Discussion 2: Explicit forms of social influence

People may conform or maintain their independence from others, they may comply with direct requests or react with assertiveness, or they may obey the commands of authority or oppose power- ful others in an act of defiance. In this chapter, we examine the factors that lead human beings to yield to or resist social influence.

Social Influence as “Automatic”

Before we consider the explicit forms of social influence depicted in d Figure 7.1, whereby individuals choose whether or not to “go along,” it’s important to note that as social animals humans are vulnerable to a host of subtle, almost reflex-like influences. Without realizing it, we often crack open an involuntary yawn when we see others yawning, laugh aloud when we hear others laughing, and grimace when we see others in pain. In an early demonstration, Stanley Milgram and others (1969) had research confederates stop on a busy street in New York City, look up, and gawk at the sixth-floor window of a nearby building. Films shot from behind the window indicated that about 80% of passersby stopped and gazed up when they saw the confederates.

Rudimentary forms of automatic imitation have been observed in various animal species, such as pigeons, monkeys, hamsters, and fish (Heyes, 2011; Zentall, 2012). There is even evidence to suggest that “cultures” are transmitted through imitation in groups of whales, as when humpback whales off the coast of Maine use lobtail feeding, a technique in which they slam their tail flukes onto the water, then dive and exhale, forming clouds of bubbles that envelop schools of prey fish to be gulped. This complex behavior was first observed in 1980. By 1989 it was measur- ably adopted by 50% of the whale population in that area (Rendell & Whitehead, 2001). Even more recently, researchers using a “network-based diffusion analysis” found that up to 87% of whales that adopted this technique learned it by exposure from other humpbacks (Allen et al., 2013). Similar observations in other species have led animal scientists to suggest that many nonhuman animals form and trans- mit cultures in this manner to succeeding generations (Laland & Galef, 2009).

ORDER CUSTOM, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Do humans similarly imitate one another automatically, without thought, effort, or conflict? It appears that we do. Controlled studies of human infants have shown that some time shortly after birth, babies not only look at faces but (to the delight of parents all over the world) often they mimic simple gestures such as moving the head, pursing the lips, and sticking out the tongue (Meltzoff & Moore, 1977; Ray & Heyes, 2010). Studying 162 infants from 6 to 20 months old, Susan Jones (2007) found that imitation developed at different rates for different behaviors. Using parents as models, she found, for example, that infants mimicked opening the mouth wide, tapping their fingers on a table, and waving bye-bye before they Discussion 2: Explicit forms of social influence

mimicked clapping hands, flexing their fingers, or putting their hands on the head.

You may not realize it, but we humans unwittingly mimic each other all the time. You might not know you’re doing it, but when you are in a conversation with someone, chances are you are subtly mirroring them as you speak: nodding when they do, sitting back, leaning forward, scratching your face, or crossing your legs. To demonstrate, Tanya Chartrand and John Bargh (1999) set up participants to work on a task with a partner, a confederate who exhib- ited the habit of rubbing his face or shaking his foot. Hidden cameras recording the interaction revealed that without realizing it, participants mimicked these motor behaviors, rubbing their face or shaking a foot to match their partner’s behavior. Chartrand and Bargh dubbed this phenomenon the “chameleon effect,” after the reptile that changes colors according to its physical environment (see d Figure 7.2).

There are two possible reasons for this nonconscious form of imitation. Char- trand and Bargh theorized that such mimicry serves an important social function, that being “in sync” in terms of their pace, posture, mannerisms, facial expressions, tone of voice, accents, speech patterns, and other behaviors enables people to in- teract more smoothly with one another. Accordingly, Chartrand and Bargh (1999) turned the tables in a second study in which they instructed their confederate to match in subtle ways the mannerisms of some par- ticipants but not others. Sure enough, participants who had been mimicked liked the confederate more than those who had not.

Two additional sets of findings further demonstrate the social benefits of mimicry. First, research shows that people mimic others more when they are highly motivated to affiliate—say, because they are similar to these others or are feeling excluded—than when they are not (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013; Chartrand & van Baaren, 2009; Lakin et al., 2008). Second, research shows that when participants interact with others who exhibit negative, antisocial behaviors— say, in their tone of voice—mimicry backfires and causes the par- ticipants to be perceived unfavorably (Smith-Genthôs et al., 2015).Discussion 2: Explicit forms of social influence

Social mimicry is so powerful that it can influence us even when the mimicker is not a real person. In a study entitled “digi- tal chameleons,” Jeremy Bailenson and Nick Yee (2005) immersed college students, one at a time, in a virtual reality environment in which they found themselves seated at a table across from an avatar, a human-like person that looked something like a three- dimensional cartoon character. This avatar proceeded to argue that students should be required to carry identification cards at all times for security purposes. In half the sessions, his back-and- forth head movements perfectly mimicked the participant’s head movements at a four-second delay. In the other half, he repeated the head movements of an earlier recorded participant. Very few of the students who were mimicked were aware of it. Yet when later asked about the experience, they rated the avatar as more likable and were persuaded by its speech more if it imitated their head movements than the previous participant. The human impulse to mimic others may have adaptive social value, but these types of effects can also be found in nonsocial situations. In one study, Roland Neumann and Fritz Strack (2000) had people listen to an abstract philosophical speech that was recited on tape in a happy, sad, or neutral voice. Afterward, participants rated their own mood as more positive when they heard the happy voice and as more negative when they heard the sad voice. Even though the speakers and participants never interacted, the speaker’s emotional state was infectious, an auto- matic effect that can be described as a form of “mood contagion.” The same can be true about the way we mimic the language we hear in other people’s expres- sions and speech styles. To illustrate, Molly Ireland and James Pennebaker (2010) found that college students answering essay questions or working from excerpts of fictional writing tended in subtle ways to match the language style of the target material to which they were exposed—for example, in terms of their use of personal pronouns (such as I, you), conjunctions (such as but, while), and quantifiers (such as many, few).

It is also important to realize that mimicry is a dynamic process, as when two people who are walking together or dancing become more and more coordinated over time. To demonstrate, Michael Richardson and others (2005) sat pairs of college students side by side to work on visual problems while swinging a hand- held pendulum as “a distraction task.” The students did not need to be synchro- nized in their swinging tempo to get along or solve the problems. Yet when each could see the other’s pendulum, even without speaking, their tempos gradually converged over time—like two hearts beating as one.

Conformity

It is hard to find behaviors that are not in some way affected by exposure to the actions of others. When social psychologists talk of conformity, they specifically refer to the tendency of people to change their perceptions, opinions, and behavior in ways that are consistent with group norms.

Using this definition, would you call yourself a conformist or a nonconform- ist? How often do you feel inclined to follow what others are saying or doing? At first, you may deny the tendency to conform and, instead, declare your individuality and uniqueness. But think about it. When was the last time you attended a formal wedding dressed in blue jeans or remained seated during the national anthem at a sports event? When was the last time you tweeted an unpopular con- trarian position for others to see? People find it difficult to breach social norms. In an early demonstration of this point, research assistants were recruited to ask subway passengers to give up their seats—a conspicuous violation of the norm of acceptable conduct. Many of the assistants could not carry out their assignment. In fact, some of those who tried it became so anxious that they pretended to be ill just to make their request appear justified (Milgram & Sabini, 1978). Discussion 2: Explicit forms of social influence

With conformity being so widespread and seemingly so natural to human nature, it is interesting and ironic that research participants in North America who are coaxed into following a group norm will often not admit to being influenced. Instead, they try to reinterpret the task and rationalize their behavior as a way to see themselves in as independent (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004). But there is a second reason why people do not see themselves as conformist. In a series of studies, Emily Pronin and others (2007) found that people perceive others to be more conforming than themselves in all sorts of domains—from why they bought an iPad to why they hold a popular opinion. Part of the reason for this asymmetry is that people judge others by their overt behavior and the degree to which it matches what others do, but they tend to judge themselves by focusing inward and introspecting about their thought processes, which blinds them to their own conformity.

People understandably have mixed feelings about conformity. On the one hand, some degree of it is essential if individuals are to maintain communities and coexist peacefully, as when people assume their rightful place in a waiting line. Yet at other times, conformity can have harmful consequences, as when people drink too heavily at parties, cheat on taxes, or tell offensive jokes because they believe others are doing the same. For the social psychologist, the goal is to understand the conditions that promote conformity or independence and the rea- sons for these behaviors.