Social Influence (3 articles)

Egoism or Altruism?

Human beings are capable of immense acts of kindness, heroism, and generosity. Often at the expense of their own personal wealth or safety. But is it possible that even extraordinary acts of kindness are ultimately guided by self-centered motives? Psychologist Bob Cialdini tried to answer this question and has helped bring answers to some of the most fundamental questions about human nature.

Cialdini, egoism and altruism

Cialdini, who wrote Social Influence which made him famous, suggested that true altruism might be an illusion. Altruistic acts might instead be caused by self-centered motivations, such as the desire to avoid guilt or to enhance one’s own mood.

Professor Daniel Batson

Cialdini’s views do not remain uncontested. For example, Professor Daniel Batson proclaimed that altruism is alive and well in human prosocial behavior. His view is that truly selfless acts could arise out of a feeling of empathic concern for another person. Evidence for this theory is that factors that increase empathy (perspective-taking, shared group membership) also increase the likelihood of aiding a person in need of help.

Cialdini

Cialdini argued that witnessing an individual in need provokes a variety of aversive feelings in potential helpers (such as sadness, guilt, and personal distress). He demonstrated experimentally that it was the desire to reduce one’s own negative feelings, rather than the desire to benefit the other person, that motivates one to help. Therefore the act would not be truly selfless.

Causes and consequences

Batson countered that even though self-rewards may be a consequence of the act of helping another person, they are not necessarily the cause. The action can still be motivated by a desire to help the other person. Both scientists agreed then, that whether or not true altruism exists comes down to what factors motivate the prosocial action. They just did not agree on what those motivators are.

Oneness

Oneness, or self-other merging, is the notion that our sense of self can include overlap with other people. According to Cialdini this would make true altruism impossible, because if the self and the other are not seen as truly separate entities, it is not possible to help another without helping oneself. For example, a family member carries some of the same genes as yourself, making it favorable to help that person from an evolutionary standpoint. This is not selfless. Cialdini found that whereas empathy mediated effects on helping, this was no longer the case when the experiment controlled for oneness. Also, when helping could only occur at great personal cost, empathy was found not to be a strong enough motivator for altruistic behavior.

Is care-giving a fundamental human motive?

The question now is whether oneness really is a nonaltruistic motivator. Why does helping others seem to have so many benefits for the self, such as create a positive mood and relieve distress? And why does seeing others’ pain make us feel distressed in the first place? From an evolutionary perspective it makes sense to help a family member, because indirectly we are helping ourselves, or at least our own genes. Or we might help someone because they are likely to return a favor (reciprocal altruism). But people often help complete strangers, in which case the costs of helping often appear to far outweigh any immediate or long-term benefits to the self.

Social bonds

The authors of this chapter propose that the experience of feeling bonded to another person could be the motivational mechanism for costly helping, whether or not that person is a stranger. Social bonds might be designed by evolution to help individuals inhibit self-centered impulses in ways that favor the motivation to give help to others.

Selective investment theory and fitness interdependence.

This idea led to the selective investment theory, which states that the significant costs of allocating resources to non-relatives or nonreciprocators means that social bonds (because they motivate sacrifice) must emerge selectively when the benefit to fitness is high and the threat of exploitation is low. These conditions are met under states of fitness interdependence (FI) between two or more individuals. FI means that a helper increases the fitness outcomes for the other and for himself, and also that if the other exploits the helper, that would be detrimental to both. This implies that genuine signs of need trigger remarkable instances of sacrifice even for strangers, because the vulnerability implies a low probability of exploitation.

Implications of social bonding and prosocial behavior for physical health

Hormonal features of social bonds have positive implications for physical health. The neuropeptide oxytocin triggers helping behavior, and also has restorative physiological properties: it lowers levels of stress hormones and improves immune function and various cellular functions and repair. Indeed it seems that people in close relationships are healthier and live longer than do those who are socially isolated. This effect is especially strong for those who provide help to others rather than just receive support.

Beyond health psychology

Cialdini’s challenges to Batson’s empathy-altruism hypothesis drew attention from scientists outside of psychology: evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists and animal behaviorists paid close attention to the debate. This led to the revival of evolutionary theories of group selection, or multilevel selection, which state that actions that might compromise the fitness of the individual may occur anyway because they promote advantages in the group.

Bullet points

• Professor Daniel Batson proclaimed that altruism is alive and well in human prosocial behavior. His view is that truly selfless acts could arise out of a feeling of empathic concern for another person. Evidence for this theory is that factors that increase empathy (perspective-taking, shared group membership) also increase the likelihood of aiding a person in need of help.
• Cialdini argued that witnessing an individual in need provokes a variety of aversive feelings in potential helpers (such as sadness, guilt, and personal distress). He demonstrated experimentally that it was the desire to reduce one’s own negative feelings, rather than the desire to benefit the other person, that motivates one to help. Therefore the act would not be truly selfless.
• Oneness, or self-other merging, is the notion that our sense of self can include overlap with other people. According to Cialdini this would make true altruism impossible, because if the self and the other are not seen as truly separate entities, it is not possible to help another without helping oneself.
• Selective investment theory states that the significant costs of allocating resources to non-relatives or nonreciprocators means that social bonds (because they motivate sacrifice) must emerge selectively when the benefit to fitness is high and the threat of exploitation is low.

Tentamentickets

Exam

The exam consists of multiple choice questions.

Study

It is important to know the standpoints of both Cialdini and Batson, and how they differ in opinion about altruism. Pay attention to the concept of oneness and what it means for altruism. Finally, make sure you know what selective investment theory and fitness interdependence entail, what they mean for altruism and how they impact fitness of individual and groups.

Social Norms: A how-to (and how-not-to) guide

Infomercial consultant Colleen Szot managed to make the sales of an exercise machine product skyrocket by changing a few simple words in the standard call-to-action line. Instead of the traditional “Operators are waiting, please call now”, she changed it to: “If operators are busy, please call again”. This made such a huge difference, and if you think about it that makes sense. The first implies a call center full of bored phone operators waiting for a scarce customer, whereas the second suggests an image of busy operators trying to keep up with the huge demand. The effect is caused by a change in the perceived social norm regarding the public’s purchasing behavior. People uncertain about a course of action tend to look to other people around them to guide their decisions and actions, and that’s exactly what we see in this example.

Cialdini’s focus theory of normative conduct

The focus theory of normative conduct was developed to better predict when and which social norms will exert influence. It has two central propositions:

1. There are two different types of norms, descriptive and injunctive, which can have considerably different effects on behavior depending on the situation.
2. Any given norm is likely to influence behavior to the extent that it is salient, or currently present in one’s mind.

Descriptive and injunctive norms

Descriptive norms refer to what is commonly done (by others) in a given situation, they inform individuals of what is likely to be an effective or adaptive course of action in that situation. Injunctive norms refer to what is commonly approved or disapproved within the culture (or smaller groups), behavior is motivated through informal social rewards and punishments attached to the behavior. In short, descriptive norms refer to what is done, injunctive norms to what ought to be done. Often both types are one and the same for a certain behavior, but sometimes they diverge.

The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms

When creating a powerful norm-based message, communicators must choose whether to draw people’s attention to injunctive norms, descriptive norms, or both. Unfortunately, the importance of focusing an audience only on norms that are consistent with their objectives is often forgotten. For example, when a detrimental behavior is regrettably prevalent, focusing on that fact will unintentionally focus the audience on the unfavorable descriptive norm rather than the favorable injunctive norm. If you use images of litter and littering in a campaign to counter littering, the descriptive norm will likely cause the campaign to fail or even backfire.

Effective use of social norms

If a communicator does not want his campaign to backfire, he should frame the descriptive norm in terms of the desired behavior, instead of highlighting the undesirable behavior. This is favorable when the majority of people perform the desired behavior. If that behavior is only performed by a minority of people, he could communicate simply that the target behavior is strongly disapproved, without providing data on what the majority of people are doing.

The power of the average

The descriptive norm as conveyed by an average can lead to positive or negative behavior depending on who the audience is, while the exact same information is communicated. For example, information about the mean number of drinks consumed by college students can have a constructive influence on those drinking more than the mean, but a destructive influence on those currently drinking less. People are drawn towards the norm, regardless of whether they are currently above or below it. To prevent the social norm from causing a campaign to backfire, it helps to add an explicit and attention-grabbing injunctive element to the message. An example is feedback that conveys approval of those already acting in a desirable way.

How do descriptive and injunctive norms work?

It seems willpower is differentially required for descriptive versus injunctive norm. Descriptive norms serve as simple heuristics indicating what is best for an individual, and require little willpower. Injunctive norms however, are about behaving for the approval of others. This requires more systematic thinking and the resolution of conflicting motives, which requires effortful self-control. This difference exists even if the behavior advocated by the norms is absolutely identical. Therefore it is important to choose the norms you use in a campaign carefully and not to use the injunctive norm when the target audience in the target situation is, for example, depleted of willpower.

Whose norms are most influential?

Similarity

In every situation there are numerous groups that individuals might follow. The question is which groups a communicator should focus on when they convey social norms. It seems similarity in identity to the reference group is an important factor, for example similarity in attitudes, gender, ethnicity, age, or values.

Location and local norms

Aside from similarity, it seems location is also an important factor: following the descriptive norms of one’s local setting and circumstances leads to more accurate and effective decision-making than following more global descriptive norms. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” applies here. The effect of adhering to local norms is strengthened when the descriptive norm is phrased in terms of a group that is more similar to the target individual.

The most effective use of descriptive norm

Communicators wanting to use the descriptive norm in their appeal should ensure that the norms are originating from a group that is as situationally similar to the intended audience’s circumstances or environment as possible. The more specific to the situation and location of the target audience, the more successful. Local campaigns therefore work better than more global ones, as a local reference group has the most similarities with the target audience.

Bullet points

• The focus theory of normative conduct was developed to better predict when and which social norms will exert influence. It has two central propositions: (1) There are two different types of norms, descriptive and injunctive, which can have considerably different effects on behavior depending on the situation, and (2) Any given norm is likely to influence behavior to the extent that it is salient, or currently present in one’s mind.
• Descriptive norms refer to what is commonly done (by others) in a given situation, they inform individuals of what is likely to be an effective or adaptive course of action in that situation. Injunctive norms refer to what is commonly approved or disapproved within the culture (or smaller groups), behavior is motivated through informal social rewards and punishments attached to the behavior.
• If a communicator does not want his campaign to backfire, he should frame the descriptive norm in terms of the desired behavior, instead of highlighting the undesirable behavior. This is favorable when the majority of people perform the desired behavior. If that behavior is only performed by a minority of people, he could communicate simply that the target behavior is strongly disapproved, without providing data on what the majority of people are doing.
• Communicators wanting to use the descriptive norm in their appeal should ensure that the norms are originating from a group that is as situationally similar to the intended audience’s circumstances or environment as possible. The more specific to the situation and location of the target audience, the more successful.

Tentamentickets

Exam

The exam consists of multiple choice questions.

Study

Make sure you know what the theory of normative conduct entails, and what its two propositions are. Understand the difference between the two types of social norms and how they can affect people differently in various situations. Finally, pay attention to how you can make the most effective use of social norms.

The Foot-in-the-Door Compliance Procedure: A Multiple-Process Analysis and Review

In the first experimental demonstration of the foot-in-the-door (FITD) procedure, a group of housewives received a phone call asking if they would answer a few questions about household products they used. The women who had received that phone call were much more likely to agree, some weeks later, to a 2-hour enumeration of household products by five or six men going through their cupboards, unlike a control group of housewives who had not received a prior phone call. The FITD theory states that people who first agree with a small request are much more likely to agree to a larger request at a later time.

FITD research

Most research reviews regarding FITD focus on two basic questions. The first, does the FITD manipulation reliably increase the probability that a participant will agree to the second request? And second, if the FITD procedure does increase compliance, how can we account for this effect? To date, the answer to the first question seems to be ‘yes’, even though some studies actually found a decrease in compliance with the FITD technique. The generally accepted explanation for the effectiveness of the FITD is that participants engage in an attitude-change process similar to that outlined in self-perception theory. However, many reviewers suggest that this theory is only a partial explanation.

Psychological processes affecting FITD outcomes

There are six psychological processes that the authors of this review assume have an effect on FITD:

• Self-Perception -> Enhances effect
• Reciprocity Rules and Reactance -> Reduces effect
• Conformity to Norm -> Reduces or enhances effect
• Consistency Needs -> Enhances effect
• Attributions -> Reduces or enhances effect
• Commitment -> Enhances effect

The procedures used to initiate and carry out the FITD technique have the potential to set several psychological processes in motion. Some of these processes increase the likelihood that the requests recipient will agree to the target request, whereas others are likely to decrease that likelihood. The FITD manipulation (time between requests, relative size of requests etc.) also affects the presence and strength of each of the processes. Not every process is present in every manipulation, for example conformity to norm can only be present if the participants obtain information about the normative response. Which processes are set in motion more or less strongly, or at all, is a deciding factor for whether the FITD technique increases or decreases compliance in participants.

Self-perception process

Self-perception theory states that people sometimes infer their attitudes by examining their own behavior. Applied to FITD, this means people would change their attitudes as a result of seeing themselves agree to the initial request. When they receive the second request, people ask themselves if they are the kind of person who engages in these kinds of actions. The most recent and salient example is their response to the initial request. They will assume they are that kind of person, because they agreed to a similar request just the other day.

Hypotheses to investigate the role of self-perception

If self-perception theory operates in the typical FITD study, participants are expected to be more likely to comply with the target request when agreeing to the initial request requires additional involvement and, hence, is presumably more salient. Another way of predicting the involvement of self-perception theory is to see whether participants actually perform the initial request. Looking back at actual behavior should provide much more salient information about one’s attitude than a simple verbal promise. The size of the initial request also matters. If the request is not small enough, more participants will decline it. This is what they reflect back on when deciding whether to comply with the target request, so compliance with the target request will decrease if the initial request is too large. Finally, the target request needs to be as similar to the initial request as possible to increase the likelihood of compliance with the target request. These hypotheses were confirmed by the authors of this review, indicating that a self-perception process is indeed operating in the typical FITD manipulation.

Reciprocity rules and reactance

The contact between requester and participant in an FITD experiment is a social encounter, and is therefore subject to the rules and norms of social interaction in society. Behavior, whether appropriate or inappropriate, by the requester can trigger a reaction in the participant that may influence their compliance with the target request.

Norm of reciprocity

There are two concepts that are relevant for understanding this reaction in relation to FITD. The norm of reciprocity is a widely accepted social rule that regulates the exchange of favors and requests. It maintains that the give and take in social exchanges should be more or less equal. For example, people are more willing to comply with a request if the requester has earlier given them some small favor, like a soft drink. People also want to be able to pay their debts and are uncomfortable with those who do not allow them to return the good deed

Psychological reactance

This concept is said to occur when people perceive a threat to their sense of personal freedom and choice. Pressure from a salesperson or requester may be perceived as such a threat, which often leads to a participant acting as he pleases. Mostly this means doing the opposite of whatever is being pushed by the requester.

The effect on FITD

If participants feel the requester is making an inappropriate request and thereby pressuring them to comply with that request, the net result may be a decreased likelihood of agreeing with the target request. Although neither time between requests nor number of different requesters seems to have an effect on compliance, both of those together might have an effect. If a participant agrees to a small request and immediately after receives a larger request from the same requester, that requester violates the rules of reciprocity by not returning a favor. Aside from that, the second request may be seen as badgering, possibly causing some form of reactance. Interestingly, the effect of reciprocity wears off when a longer time is allowed to pass before the same requester poses the target request. Allowing time to pass also decreases the chance that the request is seen as badgering, thereby also reducing the chance of reactance.

Conformity to the norm

The concept of norm has been used often by psychologists to account for behavior in social settings. Regarding FITD, the decision to comply with the target request can be influenced by perceived norms. Requesters sometimes tell participants how often other people comply with the initial request, thereby providing a descriptive norm. Depending on the norm data, they can either increase or decrease the likelihood that a participant complies with the target request. When a participant is told very few people comply with the request, he or she will be less likely to comply, and vice versa.

Consistency needs

Theories of consistency needs state that people have a need to view their behaviors and attitudes as consistent and to appear consistent to others. When made aware of inconsistencies, people take steps to reduce either the apparent inconsistency or their awareness of it. For FITD, this means that if participants are aware that of their earlier agreement with the initial request, they should be motivated to behave in a consistent manner by agreeing to the target request. Therefore, people with a higher need for consistency (this can differ between individuals) will show a stronger FITD effect. Like with self-perception theory, involvement with and therefore salience of the behavior following the initial request is important.

Attribution processes

People sometimes ask themselves why they engage in a given behavior (what they attribute the behavior to). The answer to this question, accurate or not, influences how the person responds in subsequent similar situations. With FITD, the response to the initial request is often almost mindless, and afterwards participants will likely enter an attributional process concerning their response. The outcome of this process can either decrease or increase the likelihood of compliance with the target request. For example, a participant can conclude that they believe in worthy causes or they can conclude that they were pressured into complying. This will have different outcomes for the target request.

Labeling

Labeling can help the self-attribution process in FITD. For example, a participant could be asked to fill in a fake personality test, and then be told that the result is that they are helpful people (a label). They are then more likely to comply with the target request. Even though it has not been tested thoroughly, it is reasonable to suggest that labels attributing the behavior to external causes (rather than the helpfulness of the participant) would lead to a decrease in compliance.

Extrinsic rewards

When a participant receives an extrinsic reward for agreeing to the initial request, this undermines any personal attributions for agreeing to the request. That leads to a decreased compliance to the target request, because participants attribute their behavior to the reward rather than to their helpful nature.

Commitment

Once committed to a decision, individuals often become resistant to altering their movement toward the goal or action to which they are committed. In FITD, under certain conditions participants feel committed to helping the requester and his or her cause. This is most likely to occur when the same person presents both requests, without interruption, and the second request is similar to the initial request. In other words, the target request appears to be a continuation of the same task the participant has already agreed to.

Commitment versus reactance

This ideal situation for commitment seems to clash with the fact that two requests without time in between by the same requester may cause reactance, decreasing compliance. It seems some participants feel their commitment to the requester is complete after the initial task, so if the requester then poses a second unrelated task, reactance occurs. But if the second task seems like a continuation of the first, it appears the participants’ sense of commitment is extended to the second request.

Discussion

Whether the FITD procedure increases participants’ compliance to the target request is a function of the combined effects from each of the processes discussed in this article. Depending on the specific procedures used to create an FITD manipulation, the technique can either increase, decrease, or have no effect on compliance rates. When successfully implemented, the FITD technique can be an effective procedure for increasing compliance. Knowing the different processes involved in FITD makes it possible to identify conditions under which certain outcomes are most likely to occur.

Practical implications

Anyone wanting to increase compliance with the FITD technique is most likely to do so when they

1. Allow individuals to perform the initial request
2. Overtly label the person as helpful or as a supporter of these kinds of causes
3. Require more than a minimal amount of effort to perform the initial request
4. Make the target request essentially a continuation of the initial request

A decrease in compliance is most likely when researchers

1. Inform individuals that few people agree to the initial request
2. Use the same person to deliver a second request for a different behavior immediately after the first request
3. Pay individuals for performing the initial request

Bullet points

• The FITD theory states that people who first agree with a small request are much more likely to agree to a larger request at a later time.
• There are six psychological processes that the authors of this review assume have an effect on FITD: Self-Perception (enhances effect), reciprocity rules and reactance (reduces effect), conformity to norm (reduces or enhances effect), consistency needs (enhances effect), attributions (reduces or enhances effect) and commitment (enhances effect).
• Self-perception theory states that people sometimes infer their attitudes by examining their own behavior. Behavior, whether appropriate or inappropriate, by the requester can trigger a reaction in the participant that may influence their compliance with the target request (reciprocity or reactance). The decision to comply with the target request can be influenced by perceived norms. Theories of consistency needs state that people have a need to view their behaviors and attitudes as consistent and to appear consistent to others. People sometimes ask themselves why they engage in a given behavior (what they attribute the behavior to). The answer to this question, accurate or not, influences how the person responds in subsequent similar situations. Once committed to a decision, individuals often become resistant to altering their movement toward the goal or action to which they are committed.
• Anyone wanting to increase compliance with the FITD technique is most likely to do so when they (1) allow individuals to perform the initial request, (2) overtly label the person as helpful or as a supporter of these kinds of causes, (3) require more than a minimal amount of effort to perform the initial request, or (4) make the target request essentially a continuation of the initial request.
• A decrease in compliance is most likely when researchers (1) inform individuals that few people agree to the initial request, (2) use the same person to deliver a second request for a different behavior immediately after the first request, or (3) pay individuals for performing the initial request.

Tentamentickets

Exam

The exam consists of multiple choice questions.

Study

First, it is important to know what the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique entails. Also make sure you know which six processes contribute to the technique, whether these processes increase or decrease the effect of FITD, and how. Finally, it is important to be able to explain the practical implications of knowing these processes.