips  •Darker eye brows  •More and darker lashes  •Upper half of the face broader in relation to the lower 

•Higher cheek bones  •Prominent lower jaw  •More prominent chin  •No receding brows  •Thinner lids  •No wrinkles between nose and corner of the mouth 

3636

Why? Hormone Markers of Mate Quality

Males• High testosterone/estrogen ratios

• Lateral growth of cheekbones, mandibles & chin

• Forward growth of eyebrow ridges

• Signals strength & likely reproductive success

• Smooth skinfreedom from disease

• Women prefer “masculinized” faces most during most fertile time in menstrual cycle & when judging a short-term mate

• Women who consider themselves attractive had largest preference for masculinized faces

Females

• High estrogen/testosterone ratios

• Prominent cheekbones & other attractive features

• Little facial hair• Larger hips & breasts

• Signals reproductive status & likely reproductive success

• Smooth skin with few defects have dealt with possible toxic effects of estrogen

3939

Similarity• Cognition: Perceive people as similar if they are like us in any number of

ways :

• Ascribed characteristics: e.g., age, gender, racial/ethnic background

• Attained characteristics: e.g., social status, educational level

• Opinions, attitudes: e.g., liberal vs. conservative

• Hobbies, interests: e.g., sports, music, movies

• Dress

• Verbal & nonverbal style• Evaluation: People who are more similar to us are better

liked

• Behaviors:

• More likely to help similar others

• More likely to be convinced by similar others' arguments

4040

Physical similarity

S sees candidates morphed with themselves or stranger

S likes physically similar candidate most

Effect strongest for unfamiliar candidates

4141

Behavioral similarity

The immersive virtual environment system used in this study (top), a participant’s view of the virtual room (middle), and a close-up view of the three-dimensional models of female and male embodied agents (bottom).

• Subject listens to an avatar delivering a persuasive message

• Avatar was prerecorded or mimicked S’s head movements with 4-sec delay

• Ss judged mimicking avatar• More effective, more

persuasive & more positive

4242

Familiarity

• Evaluation: Repeated exposure to an object, person, or idea increases liking

• effect occurs even if we can't perceive the stimulus

• effect occurs even if the stimulus is a meaningless object

• effect occurs even prenatally

• Behaviors: Widespread use in many social arenas • election campaigns

• product sales

• interpersonal interaction

• Exception:• when we already dislike the object, person or idea repeated exposure

often doesn't increase liking and may decrease it

4343

Source of Familiarity Effect

• Evidence:• Zajonc’s 5x5 repeated ideographs vs.

25 unique exposures

• We’re in better moods after repeated exposures

• Effects generalize to new stimuli

• Absence of aversive event as stimulus (Zajonc)

• We learn to like something because each time they appear we are rewarded with a lack of a punishment safety

4444

Reciprocity

• Repay, in kind, what another person has provided us

• Universal• All human societies have this rule (Gouldner, 1960)

• “an honored network of obligation” (Leakey & Lewin, 1978); “web of indebtedness” (Tiger & Fox, 1971); inclusive fitness

• Enables division of labor

• Creates interdependence and societal bonds

• Application: Best way to increase response to mail survey is give potential respondent money before the complete the survey – “as a token of appreciation”• $5 now for everyone is much more effective than a promise to pay

$100 for completing the survey

4545

Reciprocity

•People feel obligated to return gifts given to them

•Charity appeals: Calendars, greeting card, return address stamps, pencils, & cash used to increase contributions

•Survey research: Small cash gift increases response rates. Effects much larger than promise of larger incentive for completion

4646

Reciprocity in the hotel, 3/3/2011

• Resulted in a $5 tip

4747

• Communicate

• Similarity/Conformity

• Competence

• Attraction

• Sociability

• Flattery

• Effects dependent upon

• Status relationship

• Suspicion

• Relevance

Ingratiation as strategic self-presentation

4848

• Considerateness rule: We expect others to honor and even collaborate in maintaining our line

• Fundamental attribution error: As audience, we tend to over attribute a person's behavior to their stable properties

• Discounting rules

• Discount self-promoting behavior

• Discount controllable behavior

• But we under discount

Audiences typically accept the performance

4949

Compliance: What actually works (meta-analysis)?

Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 54.

5050

Flattery (Other enhancement)

• We believe praise & like the

praise regardless of whether

the praise is true

• We like & are more persuaded

by those who praise us

• Obviousness of ulterior motive

(transparency) reduces effects

of praise, but doesn’t eliminate

it

• Fundamental attribution error

5151

What do people do in job interviews?

5252

Opinion Conformity

5353

What works: Ingratiation & rationality

[1] Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A. and Ferris, G. R. Influence tactics and work outcomes: a meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1 2003), 89-106.

[1] Higgins, C. A. and Judge, T. A. The effect of applicant influence tactics on recruiter perceptions of fit and hiring recommendations: a field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 4 2004), 622.

5454

Ingratiation Strategies Work Better When:

• Influences the target > bystanders• Downward > upward• Verbal content > non-verbal• Modesty & apology > self-promotion• Subtle > transparent• By high status ingratiater > low status

5555

What works in the job interview?