Social Influence Compliance and Conformity
Social Influence Compliance and Conformity
Social Influence Compliance and Conformity
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591
COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592
Goal of Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592
Goal of Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598
Goal of Maintaining a Positive Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602
CONFORMITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606
Goal of Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606
Goal of Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609
Goal of Maintaining a Positive Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
INTRODUCTION
The study of social influence is renowned for its demonstration and explication
of dramatic psychological phenomena that often occur in direct response to overt
social forces. Some of the most memorable images from the field’s history de-
pict participants struggling to comprehend their circumstances and to respond in
accordance with their private judgments in the face of external pressures to do oth-
erwise. These images include a middle-aged gentleman nearly brought to hysterics
by a stranger in a lab coat, as exhibited in Milgram’s (1974) work on obedience
to authority. They also include that bespectacled and rather befuddled young man
0066-4308/04/0204-0591$14.00 591
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
COMPLIANCE
Goal of Accuracy
Stated simply, people are motivated to achieve their goals in the most effective
and rewarding manner possible. A person’s desire to respond appropriately to a
dynamic social situation demands an accurate perception of reality. The need to
correctly interpret and react to incoming information is of paramount importance,
particularly to targets of compliance-gaining attempts. One inaccurate perception,
cognition, or behavior could mean the difference between getting a bargain and
being duped. A great deal of recent compliance research has investigated how tar-
gets of various influence techniques process information and respond to requests as
they attempt to gain an accurate construal of the situation and respond accordingly.
AFFECT AND AROUSAL Much of the compliance research on arousal and affective
states has focused on the effect of discrete emotions on targets’ cognitions as well
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
as on the eventual outcome of the influence attempt. After receiving a request, tar-
gets use their feelings as cues for effective responding. For example, Whatley et al.
(1999) differentiated between the emotions and related goals associated with public
and private compliance in response to a favor. They posited that individuals avoid or
alleviate feelings of shame and fear via public compliance, and guilt and pity via pri-
vate compliance. Several other researchers have also focused on the impact of tar-
gets’ actual or anticipated guilt on compliance (e.g., Boster et al. 1999; O’Keefe &
Figgé 1997, 1999; Rind 1997; Tusing & Dillard 2000). In addition, investigators
have explored the influence of mere arousal, finding that the simple arousal elicited
by performing an interesting task enhances the likelihood of compliance with a
request (Rind 1997, Rind & Strohmetz 2001).
Searching for a broader perspective on the role of affect in compliance sce-
narios, Forgas (1998a) argued that the conditions under which affect mediates
the processing of and responses to requests can be explained by the affect in-
fusion model (AIM; Forgas 1995). The AIM contends that a target’s mood will
permeate the processing of a request to the extent that the processing is effort-
ful and exhaustive (Forgas 1995, 1998a). That is, an individual’s affective state
is likely to be integrated into the processing of the request in situations that call
for constructive elaboration of “the available stimulus information, require the
activation and use of previous knowledge structures, and result in the creation
of new knowledge from the combination of stored information and new stim-
ulus details” (Forgas 2001, p. 152). Forgas (1998a) suggested that the process-
ing of a request will be more sensitive to mood if the appeal is unconventional
(requiring more substantive processing), and rather impervious to mood if it is
conventional. Combined with other findings demonstrating the role of the AIM
in influencing the communication and bargaining strategies employed by com-
pliance requesters (Forgas 1999) and negotiators (Forgas 1998b), the evidence
as a whole appears to validate the notion that mood effects in compliance sce-
narios are mediated by both the targets’ and requesters’ levels of information
processing.
The AIM, like many other theories of affect and cognition, focuses on processes
that occur while an individual is experiencing a transient emotion or set of emo-
tions. Dolinski & Nawrat (1998) established the success of a technique designed
to increase compliance immediately after a particularly arousing mood has sub-
sided. In one demonstration of their fear-then-relief procedure, a card matching
the general appearance of a parking ticket was placed either under a windshield
wiper (commonly where parking tickets are found) or on a door of illegally parked
cars in Poland. The cards placed on the door were advertisements (No Anxiety),
whereas the windshield wiper cards were either fake parking tickets (Anxiety)
or advertisements (Anxiety-then-Relief ). Drivers who experienced apprehension
followed by assuagement were more likely to comply with a request than those
who continued to be anxious or those never made anxious in the first place. The
authors suggested that fear-then-relief participants behaved in a relatively mind-
less manner, caused by a diversion of resources to cognitions and counterfactuals
regarding the fear-provoking event.
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
RESISTANCE Following the work of Pollock et al. (1998), some researchers have
placed the that’s-not-all tactic among a class of influence strategies referred to as
disrupt-then-reframe techniques (DTR; Davis & Knowles 1999, Knowles & Linn
2003). The DTR technique operates by disrupting an individual’s understanding
of and resistance to an influence attempt and reframing the persuasive message or
request so that the individual is left more vulnerable to the proposition (Davis &
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
Several studies have examined the use of authority and power within orga-
nizational settings. For example, supervisors’ usage of primarily soft strategies
has been found to correlate positively with subordinates’ job satisfaction ratings,
whereas there are indications that the reverse may be true when predominantly
harsh tactics are employed (Koslowsky et al. 2001, Raven et al. 1998). Authori-
ties who demonstrate consideration for their subordinates’ needs—as opposed to
those who exploit power differences—are also likely to engender a more favor-
able compliance rate (Schwarzwald et al. 2001). Moreover, because the level of
volition associated with compliance is a function of the quality of the treatment
subordinates receive (Tyler 1997), authorities stand to benefit greatly by treating
subordinates with fairness and respect. However, it should be noted that the suc-
cess of an authority’s use of nonforceful measures may actually be augmented by
the additional use of forceful means, so long as the attitudinal compliance brought
about by the nonforceful influence attempt is not undermined (Emans et al. 2003).
In support of this notion, Emans et al. (2003) showed that supervisors whose
compliance-gaining repertoires included the use of both forceful and nonforceful
techniques were most likely to elicit compliance with their requests.
Most organizations would cease to operate efficiently if deference to authority
were not one of the prevailing norms. Yet, the norm is so well entrenched in
organizational cultures that orders are regularly carried out by subordinates with
little regard for potential deleterious ethical consequences of such acts (Ashford &
Anand 2003, Brief et al. 2001, Darley 2001). Personnel managers, for instance,
may discriminate based on race when instructed to do so by an authority figure
(Brief et al. 1995), particularly those who are high in Right-Wing Authoritarianism
(Petersen & Dietz 2000).
One illustration of destructive organizational obedience frequently cited by so-
cial psychologists is the systematic murder of millions of innocent people during
the Holocaust. Over the years, it has been common practice for researchers, teach-
ers, and textbook authors to refer to Stanley Milgram’s (1974) groundbreaking
work on obedience to authority as demonstrative of the principles and processes
underlying the behaviors of seemingly ordinary German citizens (Miller 1995). A
number of scholars have argued that such portrayals misrepresent the true nature
of perpetrator behaviors in the Holocaust. They point to numerous differences
between the obedience demonstrated in the Milgram experiments and the wan-
ton and deliberate cruelty practiced by many concentration camp executioners.
For example, whereas it is clear that Milgram’s participants were emotionally and
attitudinally in opposition to the orders they were given, many of the Holocaust
atrocities were committed willingly and often quite sadistically (Berkowitz 1999,
Goldhagen 1996). Others have stressed that, unlike Nazi order-givers, the ex-
perimenter in the Milgram studies possessed not only legitimate authority, but
expert authority as well (Blass 1999, Darley 1995, Lutsky 1995; but see Elms
1995). Although the movement to redress this growing concern is gaining consid-
erable momentum, Milgram’s experiments in particular (e.g., Miller 1995), and
social psychology in general (see Darley et al. 2001, Newman & Erber 2002), still
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
immediately following message reception, but in the future as well. Cialdini and
associates (R.B. Cialdini, D.W. Barrett, R. Bator, L. Demaine, B.J. Sagarin, K.L.v.
Rhoads, & P.L. Winter, paper in preparation) maintain that the long-term efficacy
of persuasive communications such as public service announcements is threatened
because normative information becomes less accessible over time. They hypothe-
sized and experimentally confirmed that linking an injunctive normative message
to a functional mnemonic cue would increase norm accessibility later by activation
of the norm upon perception of the same or a similar cue.
Goal of Affiliation
Humans are fundamentally motivated to create and maintain meaningful social
relationships with others. For example, implicit in the concept of injunctive norms
is the idea that if we engage in behaviors of which others approve, others will
approve of us, too. Accordingly, we use approval and liking cues to help build,
maintain, and measure the intimacy of our relationships with others. We also
move closer to achieving these affiliation-oriented goals when we abide by norms
of social exchange with others, such as the norm of reciprocity.
LIKING One of the clearest implications of our desire to affiliate with others is
that the more we like and approve of them, the more likely we are to take actions
to cultivate close relationships with them. This may be accomplished via a number
of means, including responding affirmatively to requests for help. Indeed, the
social influence literature is rife with demonstrations of the positive relationship
between our fondness for a person and the likelihood of compliance with his or her
request (Cialdini & Trost 1998). For example, physical attractiveness, a predictor
of interpersonal liking, has been demonstrated to influence responding in a number
of domains, ranging from tip earnings (Lynn & Simons 2000) to the likelihood of
being asked for identification in bars (McCall 1997).
Researchers have focused recently on the extent to which heuristics—which
generally provide accurate shortcuts for effective decision-making—lead individ-
uals to respond to strangers in ways that belie the absence of a truly meaningful
relationship between them. Because we so often rely on the heuristic rule that the
more we like someone with whom we have an existing relationship, the greater
should be our willingness to comply with the request, we tend to use the rule
automatically and unwittingly when the request comes from strangers, as well
(Burger et al. 2001). This is even more likely the case under the burdens of a
heavy cognitive load, such as when the request is made face-to-face and is un-
expected. Burger et al. (2001) found that simply being exposed to a person even
for a brief period without any interaction substantially increased compliance with
that person’s request. In addition, greater perceived similarity—another cue for
potential friend- or acquaintanceship—has been demonstrated to lead to enhanced
compliance, even when the apparent similarities are based on superficial matches
such as shared names, birthdays, and even fingerprint types (Burger et al. 2001,
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
authenticity also refers to the target’s beliefs regarding the requester’s motives.
That is, individuals in a DITF scenario will be less likely to fall victim to the
technique when they have reason to suspect that the requester is employing a sales
device (Mowen & Cialdini 1980). Some authors (O’Keefe & Figgé 1997, Tusing &
Dillard 2000) have argued that the reciprocal concessions explanation does not
speak to findings that the DITF strategy tends to be more effective when the re-
quests are prosocial in nature (Dillard et al. 1984; O’Keefe & Hale 1998, 2001).
However, the foregoing analysis suggests that targets will be more likely to question
the influence agent’s motives, to perceive the apparent concession as illegitimate,
and consequently, to refuse to comply when the request involves noncharitable
causes. These assertions are consistent with the reciprocal concessions approach to
the DITF.
Several investigators have also claimed that the originally proposed model is not
supported because it is silent with respect to the effect of delay between requests
(Dillard et al. 1984, Dolinski et al. 2001). Yet, the reciprocal concessions expla-
nation does indeed predict that a greater time lapse between requests will lead to a
less successful outcome, a finding reported in meta-analyses (see O’Keefe & Hale
1998, 2001). Longer delays may reduce the perception that the second request is
a genuine concession, either by increasing the likelihood that the target will infer
an ulterior motive on the part of the requester, or by making the smaller request
seem more like a separate request rather than a concession (see Mowen & Cialdini
1980). Furthermore, contrary to the assertions of Dolinski et al. (2001), there is
some evidence that the obligation individuals feel stemming from the norm of reci-
procity does in fact diminish over time, at least for small favors between strangers
(e.g., Burger et al. 1997). Thus, targets should feel less compelled to reciprocate a
concession—even when made in earnest—with a concession of their own as the
time between the two requests grows longer.
O’Keefe & Figgé (1997, 1999; see also Tusing & Dillard 2000) proposed an
alternative account for the DITF effect based on guilt. They contend that targets feel
guilty after rejecting the initial request, and seek to mollify this negative affect by
agreeing to fulfill the subsequent request. Millar (2002) demonstrated the potential
power of guilt in DITF exchanges by manipulating the degree to which guilty
feelings were induced by the rejection of the larger request and reduced by the
acceptance of the smaller request. The author found superior compliance rates in
the condition characterized by high guilt induction and high guilt reduction. Yet,
if individuals are primarily motivated to live up to the standards made salient to
them once they have refused the initial appeal and to reduce feelings of guilt, one
would expect that compliance with the second request would be equally effective at
fulfilling these goals irrespective of the person making the second request (Dolinski
et al. 2001). However, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the DITF technique
ceases to be effective when a different person makes the second request (Cialdini
et al. 1975; O’Keefe & Hale 1998, 2001), a finding that substantially weakens the
social responsibility/guilt reduction explanation.
Dolinski et al. (2001) posited their own account of the DITF, suggesting that
mere dialogue involvement may be responsible for the technique’s success.
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
According to the dialogue involvement model, simply engaging in the initial ex-
change should promote a target’s willingness to comply with the influence agent’s
subsequent request. This explanation, however, is not supported by research re-
vealing that the strategy is no longer successful when the second request is the
same size as the first (e.g., Cialdini et al. 1975).
Taken as a whole, it appears that recently proposed explanations for the DITF
effect are not fully consistent with the available data. This is not to say that multiple
factors never operate in DITF exchanges, nor is it likely that the compulsion to re-
ciprocate a genuine concession is the driving force behind the strategy’s efficacy in
every case. Rather, it is probable that potential mediators such as self-presentation,
perceptual contrast, dialogue involvement, social responsibility, and guilt reduc-
tion may function at some level in DITF scenarios. However, the data provided by
the extant literature still appear to favor a reciprocal concessions-based account as
one of the leading mechanisms underlying observed DITF effects.
that it is easier to manipulate the self-views of those whose self-concepts are more
readily accessible (R.E. Guadagno & J.M. Burger, paper in preparation), Burger &
Guadagno (2003) predicted that only those with clearer self-concepts would suc-
cumb to FITD; the results generally supported the hypothesis and were congruent
with a self-perception account of FITD effects. Burger’s meta-analysis (1999) of
30 years of FITD investigations yielded a number of other findings consistent
with a self-perception explanation. Among them are that targets are more likely
to comply with the second request when the initial appeal is behaviorally fulfilled
(or at least attempted; see Dolinski 2000), and less likely to comply when the first
request is so large that nearly everyone refuses.
Gorassini & Olson (1995) have challenged the assertion that self-perception
processes could fully account for the efficacy of the FITD tactic. They noted that
because nearly all of the previous research on the topic failed to measure changes in
self-perception directly, valid conclusions regarding self-perception as a mediator
could not be drawn. In an experiment using private compliance as the dependent
variable—a measure more sensitive to mediation by self-perception processes than
public compliance—the researchers found that increases in participants’ percep-
tions of their own helpfulness following fulfillment of an initial request did not lead
to increased compliance with a second request. Employing somewhat more sen-
sitive and reliable measures of self-perception change, Burger & Caldwell (2003)
conducted a conceptually similar study, and found that participants’ compliance
rates were in fact mediated by one dimension of a self-rated helpfulness scale
administered immediately after the initial compliance. One possible explanation
for these discrepant outcomes is that situational variables within each set of exper-
iments may have motivated participants to be consistent with their own trait attri-
butions to different extents; individual differences may have played a role as well.
Cialdini et al. (1995) argued that dispositional tendencies toward consistent
responding might moderate the degree to which individuals behave in line with
predictions made by consistency theories; they developed the Preference for Con-
sistency (PFC) scale to measure such a construct. The researchers showed that only
those who scored high on the PFC scale complied in accordance with consistency-
based theories, including FITD. They concluded that individuals high in PFC are
more consistent than those low in PFC in that they are more likely to determine
their reactions to novel stimuli by relating the incoming information to already
established information, such as pre-existing attitudes, prior behaviors, and com-
mitments. Guadagno et al. (2001) found that focusing low-PFC participants on
their prior helpfulness actually reduced the likelihood of their compliance on the
subsequent request. The authors suggest that those low in PFC may have exhib-
ited the backfire effect because they have a greater desire to act inconsistently
with previous behaviors, specifically when those prior actions have been made
salient.
Together, these findings both bolster the notion of self-perception as a mediator
of the FITD effect and suggest its potential limitations (Guadagno et al. 2001). The
results of these studies indicate that simply engaging in self-perception processes
may not be sufficient to produce the FITD effect; rather, one must also have the
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
motivation to be consistent with this self-view (Cialdini et al. 1995, Gorassini &
Olson 1995, Guadagno et al. 2001).
Since the technique’s initial demonstration, the archetypical foot-in-the-door
study has involved observing an individual’s response to a truly desired request
after the person not only attempts, but also successfully completes, an initial task.
However, Dolinski (2000) demonstrated that the self-inference process could op-
erate to produce a significant FITD effect even in situations in which one’s earnest
attempt to fulfill a request fails. He concluded that the focus of our self-inferences
is on the processes associated with the compliance attempt itself, rather than on
the outcome of that attempt.
It is also noteworthy that Dolinski (2000) found that both those who succeeded
and those who failed to accomplish the initial favor tended to rate themselves as
more submissive, but not more altruistic, than controls when surveyed later. This
is inconsistent with the results of Gorassini & Olson (1995), in which an increase
in self-rated helpfulness, but no parallel increase in self-rated submissiveness, was
found in a strong FITD manipulation versus a control condition. Furthermore,
Burger & Caldwell (2003) found that enhanced compliance was related to the
Providing Support dimension of participants’ self-rated helpfulness scores, and
not those related to Volunteering or Feeling Compassion. Although the disparities
in self-rating scores across these three studies are less than comparable because
of their measurement as well as methodological differences, it nonetheless un-
derscores the fact that researchers have yet to uncover the exact nature of the
self-inferences that lead individuals to comply with a subsequent request. Future
consideration should be given to the investigation of the extent to which indi-
viduals are focusing on each of three domains—their general dispositions, their
actions, or their attitudes toward relevant issues (Burger & Caldwell 2003)—when
undergoing self-perception processes in compliance situations.
Of course, self-perception and consistency motives may not be the only pro-
cesses mediating FITD, nor may they even be the strongest (Burger & Caldwell
2003). Burger (1999) identified several other variables that had bearing on the size
and direction of FITD effects, such as conformity, attributions, and commitments.
In addition, certain factors may cause boomerang effects. For instance, resistance
is especially likely if the same person makes both requests with little or no delay in
between, presumably because the norm of reciprocity dictates that after the target
agrees to a request, it would be out of turn for the influence agent to make a new
one (Burger 1999, Chartrand et al. 1999). It is quite possible, for example, that
Gorassini & Olson (1995) found no increase in private compliance in the FITD
condition—despite an increase in self-rated helpfulness—because the same indi-
vidual (i.e., the experimenter) made both requests within a relatively short period
of time, thereby instigating norm-based resistance to compliance with the second
request.
determinant of the likelihood of request compliance (Cialdini & Trost 1998). For
example, Cioffi & Garner (1996) solicited volunteers for an AIDS awareness
project by asking participants to indicate their decisions on a form in either an
active or passive manner. Irrespective of their choice, participants who made an
active rather than a passive choice took a more extreme position toward their de-
cision (even weeks later) and were more likely to show up if they had agreed
to volunteer. In support of a self-perception analysis of active commitments, the
authors found that more effortful displays of one’s choice spurred individuals to
attribute their decisions to their traits, attitudes, and tendencies (as opposed to self-
presentational concerns) to a much greater extent than those who made passive
commitments.
Public commitments also tend to be more persistent than private commitments
(Cialdini & Trost 1998). Car salespeople regularly utilize strategies, such as the
low-ball technique, that take advantage of our motivation to act consistently with
our prior public commitments. An influence agent employing this tactic first of-
fers an acceptable deal to the target. Once a target’s commitment to the pro-
posal has been secured, the cost of carrying out the deal is substantially increased
(Cialdini et al. 1978). In the case of car sales, the technique is successful because
prospective buyers face their own commitments to the requester and perhaps to
themselves when deciding whether or not to accept the modified deal. The success
of the low-ball technique has been demonstrated among equal-status laypeople
in nonconsumer domains as well (e.g., Guégen et al. 2002). Burger & Cornelius
(2003) revealed that the public nature of the commitment is the keystone of the
low-ball technique’s efficacy. They found that relative to a control request, a low-
ball procedure eliciting a public commitment demonstrated enhanced compliance,
whereas compliance rates declined when the requester made no attempt to obtain
a public commitment before revealing the true cost of request fulfillment.
A core assumption regarding the success of consistency-based compliance tech-
niques is that targets act consistently with their self-views and prior commitments
in order to serve the ultimate motivation of maintaining or enhancing their self-
esteem. It stands to reason, then, that individuals whose cultures place less of
an emphasis on self-concept positivity and related maintenance and enhancement
goals (such as Japan; for a review, see Heine et al. 1999) may be less susceptible
to tactics that exploit these motivations. Furthermore, the importance and mean-
ing of self-consistency as a general notion varies considerably among different
cultures. For example, in cultures characterized by greater levels of interdepen-
dence, people are more likely to view their actions as being driven by their roles
and others’ expectations rather than by internal attributes (cf. Heine & Lehman
1997). In a demonstration of this principle, Cialdini et al. (1999) examined in two
cultures the degree to which compliance decisions are steered by the desire to
act in accordance with one’s prior responses to comparable requests. They found
that consistency needs had a greater influence on participants in an individualistic
country (the United States) than in a collectivistic country (Poland); it is notable,
however, that these differences were in large part due to participants’ personal
individualistic-collectivistic orientations. Because much of the field’s knowledge
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
CONFORMITY
Conformity refers to the act of changing one’s behavior to match the responses
of others. Nearly half a century ago, Deutsch & Gerard (1955) distinguished be-
tween informational and normative conformity motivations, the former based on
the desire to form an accurate interpretation of reality and behave correctly, and
the latter based on the goal of obtaining social approval from others. The extant
literature has upheld the conceptual independence of each of these motivational
factors (see Cialdini & Trost 1998), although the two are interrelated and often
difficult to disentangle theoretically as well as empirically (David & Turner 2001).
In addition, both accuracy- and affiliation-oriented goals act in service of a third
underlying motive to maintain one’s self-concept, both via self-esteem protection
as well as self-categorization processes.
Goal of Accuracy
Research on accuracy as a central motivation for conformity has examined the phe-
nomenon in some diverse and relatively unexplored domains. Investigators, for ex-
ample, have demonstrated that individuals may conform to information supplied by
a group of confederates when reconstructing their memories for stimuli (Meade &
Roediger 2002, Walther et al. 2002, Wright et al. 2000). As another example,
Castelli et al. (2001) explored the types of people we look to for valid information
under uncertainty. They showed that participants were more likely to conform to
(and implicitly view as more accurate) the objective estimates of a confederate
who earlier used stereotype-consistent (versus stereotype-inconsistent) traits to
describe an outgroup member, even though they publicly expressed little faith in
the confederate’s judgments.
Quinn & Schlenker (2002) proposed that a strong accuracy goal could coun-
teract the normative pressures individuals face when making a decision for which
they are accountable (i.e., must be prepared to explain their decision) to a set of
people whose views on the issue are known. The dominant response of individuals
in this situation is to conform to the audience’s position (Lerner & Tetlock 1999,
Pennington & Schlenker 1999), a consequence that often stems from the desire to
gain the approval of the people to whom the individuals are answerable (Quinn &
Schlenker 2002). The authors theorized that because being accountable for one’s
actions tends to highlight the importance of the task (Lerner & Tetlock 1999) and
amplify the salience of one’s goals irrespective of the orientations of those goals
(Schlenker & Weigold 1989), only those primed with a motivation to make ac-
curate decisions and who were held accountable for their judgments would resist
pressures to conform to the audience’s known but flawed decision. The results
confirmed the hypothesis. Although participants in this study were accountable to
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
in Poland after the fall of Communism (Nowak & Vallacher 2001). Recent efforts
to integrate dynamical systems and evolutionary psychological perspectives have
also proved fruitful in understanding the emergence of both universal as well as
culture-specific functional social norms (Kenrick et al. 2002), an area that will
likely be of burgeoning interest to social psychologists in the future.
Goal of Affiliation
BEHAVIORAL MIMICRY Interest has resurged in a conformity phenomenon known
as behavioral mimicry, which appears to operate completely outside of conscious
awareness. Also dubbed the chameleon effect, the term describes behavior match-
ing of postures, facial expressions, vocal characteristics, and mannerisms that
occurs between two or more individuals (Chartrand & Bargh 1999).
Chartrand & Bargh (1999) found that participants nonconsciously conformed
their facial expressions and mannerisms to closely mirror a confederate’s gestures.
In addition, individuals exposed to an interaction partner who mimicked their be-
haviors increased their affinity for that person, which suggests that the process is
functional in building rapport and promoting the development of social relation-
ships (Chartrand & Bargh 1999; see also Hess et al. 1999). The authors argued
that the mediating mechanism responsible for the effect is the perception-behavior
link (see Dijksterhuis & Bargh 2001). That is, individuals’ perceptual representa-
tions of others’ behaviors nonconsciously and directly activate mannerism-specific
behavioral representations that manifest themselves in the individuals’ mimicking
actions. Thus, behavior matching is more likely to occur in circumstances that
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
enhance a would-be imitator’s attentional focus on others (Gump & Kulik 1997)
and less likely to occur in situations that diminish external focus (Sanchez-Burks
2002) or specifically motivate internal focus (Johnston 2002).
Although the evidence suggests that the direct link from perception to behav-
ior operates irrespective of the motivation to affiliate (Chartrand & Bargh 1999),
Lakin & Chartrand (2003) reasoned that the effects of behavioral mimicry might
be amplified in circumstances in which that goal was activated. The researchers
triggered individuals’ affiliation goals via either explicit (expected interaction) or
implicit (priming) methods. They found that regardless of whether the participants
were consciously aware of these goals, those motivated to affiliate mimicked the
behaviors of a confederate to a greater extent than those in the control condition.
Furthermore, a second study revealed that the chameleon effect and its subsequent
impact on rapport building were augmented when participants’ nonconscious goals
to affiliate were first thwarted. Thus, it appears likely that relationship-oriented
objectives do play a part in many of our everyday experiences with behavioral
mimicry. Lakin & Chartrand (2003) proposed that ephemeral affiliation desires
briefly strengthen the perception-behavior link because of increased attention to
relevant environmental stimuli, an explanation that can be extended to more chronic
affiliative goals as well (Chartrand & Bargh 1999).
MAJORITY AND MINORITY INFLUENCE The extent to which one identifies with a
message source—be it a majority or a minority—is a significant factor in deter-
mining the information processing strategies one employs as well as the outcome
of an influence attempt (David & Turner 2001). One view of majority and minority
influence that appears to be garnering increasing interest and support is the self-
categorization perspective (Turner 1985). Self-categorization theory holds that the
conventional distinction between informational and normative influence creates
a false dichotomy because the two processes are interrelated in most cases; nor-
mativeness implies accuracy, and vice versa (David & Turner 2001). The theory
posits that individuals categorize themselves at varying degrees of abstraction,
and use their social identities to reduce uncertainty when faced with prospective
group conflict. In support of self-categorization considerations, the classic effects
of majority and minority influence have been found only in situations in which the
source is an ingroup member. When they are outgroup members, irrespective of
source status, participants tend to engage in no attitude change (Alvaro & Crano
1997) or to move their opinions in the direction opposite of the advocated position
(David & Turner 1996).
David & Turner (1999) argued that when an ingroup minority attempts to per-
suade a target, the message recipient becomes pressured to provide a direct and
public response within a short period. The situational forces that characterize the
interaction highlight for the target the divergence between the ingroup majority
position, which connotes correctness, and the argument advanced by the ingroup
minority. When the immediacy and public nature of the circumstances is no longer
pressing, and the salience of that prior conflict wanes, the target’s frame of ref-
erence expands to incorporate the outgroup, leading the target to perceive the
ingroup minority as similar to the self. The target is then more likely to manifest
these perspective changes (and the subsequent influence of the ingroup minor-
ity) on delayed, private, and less direct measures. Several studies yielded indirect
evidence consistent with their account (David & Turner 1999).
Also based on the notion that targets often share a common identity with the mi-
nority group, Alvaro & Crano (1997) suggested that an ingroup minority provokes
indirect change—that is, change in a target’s attitude toward matters related to the
focal issue, but not toward the focal issue itself—because the message recipient
(a) elaborately processes the information because of its distinctive source,
(b) wishes to avoid identification with the source, (c) is motivated not to denigrate
the source or counterargue the message in the name of ingroup solidarity, and
(d) experiences an imbalance in the system of beliefs surrounding his or her focal
attitude. The target works within these constraints to resolve the destabilization of
the relevant cognitive constellation by changing his or her attitude on interrelated
issues rather than on the focal issue, which reduces tension by restoring stability
to the belief structure (Alvaro & Crano 1997). Crano & Chen (1998) proposed that
this shift in related attitudes would provoke a further cognitive imbalance between
the newly changed related attitudes and the unmoved focal attitude; this cognitive
incongruence would be redressed over time by eventually changing one’s focal at-
titude to comport with the recently shifted attitudes. Crano and colleagues (Alvaro
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
& Crano 1997, Crano & Chen 1998) found strong correlational support for these
hypotheses.
CONCLUSION
In our review of the current literature, we emphasized three core motivations that
provide the bases for targets’ responses to influence attempts: accuracy, affiliation,
and the maintenance of a positive self-concept. For clarity and ease of treatment,
we associated each social influence–related phenomenon with whichever goal
appeared to be the principal driving force underlying the occurrence of that phe-
nomenon. However, it should be noted that targets’ behaviors often serve multiple
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this chapter was supported by a National Science Foundation Grad-
uate Research Fellowship provided to the second author. We gratefully acknowl-
edge Jenessa Shapiro, Jon Maner, and Christopher Wilbur for their very valuable
comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.
LITERATURE CITED
Alvaro EM, Crano WD. 1997. Indirect minor- T. 2002. The intrinsic self and defensive-
ity influence: evidence for leniency in source ness: evidence that activating the intrinsic
evaluation and counterargumentation. J. Per- self reduces self-handicapping and confor-
sonal. Soc. Psychol. 72:949–64 mity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:671–
Arndt J, Schimel J, Greenberg J, Pyszczynski 83
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
Asch SE. 1956. Studies of independence and Brief AP, Buttram RT, Elliot JD, Reizenstein
conformity: a minority of one against a unan- RM, McCline RL. 1995. Releasing the beast:
imous majority. Psychol. Monogr. 70:(9) a study of compliance with orders to use race
Whole No. 416 as a selection criterion. J. Soc. Issues 51:177–
Ashford BE, Anand V. 2003. The normalization 94
of corruption in organizations. In Research Burger JM. 1986. Increasing compliance by im-
in Organizational Behavior, ed. BM Staw, proving the deal: the that’s-not-all technique.
RM Kramer, Vol. 25. Greenwich, CT: JAI. In J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 51:277–83
press Burger JM. 1999. The foot-in-the-door com-
Bargh JA, Chartrand TL. 1999. The unbearable pliance procedure: a multiple-process analy-
automaticity of being. Am. Psychol. 54:462– sis and review. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev.
79 3:303–25
Bem DJ. 1972. Self-perception theory. In Ad- Burger JM, Caldwell DF. 2003. The effects
vances in Experimental Social Psychology, of monetary incentives and labeling on the
ed. L Berkowitz, 6:1–62. New York: Aca- foot-in-the-door effect: evidence for a self-
demic perception process. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol.
Berkowitz L. 1999. Evil is more than banal: sit- 25:235–41
uationism and the concept of evil. Personal. Burger JM, Cornelius T. 2003. Raising the price
Soc. Psychol. Rev. 3:246–53 of agreement: public commitment and the
Blanton H, Christie C. 2003. Deviance regula- low-ball compliance procedure. J. Appl. Soc.
tion: a theory of identity and action. Rev. Gen. Psychol. In press
Psychol. 7:115–49 Burger JM, Guadagno RE. 2003. Self-concept
Blass T. 1999. The Milgram paradigm after 35 clarity and the foot-in-the-door procedure.
years: some things we now know about obe- Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25:79–86
dience to authority. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. Burger JM, Horita M, Kinoshita L, Roberts K,
29:955–78 Vera C. 1997. Effects of time on the norm
Bond R, Smith PB. 1996. Culture and confor- reciprocity. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19:91–
mity: a meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s 100
(1952, 1956) line judgment task. Psychol. Burger JM, Messian N, Patel S, del Prado A,
Bull. 119:111–37 Anderson C. 2003. What a coincidence! The
Boster FJ, Mitchell MM, Lapinski MK, Cooper effects of incidental similarity on compli-
H, Orrego VO, Rienke R. 1999. The im- ance. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. In press
pact of guilt and type of compliance-gaining Burger JM, Reed M, DeCesare K, Rauner S,
message on compliance. Commun. Monogr. Rozolios J. 1999. The effect of initial request
66:168–77 size on compliance: more about the that’s-
Bourgeois MJ. 2002. Heritability of attitudes not-all technique. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol.
constrains dynamic social impact. Personal. 21:243–49
Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:1063–72 Burger JM, Soroka S, Gonzago K, Murphy E,
Brewer MB, Roccas S. 2001. Individual values, Somervell E. 2001. The effect of fleeting at-
social identity, and optimal distinctiveness. traction on compliance to requests. Personal.
In Individual, Self, Relational Self, Collec- Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:1578–86
tive Self, ed. C Sedikides, MB Brewer, pp. Campbell JD, Trapnell PD, Heine SJ, Katz IM,
219–37. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press Lavellee LF, Lehman DR. 1996. Self-concept
Brief AP, Buttram RT, Dukerich JM. 2001. Col- clarity: measurement, personality correlates,
lective corruption in the corporate world: to- and cultural boundaries. J. Personal. Soc.
ward a process model. In Groups at Work: Psychol. 59:538–49
Advances in Theory and Research, ed. ME Castelli L, Vanzetto K, Sherman SJ, Arcuri L.
Turner, pp. 471–99. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum 2001. The explicit and implicit perception of
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
in-group members who use stereotypes: bla- ner J, Gornik-Durose M. 1999. Compliance
tant rejection but subtle conformity. J. Exp. with a request in two cultures: the differential
Soc. Psychol. 37:419–26 influence of social proof and commitment/
Chartrand TL, Bargh JA. 1999. The chameleon consistency on collectivists and individual-
effect: the perception-behavior link and so- ists. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25:1242–
cial interaction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 76: 53
893–910 Cioffi D, Garner R. 1996. On doing the deci-
Chartrand TL, Pinckert S, Burger JM. 1999. sion: effects of active versus passive choice
When manipulation backfires: the effects of on commitment and self-perception. Per-
time delay and requester on the foot-in-the- sonal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 22:133–44
door technique. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29: Crandall CS, Eshleman A, O’Brien L. 2002.
211–21 Social norms and the expression and suppres-
Cialdini RB. 2001. Influence: Science and sion of prejudice: the struggle for internaliza-
Practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 4th tion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82:359–78
ed. Crano WD, Chen X. 1998. The leniency con-
Cialdini RB. 2003. Crafting normative mes- tract and persistence of majority and mi-
sages to protect the environment. Curr. Dir. nority influence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
Psychol. Sci. 12:105–9 74:1437–50
Cialdini RB, Cacioppo JT, Bassett R, Miller Cross SE, Madson L. 1997. Models of the self:
JA. 1978. Low-ball procedure for producing self-construals and gender. Psychol. Bull.
compliance: commitment then cost. J. Per- 122:5–37
sonal. Soc. Psychol. 36:463–76 Darley JM. 1995. Constructive and destructive
Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. 2002. The science obedience: a taxonomy of principal-agent re-
and practice of persuasion. Cornell Hotel lationships. J. Soc. Issues 51:125–54
Restaur. Adm. Q. 43:40–50 Darley JM. 2001. The dynamics of authority
Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA, Reno RR. 1991. A in organization. See Darley et al. 2001, pp.
focus theory of normative conduct: a the- 37–52
oretical refinement and reevaluation of the Darley JM, Messick DM, Tyler TR, eds. 2001.
role of norms in human behavior. In Ad- Social Influences on Ethical Behavior in Or-
vances in Experimental Social Psychology, ganizations. Mahwah, NJ/London: Erlbaum
ed. MP Zanna, 24:201–34. San Diego, CA: David B, Turner JC. 1996. Studies in self-
Academic categorization and minority conversion: Is
Cialdini RB, Trost MR. 1998. Social influence: being a member of the outgroup an advan-
social norms, conformity, and compliance. tage? Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 35:179–200
In The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. David B, Turner JC. 1999. Studies in self-
DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey, 2:151–92. categorization and minority conversion: the
Boston: McGraw-Hill. 4th ed. ingroup minority in intragroup and inter-
Cialdini RB, Trost MR, Newsom JT. 1995. Pref- group contexts. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 38:115–
erence for consistency: the development of a 34
valid measure and the discovery of surpris- David B, Turner JC. 2001. Majority and
ing behavioral implications. J. Personal. Soc. minority influence: a single process self-
Psychol. 69:318–28 categorization analysis. In Group Consensus
Cialdini RB, Vincent JE, Lewis SK, Catalan J, and Minority Influence: Implications for In-
Wheeler D, Darby BL. 1975. Reciprocal con- novation, ed. CKW De Dreu, NK De Vries,
cessions procedure for inducing compliance: pp. 91–121. Malden, MA: Blackwell
the door-in-the-face technique. J. Personal. Davis BP, Knowles ES. 1999. A disrupt-then-
Soc. Psychol. 31:206–15 reframe technique of social influence. J. Per-
Cialdini RB, Wosinska W, Barrett DW, But- sonal. Soc. Psychol. 76:192–99
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
Deutsch M, Gerard HB. 1955. A study of Forgas JP. 1995. Mood and judgment: the af-
normative and informative social influences fect infusion model (AIM). Psychol. Bull.
upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. 117:39–66
Psychol. 51:629–36 Forgas JP. 1998a. Asking nicely? The effects
Dijksterhuis A, Bargh JA. 2001. The percep- of mood on responding to more or less po-
tion-behavior expressway: automatic effects lite requests. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
of social perception on social behavior. In 24:173–85
Advances in Experimental Social Psychol- Forgas JP. 1998b. On feeling good and getting
ogy, ed. MP Zanna, 33:1–40. San Diego, CA: your way: mood effects on negotiation strate-
Academic gies and outcomes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
Dillard JP, Hunter JE, Burgoon M. 1984. 74:565–77
Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Forgas JP. 1999. Feeling and speaking: mood
meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door- effects on verbal communication strategies.
in-the-face. Hum. Commun. Res. 10:461–88 Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25:850–63
Dolinski D. 2000. On inferring one’s beliefs Forgas JP. 2001. On being moody but influ-
from one’s attempt and consequences for ential: the role of affect in social influence
subsequent compliance. J. Personal. Soc. strategies. See Forgas & Williams 2001, pp.
Psychol. 78:260–72 147–66
Dolinski D, Nawrat M. 1998. “Fear-then-relief” Forgas JP, Williams KD, eds. 2001. Social
procedure for producing compliance: beware Influence: Direct and Indirect Processes.
when the danger is over. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. Philadelphia/Hove, UK: Psychology Press
34:27–50 Freedman JL, Fraser SC. 1966. Compliance
Dolinski D, Nawrat M, Rudak I. 2001. Dialogue without pressure: the foot-in-the-door tech-
involvement as a social influence technique. nique. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 4:195–
Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:1395–406 202
Elms AC. 1995. Obedience in retrospect. J. Soc. French J, Raven B. 1959. The bases of social
Issues 51:21–32 power. In Studies in Social Power, ed. D
Emans BJM, Munduate L, Klaver E, van de Cartwright, pp. 150–67. Ann Arbor, MI: Inst.
Vliert E. 2003. Constructive consequences of Soc. Res.
leaders’ forcing influence styles. Appl. Psy- Gilbert DT. 1991. How mental systems believe.
chol.: Int. Rev. 52:36–54 Am. Psychol. 46:107–19
Epley N, Gilovich T. 1999. Just going along: Goldhagen DJ. 1996. Hitler’s Willing Execu-
nonconscious priming and conformity to so- tioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holo-
cial pressure. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 35:578– caust. New York: Knopf
89 Gorassini DR, Olson JM. 1995. Does self-
Erb HP, Bohner G, Rank S, Einwiller S. 2002. perception change explain the foot-in-the-
Processing minority and majority communi- door effect? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 69:
cations: the role of conflict with prior atti- 91–105
tudes. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:1172– Gordon RA. 1996. Impact of ingratiation on
82 judgments and evaluations: a meta-analytic
Erb HP, Bohner G, Schmalzle K, Rank S. 1998. investigation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71:
Beyond conflict and discrepancy: cognitive 54–70
bias in minority and majority influence. Per- Gouldner AW. 1960. The norm of reciprocity:
sonal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 24:620–33 a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev.
Fern EF, Monroe KB, Ramon AA. 1986. Ef- 25:161–78
fectiveness of multiple request strategies: a Guadagno RE, Asher T, Demaine LJ, Cialdini
synthesis of research results. J. Mark. Res. RB. 2001. When saying yes leads to saying
23:144–52 no: preference for consistency and the reverse
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
foot-in-the-door effect. Personal. Soc. Psy- DV, Schaller M. 2002. Dynamical evolution-
chol. Bull. 27:859–67 ary psychology: mapping the domains of the
Guéguen N, Pascual A, Dagot L. 2002. Low- new interactionist paradigm. Personal. Soc.
ball and compliance to a request: an applica- Psychol. Rev. 6:347–56
tion in a field setting. Psychol. Rep. 91:81–84 Kim HS, Markus HR. 1999. Deviance or
Gump BB, Kulik JA. 1997. Stress, affiliation, uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cul-
and emotional contagion. J. Personal. Soc. tural analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 77:
Psychol. 72:305–19 785–800
Hale JL, Laliker M. 1999. Explaining the door- Knowles ES, Linn JA. 2003. Approach-
in-the-face: Is it really time to abandon recip- avoidance model of persuasion: alpha and
rocal concessions? Commun. Stud. 50:203– omega strategies for change. In Resistance
10 and Persuasion, ed. ES Knowles, JA Linn.
Heine SJ, Lehman DR. 1997. Culture, disso- Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. In press
nance, and self-affirmation. Personal. Soc. Koslowsky M, Schwarzwald J. 2001. The
Psychol. Bull. 23:389–400 power interaction model: theory, methodol-
Heine SJ, Lehman DR, Markus HR, Kitayama ogy, and empirical applications. In The Use
S. 1999. Is there a universal need for positive and Abuse of Power: Multiple Perspectives
self-regard? Psychol. Rev. 106:766–94 on the Causes of Corruption, ed. AY Lee-
Hess U, Philippot P, Blairy S. 1999. Mimicry: Chai, JA Bargh, pp. 195–214. Philadelphia,
fact and fiction. In The Social Context of Non- PA: Psychology Press
verbal Behavior, ed. P Philippot, RS Feld- Koslowsky M, Schwarzwald J, Ashuri S. 2001.
man, EJ Coates, pp. 213–41. Cambridge, On the relationship between subordinates’
UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press compliance to power sources and organi-
Howard DJ, Gengler CE, Jain A. 1995. What’s sational attitudes. Appl. Psychol.: Int. Rev.
in a name? A complimentary means of per- 50:455–76
suasion. J. Consum. Res. 22:200–11 Lakin JL, Chartrand TL. 2003. Using noncon-
Howard DJ, Gengler CE, Jain A. 1997. The scious behavioral mimicry to create affilia-
name remembrance effect: a test of alterna- tion and rapport. Psychol. Sci. 14:334–39
tive explanations. J. Soc. Behav. Personal. Latané B. 1981. The psychology of social im-
12:801–10 pact. Am. Psychol. 36:343–56
Janes LM, Olson JM. 2000. Jeer pressure: the Latané B. 1996. Dynamic social impact: the cre-
behavioral effects of observing ridicule of ation of culture by communication. J. Com-
others. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:474– mun. 46:13–25
85 Lea M, Spears R, de Groot D. 2001. Know-
Johnston L. 2002. Behavioral mimicry and ing me, knowing you: anonymity effects on
stigmatization. Soc. Cogn. 20:18–35 social identity processes within groups. Per-
Kahan D. 1997. Social influence, social mean- sonal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:526–37
ing, and deterrence. VA. Law Rev. 83:349– Lerner JS, Tetlock PE. 1999. Accounting for
95 the effects of accountability. Psychol. Bull.
Kallgren CA, Reno RR, Cialdini RB. 2000. 125:255–75
A focus theory of normative conduct: when Lutsky N. 1995. When is “obedience” obedi-
norms do and do not affect behavior. Per- ence? Conceptual and historical commen-
sonal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:1002–12 tary. J. Soc. Issues 51:55–66
Kelln BRC, Ellard JH. 1999. An equity the- Lynn M, Simons T. 2000. Predictors of male
ory analysis of the impact of forgiveness and and female servers’ average tip earnings. J.
retribution on transgressor compliance. Per- Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30:241–52
sonal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25:864–72 MacDonald G, Nail PR, Levy DA. 2003. Ex-
Kenrick DT, Maner JK, Butner J, Li NP, Becker panding the scope of the social response
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
context model. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. In Cialdini, DW Barrett, J Reykowski, pp. 151–
press 71. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Mackie DM. 1987. Systematic and nonsystem- O’Keefe DJ. 1999. Three reasons for doubting
atic processing of majority and minority per- the adequacy of the reciprocal concessions
suasive communications. J. Personal. Soc. explanation of door-in-the-face effects. Com-
Psychol. 53:41–52 mun. Stud. 50:211–20
Martin R, Hewstone M. 2001. Determinants O’Keefe DJ, Figgé M. 1997. A guilt-based ex-
and consequences of cognitive processes in planation of the door-in-the-face influence
majority and minority influence. See Forgas strategy. Hum. Commun. Res. 24:64–81
& Williams 2001, pp. 315–30 O’Keefe DJ, Figgé M. 1999. Guilt and expected
McCall M. 1997. Physical attractiveness and guilt in the door-in-the-face technique. Com-
access to alcohol: What is beautiful does not mun. Monogr. 66:312–24
get carded. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27:453–62 O’Keefe DJ, Hale SL. 1998. The door-in-
Meade ML, Roediger HL III. 2002. Explo- the-face influence strategy: a random-effects
rations in the social contagion of memory. meta-analytic review. In Communication
Mem. Cogn. 30:995–1009 Yearbook, ed. ME Roloff, 21:1–33. Thou-
Meeus WHJ, Raaijmakers QAW. 1995. Obedi- sand Oaks, CA: Sage
ence in modern society: the Utrecht studies. O’Keefe DJ, Hale SL. 2001. An odds-ratio-
J. Soc. Issues 51:155–76 based meta-analysis of research on the door-
Milgram S. 1974. Obedience to Authority. New in-the-face influence strategy. Commun. Rep.
York: Harper & Row 14:31–38
Millar M. 2002. Effects of a guilt induction and Pendry L, Carrick R. 2001. Doing what the mob
guilt reduction on door in the face. Commun. do: priming effects on conformity. Eur. J.
Res. 29:666–80 Soc. Psychol. 31:83–92
Miller AG. 1995. Constructions of the obedi- Pennington J, Schlenker BR. 1999. Account-
ence experiments: a focus upon domains of ability for consequential decisions: justify-
relevance. J. Soc. Issues 51:33–54 ing ethical judgments to audiences. Personal.
Moscovici S. 1980. Toward a theory of conver- Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25:1067–81
sion behavior. In Advances in Experimental Petersen LE, Dietz J. 2000. Social discrimi-
Social Psychology, ed. L Berkowitz, 13:209– nation in a personnel selection context: the
39. New York: Academic effects of an authority’s instruction to dis-
Mowen JC, Cialdini RB. 1980. On implement- criminate and followers’ authoritarianism. J.
ing the door-in-the-face compliance tech- Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30:206–20
nique in a business context. J. Mark. Res. Pollock CL, Smith SD, Knowles ES, Bruce HJ.
17:253–58 1998. Mindfulness limits compliance with
Nail PR, MacDonald G, Levy DA. 2000. Pro- the that’s-not-all technique. Personal. Soc.
posal of a four-dimensional model of social Psychol. Bull. 24:1153–57
response. Psychol. Bull. 126:454–70 Pool GJ, Wood W, Leck K. 1998. The self-
Newman LS, Erber R, eds. 2002. Understand- esteem motive in social influence: agree-
ing Genocide: The Social Psychology of the ment with valued majorities and disagree-
Holocaust. Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. ment with derogated minorities. J. Personal.
Press Soc. Psychol. 75:967–75
Nowak A, Vallacher RR. 1998. Dynamical So- Postmes T, Spears R. 1998. Deindividua-
cial Psychology. New York: Guilford tion and anti-normative behavior: a meta-
Nowak A, Vallacher RR. 2001. Societal tran- analysis. Psychol. Bull. 123:238–59
sition: toward a dynamical model of social Postmes T, Spears R, Sakhel K, De Groot D.
change. In The Practice of Social Influence 2001. Social influence in computer-mediated
in Multiple Cultures, ed. W Wosinska, RB communication: the effects of anonymity on
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
group behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. tations: a natural history of stereotypes. J.
27:1243–54 Commun. 46:64–77
Quinn A, Schlenker BR. 2002. Can account- Schlenker BR, Weigold MF. 1989. Self-
ability produce independence? Goals as de- identification and accountability. In Impres-
terminants of the impact of accountability sion Management in the Organization, ed.
on conformity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. RA Giacalone, P Rosenfeld, pp. 21–43. Hills-
28:472–83 dale, NJ: Erlbaum
Raven BH, Schwarzwald J, Koslowsky M. Schultz PW. 1999. Changing behavior with nor-
1998. Conceptualizing and measuring a mative feedback interventions: a field experi-
power/interaction model of interpersonal in- ment on curbside recycling. Basic Appl. Soc.
fluence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28:307– Psychol. 21:25–36
22 Schwarzwald J, Koslowsky M, Agassi V. 2001.
Reicher SD, Spears R, Postmes T. 1995. A so- Captain’s leadership type and police officers’
cial identity model of deindividuation phe- compliance to power bases. Eur. J. Work Or-
nomena. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 6:161– gan. Psychol. 10:273–90
98 Sechrist GB, Stangor C. 2001. Perceived con-
Rind B. 1997. Effects of interest arousal on sensus influences intergroup behavior and
compliance with a request for help. Basic stereotype accessibility. J. Personal. Soc.
Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19:49–59 Psychol. 80:645–54
Rind B, Strohmetz D. 1999. Effect on restau- Spears R, Postmes T, Lea M, Watt SE. 2001. A
rant tipping of a helpful message written on SIDE view of social influence. See Forgas &
the back of customer’s checks. J. Appl. Soc. Williams 2001, pp. 331–50
Psychol. 29:139–44 Stangor C, Sechrist GB, Jost JT. 2001. Social
Rind B, Strohmetz D. 2001. Effect on restau- influence and intergroup beliefs: the role of
rant tipping of presenting customers with an perceived social consensus. See Forgas &
interesting task and of reciprocity. J. Appl. Williams 2001, pp. 235–52
Soc. Psychol. 31:1379–84 Strohmetz DB, Rind B, Fisher R, Lynn M. 2002.
Sagarin BJ, Cialdini RB, Rice WE, Serna SB. Sweetening the till: the use of candy to in-
2002. Dispelling the illusion of invulnera- crease restaurant tipping. J. Appl. Soc. Psy-
bility: the motivations and mechanisms of chol. 32:300–9
resistance to persuasion. J. Personal. Soc. Tafarodi RW, Kanf SJ, Milne AB. 2002. When
Psychol. 83:526–41 different becomes similar: compensatory
Sanchez-Burks J. 2002. Protestant relational conformity in bicultural visible minori-
ideology and (in)attention to relational cues ties. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:1131–
in work settings. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 42
83:919–29 Turner JC. 1985. Social categorization and the
Sassenberg K. 2002. Common bond and com- self-concept: a social cognitive theory of
mon identity groups on the internet: attach- group behavior. In Advances in Group Pro-
ment and normative behavior in on-topic and cesses, ed. EJ Lawler, 2:77–122. Greenwich,
off-topic chats. Group Dynam.: Theory Res. CT: JAI
Pract. 6:27–37 Tusing KJ, Dillard JP. 2000. The psychological
Sassenberg K, Postmes T. 2002. Cognitive and reality of the door-in-the-face: it’s helping,
strategic processes in small groups: effects of not bargaining. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 19:5–
anonymity of the self and anonymity of the 25
group on social influence. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. Tyler TR. 1997. The psychology of legiti-
41:463–80 macy. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 1:323–
Schaller M, Latané B. 1996. Dynamic social 44
impact and the evolution of social represen- Vallacher RR, Nowak A, Miller ME. 2003.
19 Nov 2003 17:7 AR AR207-PS55-21.tex AR207-PS55-21.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE