We’ve all allowed others to influence our decisions, whether consciously or subconsciously. But what underlying psychological factors are at play? How do social forces change the way we think, feel, and behave?

Recently on The Science of Personality, cohosts Ryne Sherman, PhD, and Blake Loepp chatted about how social interaction can cause people to change their behaviours.

“The influence that our environment and other people have on us has an important impact on our lives,” Ryne said. “How do people influence us? And how do we impact others?”

Let’s explore the three main types of social influence and how personality affects social influence.

Three Types of Social Influence

“Influences come at us in all kinds of ways,” Ryne said. From the placement of products on grocery store shelves to what the default option is for contributing to a 401(k), many things influence our behaviour, often without our awareness. These are the three main categories of social influence:

1. Conformity – behavioural changes in response to a group
2. Compliance – behavioural changes in response to a request
3. Obedience – behavioural changes in response to an authority figure

First, we discuss each category individually. Then we analyse why we tend to be so responsive to social influence.

Conformity

Conformity is a subtle form of influence. Ryne gave the example of standing in a public space and staring up at the sky. Even if there’s nothing to see, people walking by will stop and look up. The more people standing together looking at the sky, the more passersby will also stop to look. If everybody’s looking over there, they suppose, then there must be something of value. Conformity is about trying to match the responses of others.

Conforming to the crowd isn’t always positive, however. Researcher Solomon Ashe demonstrated that people will knowingly give an incorrect response to a simple question if others confidently give the wrong answer first.¹ “A lot of people are willing to comply to go along with the group. ‘The group’s saying this, so I guess I’ll say this as well,’” Ryne said.

Compliance

People tend to act consistently with their past behaviour. A sales technique called foot-in-the-door demonstrates the effectiveness of compliance. “Gaining compliance through little requests, this foot-in-the-door-notion, is really, really powerful,” Ryne said.

Researchers Freedman and Fraser called homeowners and asked to enter the home to classify all the products present—and were rejected by most homeowners. In a different round of the experiment, they first called and asked homeowners to say what brand of soap they used. The following day, they called with the classification request, and more than 50 percent of homeowners accepted.² Agreeing to a small thing first caused many people to dramatically change their behaviour when asked to agree to a bigger request.

Obedience

In the psychology world, obedience is about responding to a direct request or an order from an authority figure. The Milgram experiments are the classic demonstration of this form of social influence. Researcher Stanley Milgram investigated how long someone would administer electric shocks to another person when instructed to continue, even when the person receiving the shocks appeared to be in extreme pain.³

Part of what inspired the Milgram experiments was an attempt to explain how officers in Nazi Germany would commit horrendous acts under orders. How far would people follow orders? Who would resist? About 40 percent of people stopped the electric shocks despite pressure from a perceived authority figure.

Why Are We Susceptible to Social Influence?

People conform, comply, and obey for three overarching reasons: (1) choosing correctly, (2) gaining social approval, and (3) managing self-image.

We are influenced by others because it often helps us choose correctly. Social influence can be a shortcut to making correct decisions. Following common wisdom, a doctor’s medical advice, or a literal crowd conveys advantages when making choices.

We are also intrinsically motivated to seek social approval. Getting along with others is a universal human motivation. “Being excluded is dangerous, historically and evolutionarily speaking,” Ryne said. “If you’re left alone on the savannah, you don’t survive very long.” Exclusion makes us feel insecure, and acceptance makes us feel safe.

In a similar vein, we allow others to influence us so we seem likeable. We reciprocate a gift, we defer to others’ preferences, we do as we are told—all to manage our reputations, or how others see us.

Social Influence and Personality

From a personality standpoint, two main characteristics relate to individual susceptibility to social influence. In the five-factor model, those are called agreeableness and conscientiousness. On the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), they are the Interpersonal Sensitivity and Prudence scales. High Interpersonal Sensitivity relates to wanting to be liked. High Prudence has to do with respecting authority and obeying commands.

“In personality psychology, there is this notion that being more conscientious and agreeable is always better. But of course, we talk about the downsides of high Prudence and high Interpersonal Sensitivity quite frequently,” Ryne observed. For instance, a recent reproduction of the Milgram experiments showed that conscientiousness predicted applying more shocks and obeying the experimenter’s orders longer.

Making decisions to resist or accept social influence can be very difficult, depending on the consequences associated with the available choices. Resisting a group isn’t easy, and it isn’t necessarily beneficial either. As Ryne pointed out, “If everybody says, ‘Don’t eat poison ivy,’ and I say, ‘I’m a nonconformist, so I’m going to eat it’—well, there’s going to be consequences for that.”

Listen to this conversation in full on episode 114 of The Science of Personality. Never miss an episode by following us anywhere you get podcasts.

References

1. Asch, S. E. (1948). The Doctrine of Suggestion, Prestige and Imitation in Social Psychology. Psychological Review, 55(5), 250–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057270
2. Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023552
3. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525

*This blog was originally published on Hogan Assessments