Social Influence – Types of Influence

Introduction: Why Understanding Social Influence Matters for Your Practice

You've probably found yourself agreeing to something you didn't really want to do, or maybe you've watched someone completely change their opinion when others in the room disagreed. These moments aren't random quirks of human behavior. They're predictable patterns that psychologists call social influence. Understanding these patterns is essential for your EPPP exam, but more importantly, they'll help you understand your clients, recognize when people are being manipulated, and even notice when these forces are affecting your own professional decisions.

Social influence shows up everywhere: in your therapy room when a client describes peer pressure, in organizational settings when you consult on workplace dynamics, and even in your own life when you make decisions based on what others think. Let's break down the three major types of social influence and what makes people so susceptible to them.

The Three Pillars of Social Influence

Social influence research focuses on three main areas: obedience to authority, conformity to group norms, and compliance with requests. Each operates through different psychological mechanisms, and each has different implications for how people behave in social situations.

Before we dive deep into each type, let's get a quick overview:

Obedience to Authority: The Milgram Studies

What Milgram Discovered

Stanley Milgram's research in 1974 revealed something disturbing about human nature: ordinary people will follow orders to hurt others when those orders come from someone they perceive as an authority figure.

Here's how his study worked: Participants thought they were testing how punishment affects learning. They were assigned the role of "teacher" while a confederate (someone secretly working with the researchers) played the "learner." The researcher, wearing a lab coat and clipboard, instructed the teacher to deliver electric shocks to the learner every time they got a word wrong. With each mistake, the shock intensity increased. The learner wasn't actually receiving shocks, but they acted like they were, screaming, begging to stop, and eventually going silent.

Before running the study, Milgram asked psychiatrists to predict how many participants would deliver the maximum shock level (450 volts, labeled as potentially lethal). They estimated maybe 1 in 1,000. Only people with serious psychological problems. The actual result? The majority of participants, both men and women, delivered the highest shock levels.

{{M}}Think about receiving instructions from your clinical supervisor to try a treatment approach that makes you uncomfortable. That internal tension (wanting to trust their expertise while also trusting your own judgment) captures just a fraction of what Milgram's participants experienced.{{/M}}

Why Did They Obey?

Milgram proposed that participants entered an "agentic state". They saw themselves as agents carrying out someone else's wishes rather than making their own choices. When you're in this state, you mentally shift responsibility to the authority figure. You're just following orders, so you tell yourself you're not really responsible for the consequences.

Other researchers have offered additional explanations:

• Novelty and uncertainty: The situation was completely new. Participants had no script for "what to do when a researcher tells me to shock someone," so they defaulted to following instructions.

• Fast pace: Events moved quickly. Participants didn't have time to stop and think, "Wait, is this actually okay?"

• Gradual escalation: The shocks started small (15 volts) and increased by small increments. There was no clear moment when things suddenly became unreasonable. Each step was only slightly worse than the last.

When Obedience Decreased

Milgram ran variations of his study to see what reduced obedience. People were less willing to deliver high shocks when:

• The study took place in a rundown office building instead of prestigious Yale University
• The teacher and learner were in the same room (making the harm visible)
• The experimenter gave orders by phone instead of being physically present
• Other "teachers" (confederates) refused to continue

These variations tell us something important: obedience isn't absolute. Context matters enormously.

Modern Replications

You might wonder if these results still hold up today. After all, Milgram's studies happened in the 1970s. Wouldn't modern participants, who know about these studies, behave differently?

Jerry Burger replicated Milgram's work in 2009, with some ethical modifications. He stopped the study at 150 volts instead of going all the way to 450, and he followed modern informed consent procedures. The results were remarkably similar: 70% of Burger's participants continued delivering shocks at 150 volts, compared to 82.5% in Milgram's original study. That difference wasn't statistically significant, meaning we can't say people have really changed.

Conformity to Group Norms: Going Along to Get Along

The Foundation: Sherif's Autokinetic Effect

Muzafer Sherif was one of the first researchers to study conformity systematically. He used a clever trick of perception: when you stare at a single point of light in a completely dark room, the light appears to move even though it's stationary. This is called the autokinetic effect.

When Sherif asked people to estimate how far the light moved while they were alone, estimates varied widely. Some said a few inches, others said several feet. But when people made their estimates after hearing others (confederates) give their answers first, something interesting happened: people's estimates converged toward the group norm. They started reporting numbers similar to what they'd just heard.

Asch's Line Studies: Conforming Despite Obvious Truth

Solomon Asch took conformity research further in 1951. He showed participants a simple task: look at a line, then pick which of three comparison lines matched it in length. The answer was obvious. No trick of perception involved.

But here's the twist: participants sat in a room with several confederates who all gave the same wrong answer before the real participant responded. Even though the correct answer was clear, many participants went along with the group and gave the obviously incorrect response.

{{M}}Imagine you're in a case consultation meeting. Five colleagues before you all interpret a client's behavior as borderline personality disorder, but you're seeing clear signs of complex PTSD. Do you speak up, or do you go with the flow? That uncomfortable moment captures what Asch's participants felt.{{/M}}

Two Types of Influence: Informational vs. Normative

Researchers distinguish between two reasons people conform:

Informational Influence: This happens when you genuinely believe others know more than you do. You're not just going along to avoid conflict (you're actually changing your mind. This explains conformity in ambiguous situations, like Sherif's moving light. When you're unsure, it's reasonable to think, "Well, everyone else is saying 10 inches, maybe I'm wrong about seeing 3 inches." This leads to private acceptance) you really change your belief.

Normative Influence: This happens when you conform to avoid ridicule or rejection, even though you privately disagree. This explains conformity in unambiguous situations, like Asch's lines. You know the group is wrong, but you don't want to be the odd one out. This leads to public compliance without private acceptance. You go along outwardly but don't actually change your mind.

Compliance: Getting People to Say Yes

While obedience involves orders from authority and conformity involves matching group behavior, compliance is about responding to direct requests. Researchers have identified specific techniques that make people more likely to say yes to requests.

The Foot-in-the-Door Technique

This is a two-step process:

1. First, make a small request that most people will agree to
2. Then, once they've agreed, make a larger request

{{M}}A colleague asks if you can cover their morning client. Just one session. You agree because it's not a big deal. A few days later, they ask if you can cover their entire day next week. You're much more likely to say yes to this bigger request because you already said yes to the smaller one.{{/M}}

Why does this work? People like to be consistent. Once you've agreed to something, turning down a related request feels inconsistent with the image of yourself as helpful or agreeable. You've already identified yourself as someone who does this type of thing, so refusing the second request creates uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

The Door-in-the-Face Technique

This technique works in reverse:

1. First, make a large request that most people will reject
2. When they refuse, make a smaller request

{{M}}Imagine a nonprofit calls asking if you'll volunteer every Saturday for the next year. You decline. That's way too much commitment. Then they ask if you could volunteer just once next month. Suddenly, that sounds reasonable, and you're more likely to agree.{{/M}}

Two explanations account for why this works:

Perceptual Contrast: After hearing the large request, the smaller request sounds more reasonable by comparison. Volunteering once doesn't seem like much when you've just considered volunteering 52 times.

Reciprocity Norm: The requester made a concession by backing down from their initial request. Social norms suggest that when someone makes a concession, you should reciprocate. You feel obligated to meet them halfway by agreeing to the smaller request.

These aren't just academic curiosities. {{M}}Think about how advertisers use these techniques. A streaming service might show you a $20/month premium plan first, making the $10/month standard plan seem like a bargain (door-in-the-face). Or a free trial gets you committed to using the service (foot-in-the-door), making you more likely to subscribe when the trial ends.{{/M}}

When Social Influence Backfires: Psychological Reactance

Not everyone responds to influence attempts by going along. Sometimes people react in the opposite way. Brehm and Brehm (1981) identified this phenomenon as psychological reactance.

Reactance occurs when people feel that pressure to behave a certain way threatens their personal freedom. Instead of complying, they do the opposite of what's requested or act aggressively toward the person making the request.

{{M}}You've probably experienced this when someone tells you that you "have to" do something in a particularly demanding way. That feeling of bristling, of wanting to refuse just to prove you're not being controlled. That's reactance.{{/M}}

This has important clinical implications. If you push clients too hard toward a particular course of action, they might resist not because they disagree with your suggestion, but because they need to preserve their sense of autonomy. This is why motivational interviewing emphasizes client autonomy and avoids direct persuasion.

Real-World Applications for Your Practice

Understanding social influence isn't just about passing your EPPP. It's practical knowledge you'll use regularly:

In Therapy Sessions:

• Recognize when clients are conforming to family or peer pressure rather than making autonomous choices
• Identify when clients in group therapy are showing informational vs. normative influence
• Avoid triggering reactance by respecting client autonomy
• Notice when clients have been harmed by compliance techniques (like in abusive relationships)

In Professional Settings:

• Understand power dynamics in supervision and consultation
• Recognize when you might be conforming to prevailing opinions without critically evaluating them
• Be aware of how your authority as a therapist might lead clients to follow suggestions they're uncomfortable with
• Notice compliance techniques in marketing to you as a professional (continuing education, assessment tools, etc.)

In Assessment and Diagnosis:

• Consider whether a client's behavior reflects their genuine beliefs (private acceptance) or social pressure (public compliance)
• Evaluate how susceptible someone might be to social influence when assessing risk
• Understand group dynamics when working with families or in organizational settings

Common Misconceptions to Avoid

Misconception 1: "Only weak or unintelligent people conform/obey/comply"

Reality: Milgram's participants were ordinary people from all backgrounds. Intelligence and personality matter far less than situational factors. The situation's power often overwhelms individual differences.

Misconception 2: "These findings are outdated. Modern people would behave differently"

Reality: Burger's 2009 replication showed remarkably similar results to Milgram's 1970s studies. Human social psychology hasn't fundamentally changed.

Misconception 3: "Conformity is always bad"

Reality: Some conformity is necessary for social functioning. {{M}}We all follow traffic laws, wait our turn in line, and use common social courtesies. Society couldn't function if everyone always did their own thing.{{/M}} The key is distinguishing between healthy social coordination and harmful conformity.

Misconception 4: "These effects only work on other people, not on me"

Reality: This belief itself can make you more vulnerable. When you think you're immune to social influence, you stop monitoring for it. The most sophisticated defense is simply awareness.

Misconception 5: "Authority must be explicit (like a police officer) to trigger obedience"

Reality: Authority can be subtle. A lab coat, a professional title, an institutional setting. These trigger obedience even without explicit power structures.

Practice Tips for Remembering This Material

Use the 3 C's Framework: Conformity (matching the group), Compliance (saying yes to requests), Command (following authority's orders). Each C has different triggers and mechanisms.

Connect to Personal Experience: For each type of influence, recall a specific time you experienced it. Memory researchers show that connecting abstract concepts to personal experiences dramatically improves retention.

Create Comparison Tables: Make a table comparing the techniques (you can use the ones in this lesson as starting points). The act of organizing information into tables engages deeper processing.

Practice Identifying Influence Types: When watching TV shows or movies, notice social influence in action. Is a character conforming? Obeying? Being manipulated through compliance techniques? {{M}}Those crime procedurals you watch during study breaks? Perfect opportunities to spot these patterns.{{/M}}

Remember Key Names with Associations:

• Milgram = "Million volts" (exaggerated, but helps you remember the shocking obedience study)
• Asch = "ASh, Conformity, Huh?" (the study that made people say "huh?" when others gave wrong answers)
• Sherif = "Sure-if" (as in, "I'm sure this light is moving, if everyone else says so")

Link to Clinical Practice: For each concept, write down one sentence about how you'd explain it to a client. Teaching concepts forces deeper understanding.

Key Takeaways

• Obedience to authority can be remarkably strong, even when orders contradict personal values. Milgram showed that most people will follow harmful orders under the right conditions.

• Situational factors matter more than personality traits in predicting obedience. Proximity to the victim, proximity to the authority, and the setting's prestige all significantly affect compliance rates.

• The agentic state explains why people obey. They see themselves as carrying out someone else's wishes rather than acting autonomously, which psychologically shifts responsibility away from themselves.

• Conformity occurs in both ambiguous and unambiguous situations, but for different reasons. Informational influence (genuine belief change) dominates in ambiguous situations, while normative influence (going along to avoid rejection) dominates when the correct answer is obvious.

• Two powerful compliance techniques are the foot-in-the-door (small request followed by large request) and door-in-the-face (large request followed by smaller request). Both exploit psychological principles like consistency and reciprocity.

• Psychological reactance occurs when influence attempts threaten personal freedom, causing people to resist or do the opposite of what's requested. This has important implications for therapeutic approaches.

• Social influence affects everyone, regardless of intelligence or education. Awareness of these mechanisms is your best defense, both personally and professionally.

• These findings remain relevant today, as demonstrated by modern replications of classic studies. Understanding social influence is essential for clinical work, professional development, and ethical practice.

Remember, your EPPP exam will test not just your knowledge of these studies but your ability to apply these concepts to clinical scenarios. Practice identifying which type of influence is operating in different situations, and think through the mechanisms that explain why people respond as they do.