Conformity And Social Influence
Studies of social influence are most known for their demonstration and explanation of dramatic psychological phenomena that often occur in direct response to overt social forces (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). Some of the most memorable and influential studies in the field of psychology depict individuals near hysteria at the sight of an individual in a lab coat as shown by Milgrams (1974) work on obedience and authority (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). This is also depicted in Asch’s (1956) line-judgement conformity experiments where individuals were observed to see if they would pit their own knowledge of correct response against other’s incorrect responses (Cialdini and Goldsteien, 2004). In both of these classics illustrations, the targets
…show more content…
More specifically, compliance and conformity. According to Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), conformity refers to a particular kind of response to a particular kind of communicaton; a request. On the other hand, conformity refers to the act of changing one’s behaviors to match the responses of others (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), emphasize accuracy, affiliation, and the maintenance of positive self-concept as three core motivators that influence individuals in different situation. For simplicity and clarity, Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), associate each social influence – related phenomena with the goal that appeared to be the principle driving force underlying the occurrence of the phenomenon. While Cialdini and Goldstein do this for their research purposes, it should be noted that individual’s behaviors often serve multiple …show more content…
In this technique the agent presents the target individual with an initial request which is almost immediately followed by sweeting of the deal. This is done by either reducing the cost or by increasing the benefits of compliance before the recipient has an opportunity to respond (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). Obligation to reciprocate the solicitor’s generosity have been shown to be partially responsible is these situations. However, Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), introduce a study by Burger (1999) that show a broader and more advanced explanation for the phenomenon. This explanation is largely based on the contrast between two requests and shifting anchor points (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). Initial request modifies the anchor point that individuals use when deciding how to respond to more attractive request, there for by evaluating the customer anchor point, the salesperson increases the likelihood the better deal will fall into an acceptable range based on this higher anchor point (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). In a study by Pollock et al. (1998), an alternative account for the that’s-not-all technique was given (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). This study contends that the reason salesmen succeed is because potential customers mindlessly act on counterfactuals that create the appearance of a great deal (Cialdini and Goldstein,
More specifically, compliance and conformity. According to Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), conformity refers to a particular kind of response to a particular kind of communicaton; a request. On the other hand, conformity refers to the act of changing one’s behaviors to match the responses of others (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), emphasize accuracy, affiliation, and the maintenance of positive self-concept as three core motivators that influence individuals in different situation. For simplicity and clarity, Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), associate each social influence – related phenomena with the goal that appeared to be the principle driving force underlying the occurrence of the phenomenon. While Cialdini and Goldstein do this for their research purposes, it should be noted that individual’s behaviors often serve multiple …show more content…
In this technique the agent presents the target individual with an initial request which is almost immediately followed by sweeting of the deal. This is done by either reducing the cost or by increasing the benefits of compliance before the recipient has an opportunity to respond (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). Obligation to reciprocate the solicitor’s generosity have been shown to be partially responsible is these situations. However, Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), introduce a study by Burger (1999) that show a broader and more advanced explanation for the phenomenon. This explanation is largely based on the contrast between two requests and shifting anchor points (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). Initial request modifies the anchor point that individuals use when deciding how to respond to more attractive request, there for by evaluating the customer anchor point, the salesperson increases the likelihood the better deal will fall into an acceptable range based on this higher anchor point (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). In a study by Pollock et al. (1998), an alternative account for the that’s-not-all technique was given (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). This study contends that the reason salesmen succeed is because potential customers mindlessly act on counterfactuals that create the appearance of a great deal (Cialdini and Goldstein,