Social Thinking and Social Influence
Social Thinking and Social Influence are the Social dynamics that shape how we think, act, and respond to others. This section explores conformity, the tendency to align with group norms, and obedience, examining the extent to which individuals comply with authority—even in ethically challenging situations.
By the end of this section, you should know about:
- Conformity—Don’t Stand Out
- Obedience—Would You Electrocute a Stranger?
- How does self-talk differ from violence?
Let’s take a closer look at them.
Test Your Knowledge
At the end of this section, take a fast and free pop quiz to see how much you know about Social Thinking and Social Influence.
Conformity—Don’t Stand Out
The alignment of actions with the norms, values, or practices of the group even without direct coercion. This process occurs frequently in everyday life and is important for social cohesion, as it helps to establish shared expectations and values.
Social Thinking and Social Influence: Lifestyle values
Groups enact norms—the unspoken rules that govern behavior—through various forms of consent or disapproval, known as group acceptance. Positive punishment, such as acceptance, compensates correspondingly, while negative punishment, such as ridicule or disapproval, prevents withdrawal. Constraints ensure predictability and enable effective communication in social settings, workplaces, and even on the highway.
Social Thinking and Social Influence: Ash test
Solomon Asch conducted one of the first congruency studies to examine the strength of the group effect. Unbeknownst to the actual participants, other group members (players) deliberately gave incorrect answers on some trials. Approximately 75% of participants reacted at least once, rejecting evidence of emotionality to associate with the group.
Key findings included:
Situational Sensitivity: People who are highly anxious, highly uncertain, or highly in need of approval tend to be compatible.
Cultural influences: Collectivist cultures that value group solidarity, like many people in Asia, present as more harmonious than individualistic cultures.
Large majority: Cohesion increases as group size increases from two to three members but plateaus beyond that point.
Consensus: Having one friend from the group with whom one disagrees greatly reduces the pressure to disagree.
Group theory
In some cases, congruence leads to groupthink, a phenomenon in which group members prefer consensus over rigid reasoning, often resulting in poor decision-making.
Social Thinking and Social Influence: The importance of team membership
The impact of group constraints depends on how individuals value their group membership. Groups that are more important to the individual can have stronger effects, as rejection by the group can threaten individual identity.
Consistency in practice
Social psychologists have shown that congruence is deeply embedded in human behavior. Whether bending to majority opinion in the ash test or manipulating social norms to accommodate them, congruence highlights the subtle but powerful role of social influence in shaping our behavior in the 19th century.
Social Thinking and Social Influence: Compliance: A foot in the door
Compliance refers to situations in which a person agrees to a request from someone with little or no authority. This can be passive and dynamic. For example, smoking can be tolerated in a smoke-free environment and passively controlled without resistance. Strict compliance, however, may require lending money or a phone to a stranger asking for help. The factors affecting compliance are many, but some stand out more than others.
The three main factors that facilitate compliance are familiarity, consistency, and reciprocity. We are more likely to comply with a request if it comes from someone we know, because the relationship gives us a sense of trust and responsibility. Moreover, people behave in ways that are consistent with past behavior. If a person has accepted a smaller request in the past, he or she is more likely to comply with a similar or slightly larger request later. Additionally, the principle of reciprocity plays an important role: If we have previously received a favor or gift, we are more likely to comply with a request to bestow that favor. Those psychological dispositions explain why certain compliance techniques such as the foot-the-door technique are so effective.
Obedience—Would You Electrocute a Stranger?
Social psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted ground-breaking research on obedience to authority, including investigating whether ordinary people would follow harmful orders from authority figures. His famous experiment asked participants to electrocute a man (an actor, of course) who was pretending to be in pain. The goal was to see how far people would go following the experimenter’s instructions when they believed they were hurting someone else.
Participants in the study were told that they were part of a learning experiment, where the “teacher” was to be punished for making a mistake by delivering a high-intensity electric shock. The shock wore on loud as the student screamed in pain, begged to be let go, and silence him at high intensity. Despite the student’s distress, 65% of the participants continued to use shocks up to a maximum of 450 volts. This result surprised Milgram, who expected very few to comply. Participants showed signs of discomfort such as sweating and nervousness, but most complied with the experimenter’s commands.
Social Thinking and Social Influence: Why did so many people obey?
Several factors contributed to increased obedience in Milgram’s study. One factor was the perceived ability of the experimenter, who was considered a professor at a prestigious institution such as Yale. The setting itself was also important; When the experiment was set in a less prestigious setting, fewer participants paid attention, albeit to a smaller extent. Milgram also found that the physical distance between the participant and the learner affected obedience. Obedience decreased when participants were in the same room as the instructor and fell even further when they had to be physically startled. The distance between the authorities also played a role; With telephone commands, obedience decreased.
Milgram’s study raised important ethical issues and highlighted the dangers of blind obedience. He argued that people can, under the influence of adults, do harmful things that could otherwise be avoided. This concept has been associated with atrocities throughout history, where individuals said they were “just following orders”, as in war crimes and atrocities in countries such as Rwanda and Cambodia.
Social Thinking and Social Influence: Modern explanation
Milgram’s findings are still relevant today. Psychologist Jerry Berger took a version of the Milgram experiment in 2009 and got similar results, showing how obedience prolongs authority. While obedience is important in many situations (such as following workplace rules or guidelines), Milgram’s study warns of the dangers of excessive obedience when it results in harmful or inappropriate behavior but Milgram also recognized that social support can reduce obedience. When participants resisted the authority of others, few complied with the injunction to harm. This highlights the power of social influence and the ability of individuals to resist unjust authority if they have moral courage.
Conclusion Milgram’s work illustrates the powerful influence that authority can have on individuals, sometimes causing them to act against their moral compass. It emphasizes the importance of questioning authority in individual situations and in society at large, and confronting the demands of immorality.
Is brainwashing really possible and how are people converted to cult membership?
In this section, we examine the extreme end of social influence: coercion, which involves changing a person’s beliefs or behavior against their will. The concept of “brainwashing” often comes to mind when thinking of forced behavior change, especially in cases such as political prison camps or the recruitment of service personnel Notably, term became popular during the Korean War, where Communist China’s military used “mental discipline” techniques to extract it false confessions from prisoners
Brainwashing: Forced labor in captivity
Brainwashing differs from conventional methods of persuasion in that it requires a captive audience. Advertising or politics may try to influence your beliefs, but you have the power to ignore them. In contrast, brainwashing occurs when the repressed person has no choice but to listen and follow through, because they are either physically or psychologically isolated
Brainwashing usually begins when the target person feels completely helpless. Physical and psychological abuse, sleep deprivation, humiliation, and isolation are used to “defrost” one’s past beliefs. Once exhausted and exhausted, that person may give up their core values in favor of comforts such as food, rest, or privileges. However, the changes are often temporary. Many brainwashed prisoners of the Korean War were eventually released and returned to their original beliefs.
Religion: A model of coercion and manipulations
One of the most notorious examples of brainwashing and oppression in recent history was the Jonestown mass suicide in 1978. More than 900 members of the People’s Temple, led by Jim Jones, drank poisoned Kool-Aid at his command even though these many deaths are horrific. This in consideration of the psychological strategies used by Jones Is not fully understood. His followers were isolated in the jungles of Guyana, cut off from outside influences and ruled by fear and change. Jones used sedatives to dull their emotions and created a strong, domineering environment where his obedience was paramount. This ideological shift made it easier to impose extreme behavior on his followers.
Why do people join religions?
Like Janamandir, religions are authoritarian movements where the personality of the leader is more important than the beliefs or ideology they propagate. Religious people tend to believe that their leaders are infallible and follow their orders without question. Religious leaders exploit individuals in many ways—requiring absolute loyalty, obedience, often material sacrifices such as money, possessions, and even personal relationships.
Psychologist Margaret Singer, a noted brainwashing expert, has studied how churches recruit members and how they use guilt, manipulation, isolation, and fear to bring people in. Weaknesses and alienation from family and friends dominates them, giving them a sense of ownership and purpose that seems to be the answer to their problems.
Recruitment approach: Isolation and commitment
Services generally use a gradual approach to converting new members, starting with small commitments and progressing to larger ones. Recruits may be asked in advance to stay after the meeting or attend another meeting. Commitments build up over time, and eventually the client may leave the property, cut ties with family and friends, and move in with the team. The walk-in-the-door approach, where people are asked to make small promises before asking for big ones, contributes to ideological friction. As a result, recruits become more involved with the team, which makes it harder for them to admit that they have made a mistake.
Once in the group, they are isolated from the outside world and their former social groups. The religion dominates the flow of information, making it difficult for its members to question their beliefs or consider new ideas. The transformation is complete when members begin to participate more in the group than in themselves as individuals, and their obedience is almost total.
Why do people stay in different religions?
Despite seeing the team get hurt, many service members find it difficult to leave. Fear, guilt, and in-group emotions often prevent members from attending, even when they want to. Many former service members come from within the group and experience post-traumatic stress-like symptoms, including anxiety and panic attacks.
Significance: The dangers of religions and blind obedience
The tragedies of Jonestown, Waco, and other religious-related events highlight the dangers of abandoning individual freedom and conservatism for safety. Like any other form of oppression, religions carry human frailty and psychological manipulation used to control them. It is important to recognize that true spiritual leaders emphasize love, compassion and self-awareness, encouraging followers to question their faith and make independent decisions. In contrast, destructive religions rob individuals of their freedom and critical thinking, and ultimately make them act in ways they will not otherwise. Ultimately, the study of brainwashing and religions highlights the power of coercive social influence and serves as a reminder to remain vigilant against any manipulations that attempt to control your beliefs.
How does self-talk differ from violence?
Attachment and aggression are two ways people express their emotions, but they differ greatly in their behavior and effects on others. Let us examine these ideas in more detail.
Self-representation
In self-advocacy, one can stand up for one’s rights by being direct and honest. It is the ability to express one’s feelings, desires, and needs without violating the rights of others. For example, if you feel you have been treated unfairly by a service, advocacy involves calmly and respectfully stating your position and asking for what is needed to address the problem Attitude of advocacy your self is based on self-esteem, confidence, and open communication. It allows one to support oneself while maintaining good relationships with others.
What is violence?
In contrast, violence often involves hostile, aggressive, or harmful behavior to achieve its goals at the expense of others. He ignores the rights, feelings, and needs of others in an attempt to control or control the situation. Aggressive behavior can manifest verbally (e.g., yelling or insulting) or physically (e.g., threatening or hitting). Aggression seeks to harm or humiliate others in an attempt to assert dominance or achieve personal goals, often resulting in damaged relationships.
The basic difference between self-talk and violence
The main difference between self-talk and aggression lies in the motivation and consequences. The desire for self-esteem and effective communication is self-motivated, whereas it is motivated by the desire to dominate or harm others to get what one wants.
Assertiveness training
Assertiveness training is a technique that helps individuals learn to assert themselves without being aggressive. This includes the right to refuse, request, and have your mistake rectified. Through role-playing and other exercises, people learn to express their feelings, disagree, and stand up for their rights in different situations. Over time, individualized training helps to relearn responses to situations where a show of surrender may be required, such as asking for a raise, a one-on-one situation some injustice, or resolve conflict They can respond with confidence in difficult situations
Effective ways of touching them
One useful technique taught in assertiveness training is the “broken record” technique. This requires gentleness and continued repetition of the request until it is accepted. The purpose of this method is to communicate your needs without being aggressive. For example, if you return a worn shoe to the store without a receipt, you will calmly ask for a replacement despite the clerk pushing back. This strategy helps you maintain a firm approach however not by argument.
Responding to verbal aggression
Responding assertively to verbal aggression or “put-downs” can be challenging, as the natural response may be to respond aggressively. There are four steps to good planning: (1) admit that you are wrong, (2) acknowledge the person’s feelings, (3) assert yourself about the other person’s aggression, and (4) end the conversation early e.g. Say, “I’m sorry I hit you. I didn’t do it on purpose. Otherwise, I can feel for you.” This response confirms your authority without making the situation worse.
Conclusion: The need to talk about him
In summary, self-talk does not immediately inspire peace, confidence, or self-belief. But there is a way to deal with the anxiety associated with living in an impersonal and sometimes dangerous society. It promotes fair and respectful communication and ensures that individuals can stand up for their rights without infringing on the rights of others. Forecasting is a valuable skill for balancing relationships and effectively handling difficult life situations.