CRITICAL THINKING LESSON FOR CHAPTER 16A:
Social Influences on Beliefs and Behaviors

Jason's mother and father have been members of a white-supremacist group for the past 20 years. The group is committed to eliminating from the United States anyone who is not white and Christian. They are alarmed at the increasing number of minority-group members in the general population and advocate violent means to rid the nation of non-Christians and nonwhites. They argue that each race should have their own homeland and that the United States, which they claim was created solely by white Christians, should be their homeland. Jason grew up believing this. He feels a deep hatred for members of other races and believes that the white race is the most intelligent and civilized race. As a young teenager, he began engaging in violent acts against members of minority groups. He was recently convicted of the murder of a young interracial couple and was sent to prison to serve a sentence of life without parole.

In Chapter 16 of the textbook, you learned about the cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. Jason's attitude about members of minority groups exhibits all three components. He believes that members of minority groups are inferior to whites. He feels extreme negative emotions towards members of minority groups. And he behaves violently towards them. How did such a strong attitude develop in Jason? In this critical-thinking lesson, you will learn that social factors have a large influence on the development of our beliefs and behaviors.

Social Proof

Cialdini (2001) described a number of studies demonstrating that the beliefs and behaviors of others are major influences on our own beliefs and behaviors. He referred to this as the principle of social proof, which states that an individual's level of acceptance of a belief, or performance of a behavior, increases as more people accept that belief or perform that behavior. In other words, "we determine what is correct by finding out what other people think is correct" (p. 100), even though we often are not aware that we are being influenced in this way. For example, have you ever been on a freeway in traffic that is moving along steadily until, for some unknown reason, it slows to a crawl? As you look far ahead to see what is causing the traffic jam, perhaps you see two or three cars in front of you put on their turn signals and move into another lane. At this point, you, along with several other cars behind you, probably will do the same thing. You all observed the first few cars change lanes and, probably without giving it much (if any) thought, figured that they must have seen a problem ahead in your lane. This example shows that, when we experience an event that leaves us uncertain about how to proceed, we tend to look to others for clues (Aronson, 1992).

An interesting example of the principle of social proof was discussed by Cialdini (2001). Several studies have found that, within a few days after a suicide has been highly publicized in news stories, an increase in deaths caused by vehicular accidents often occurs:

After a suicide has made front-page news, airplanes--private planes, corporate jets, airliners--begin falling out of the sky at an alarming rate.... The number of automobile fatalities shoots up as well.... The influence of suicide stories on car and plane crashes ... is fantastically specific. Stories of pure suicides, in which only one person dies, generate wrecks in which only one person dies; stories of murder-suicide combination, in which there are multiple deaths, generate wrecks in which there are multiple deaths. (pp. 122, 123)

The increase in deaths caused by these "accidents" peaks about 3-4 days after the news media (television, newspapers, magazines, etc.) have reported the suicide. The available evidence suggests that highly publicized suicides cause increases in crash-related deaths. It seems that airplane pilots and automobile drivers, who may already have been feeling suicidal, decide to kill themselves by causing their planes or cars to crash. In other words, these are "copycat suicides."

We can explain copycat behavior with the notion of observational learning, which refers to learning caused by observing the consequences of the behaviors of others in particular situations (see p. 247 of the textbook). Humans often learn what to do in a situation that is new or ambiguous (open to more than one interpretation) by observing other people--who are referred to as models--and determining what happens to the models after they perform particular behaviors. If the consequences of a model's behavior are positive, the observer is more likely to imitate that behavior when in a similar situation. If, on the other hand, the consequences are negative, the observer is unlikely to imitate that behavior when in a similar situation. For example, if you are still in the traffic jam described above and you see someone pull onto the shoulder and drive around everyone else without getting stopped, you may imitate this behavior. If, on the other hand, you see the person cut off by several other angry drivers, you probably will not imitate the behavior. In the case of copycat suicides, the models (the people who committed the highly publicized suicides) demonstrated to the copycats a behavior that seemed to them to be a solution to whatever problems they were experiencing.

Factors Affecting the Degree of Social Influence

Although there is a great deal of evidence in support of the principle of social proof, it is not the case that we will adopt just any belief or behavior if we happen to observe others doing so. There are several factors that determine whether or not social proof will have an effect on our beliefs and behaviors. For example, read the following two scenarios and then answer the question that comes after them.

• Scenario 1: On a crowded city sidewalk, you observe one person looking up at a tall building.
• Scenario 2: On a crowded city sidewalk, you observe ten people looking up at a tall building.

In which scenario are you more likely to look up? Probably most of us would look up in the second scenario, but few of us would look up in the first scenario. Why? Because the number of other people who believe or do something is important for whether or not we will believe or do the same thing. In general, the greater the number of people who believe something or act in a certain way, the greater the influence on our own beliefs and actions.

Let's now imagine that you're waiting to cross at a busy intersection but the don't-walk sign is on. In which of the following two scenarios would you be most willing to walk against the red light?

• Scenario 1: A bearded man dressed in ragged clothes and pushing a shopping cart full of his possessions steps into the street in front of you.
• Scenario 2: A well groomed man in an expensive suit steps into the street in front of you.

Probably many of us would jaywalk in the second scenario, but few of us would do so in the first scenario. Why? Because the perceived status (the position or rank) of other people is an important influence on us. In general, the greater the status of a person who believes something or acts in a certain way, the greater the influence on our own beliefs and actions.

Let's look at one final hypothetical situation. Let's say that, in preparing to buy a new car, you have been gathering information about various makes and models of automobiles. After much thought, you finally decide to buy a particular car model. You feel very certain that you have made the right decision. In which of the following two scenarios would you be most likely to change your mind?

• Scenario 1: In a conversation with a person who just happened to sit next to you at the movie theater, you discover that he had recently bought that same car model and has had nothing but trouble with it.
• Scenario 2: While watching a morning show on television, a person being interviewed on the street states that he recently bought that same car model and has had nothing but trouble with it.

Most of us would be more likely to change our minds in the first scenario than in the second scenario. Why? Because we are more likely to be influenced by people who are physically close to us than by people who are far away. In general, the closer in proximity a person is who believes something or acts in a certain way, the greater the influence on our own beliefs and actions.

The three social-influence factors mentioned above make up what is known as social-impact theory, which is the claim that the amount of social influence others have on us depends on (a) their number, (b) their status, and (c) their proximity. The examples used all dealt with learning how to act based on the actions of others. But social-impact theory also states that we learn what to believe about new or ambiguous situations by finding out what others believe. For example, if you see someone stagger and fall on a busy city sidewalk, but are not sure if the person is ill or simply drunk, you will look at other people walking by to see if they appear concerned. If they do not seem worried, then you probably will decide that the man is drunk and that there is no need to help him. In this case, the number and proximity of other people have been important influences on the formation of your belief that the fallen person is drunk.

Question 16A-1
Most college students adopt the religious beliefs of their parents, especially the religious beliefs of their mothers (Milevsky, Szuchman,, Burns, 2001). How would social-impact theory explain this fact?
Suggested Answer

Question 16A-2
The elaboration-likelihood model described in the textbook (p. 670) states that there are two routes to persuasion: a central route (one that involves a consideration of the logic and the substance of a persuasive message) and a peripheral route (one that involves a consideration of relatively superficial characteristics of the source of a persuasive message). The influences described in social-impact theory (the number, status, and proximity of the sources of a persuasive message) involve peripheral factors.

The discussion in the textbook suggested that persuasive messages that use the central route are superior in a number of ways to the peripheral route. But how might acquiring a belief or behavior through the number, status, and proximity of the sources of a persuasive message be adaptive for humans (that is, help them to survive longer and reproduce more)? And how might acquiring a belief or behavior through the number, status, and proximity of the sources lead to enduring and strong attitudes?
Suggested Answer

Question 16A-3
Many situational comedies (sitcoms) on television use "laugh tracks" (artificially created laughter) even though many people--the creators of the sitcoms and audience members alike--state that they find laugh tracks to be annoying or counterproductive. Based on what you have learned in this lesson, why do the producers of sitcoms ignore this opposition and continue to use laugh tracks?
Suggested Answer

Question 16A-4
Many of you probably have heard of cases in which a person was murdered in a public place in the presence of a number of witnesses, but that the witnesses all ignored the crime. For example, Cialdini (2001) quoted the following from a news release about such an incident:

A university coed was beaten and strangled in daylight hours near one of the most popular tourist attractions in the city.... Police theorized she may have been sitting or standing by a fountain in the [Chicago] Art Institute's south plaza when she was attacked. The assailant apparently then dragged her into the bushes. She apparently was sexually assaulted.... Police said thousands of persons must have passed the site and one man told them he heard a scream about 2 p.m. (p. 114)

Given what you have learned in this lesson, please explain why no one helped the screaming woman.
Suggested Answer

Bibliography and References

Aronson, E. (1992). The social animal (6th ed.). New York: Freeman.

Blackart, G. (2001). Laughter: Take my research ... Please! APS Observer Online, 14(6). Retrieved July 14, 2003, from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/0701/laughter.html

Carroll, R. T. (2002). Crop circles. The Skeptic's Dictionary. Retrieved July 14, 2003, from http://skepdic.com/cropcirc.html

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Milevsky, I. M., Szuchman, L., Burns, K., (2001). Intergenerational Transmission of Religious Beliefs. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://faculty.kutztown.edu/milevsky/ilanaapshand.htm