Nature and Dynamics of Social Influence: Interpersonal and Organizational Contexts 9811945977, 9789811945977

Citation preview

Janak Pandey

Nature and Dynamics of Social Influence Interpersonal and Organizational Contexts

Nature and Dynamics of Social Influence

Janak Pandey

Nature and Dynamics of Social Influence Interpersonal and Organizational Contexts

Janak Pandey Centre for Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences University of Allahabad Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

ISBN 978-981-19-4597-7 ISBN 978-981-19-4598-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4598-4 © Indian Council of Social Science Research 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Dedicate the book to Professor Jai B. P. Sinha, mentor, and source of inspiration to question and search for answers. —Janak Pandey

Foreword

I am pleased to introduce Nature and Dynamics of Social Influence by Janak Pandey, a social psychologist of repute. He is known for reinforcing the tradition of reviews of psychology research in India by editing two rounds of research surveys (Pandey, 1988, 2001, 2004) spread over nearly a quarter-century (1976-2000). He edited the six-volumes set competently and presented state-of-the-art psychology in India, a highly referred source for researchers in India and abroad. He has also edited and coedited several volumes and contributed chapters and articles to books and journals. Pandey’s book on social influence deals with the intricacies of the social influence process ranging from interpersonal to societal. He builds historical, contextual, and social psychological perspectives and reviews extant literature to develop a schema that presents his own and his associates’ four decades of research on social influence. The schema describes the various ways of influencing, selectively sensitized by the personal characteristics of the agents initiating influence and of the targets responding differently to the influences, moderated by the contexts in which the influencing process occurs. Collective effects manifest in groupthink and social movements, which were the domains of sociology until recently. Pandey walks through them briefly, showing how individuals merge into collectives that exert tremendous influence over their members, other individuals, and collectives. Finally, he arrives at the frontiers of social influence where people open up to the Internet, enabling supercomputers to construct their mindset, which exerts effects that people take for their own free choice. In India’s strongly power-oriented culture, balajori, brute force of money, muscle, or authority, is shown to come quite handy in influencing people. Authoritarians use it more often, forcing targets unilaterally by ignoring their needs, expectations, and rights, mainly when the latter are weak and unable to retaliate or resist. Power succeeds only to the extent it can bulldoze the resistance and force compliance. But forced compliance hardly amounts to successful influence. If not defiance, unwilling submission spoils the game by subtle sabotage or half-hearted obedience. Power, as a result, does force compliance, but only overtly and even at social costs. On the other hand, persuasive reasoning looks more civilian and less oppressive. Strongly motivated persons engage in it more often and succeed when they vii

viii

Foreword

and the targets share a common identity, superordinate goals, or when the targets are externally controlled in their worldviews. Otherwise, it is often counteracted by the “argumentative Indians,” who have an established reputation for giving equally compelling arguments nullifying influence attempts. In cases where the “argumentative Indians” are cornered, they get silenced but are not convinced enough to change their thoughts and behavior. Silence means being non-committal, still holding on to their ground. Resistance in both––forcing and persuading––remains a critical roadblock in the way to successful influencing. So, an effective strategy has to eliminate resistance before initiating an influence process. Bribing and rewarding are often used for the purpose. Bribing is over rewarding for an undue or illegal favor, and it works fine for needy agents and greedy targets. However, bribing is disruptive in the long run, and rewarding loses its salience by getting satiated too soon. A more effective and lasting way to eliminate resistance is to make the target more amicable, open, and receptive to influence attempts. Compliments do this reasonably well. Compliments are further calibrated to melt a target person into a more positive stance, enhancing his self-esteem and creating space for the complimenting person to seek an extra gain in return. The calibrated compliments constitute ingratiation. The lines of demarcation between compliments and ingratiation, and another competing construct, flattery, appear to overlap. In all three, positive qualities are attributed to the target person. They, however, differ in subtlety, intentions, and exaggerations. Compliments aim to be positive, fair, and balanced, which helps the complimented persons in validating themselves. Flattery is a crude and exaggerated version of praising, having the sole purpose of selfseeking. Ingratiation indeed involves an exaggeration of positive attributes, but in such a sophisticated fashion, the target feels like willingly granting extra benefit to the ingratiator. However, an ingratiator does not always seek his interest. A teacher, for example, praises an academically weak student for enhancing his motivation, which, the teacher expects, might improve his subsequent academic performance. Though widely prevalent in India, ingratiation was not researched till Pandey and his associates started investigating it systematically in the late seventies. They found that Indian culture has been particularly conducive to ingratiation because of three main factors. First, Indian society is hierarchically structured where the more privileged and powerful presume to be entitled to lord over the powerless and less privileged ones, who habitually succumb to them. Secondly, Bhakti Marg (devotional path) is deeply ingrained in people’s minds, where the devotees downgrade themselves while eulogizing gods and praying for bestowing blessings of all kinds. Finally, from ancient times, Darbari (court) culture motivated bards (Bhant) to attribute to even the insignificant kings and chieftains’ sovereignty over the whole of earth and the divine power harvesting excessive gains and favors. The three cultural traditions still reign strong in some forms or others in most politics, corporate, offices, and society. As a result, as Pandey and his associates document, the ingratiators depreciate and degrade themselves while enhancing the targets’ qualities and conforming to whatever they say, opine, or value. Unlike Western culture, Indians accept and relish ingratiation even when they see through it. However, Indians do ingratiate differently

Foreword

ix

according to the contexts varying across places (desh), time (kaal), and persons (paatra). For example, the nature of ingratiation differs in workplaces and social settings. Powerful and resourceful persons are ingratiated more than ordinary people. Those with a greater need for approval seek, appreciate, and encourage ingratiation more. The ingratiator plans long or short-term strategies by ingratiating differently. Ingratiation is also used as a lubricant for facilitating other influencing ways, such as forcing, bribing, rewarding, or persuading. In sum, the book has comprehensive coverage of the history and dynamics of social influences centering on ingratiation in them. The book will be helpful to scholars of social psychology and other social sciences. It will also interest those who want to understand the intricacies of social influence and manage it in contexts such as organizations, politics, business, and society at large. Jai B. P. Sinha Distinguished Professor of Psychology National Academy of Psychology India

Preface

Social influence is the lifeline of people’s interactions in the family, peer groups, community, work organizations, and meeting strangers, thus ubiquitous. For interpersonal interactions, a core element of social life, influencing serves the purpose of a lubricant facilitating conversation, dialogue, debate, resolutions of conflicts, and getting the job done, one way or another. Social influence objectives are to change or reinforce perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Social influence adds dynamism and forward movement to social interactions to achieve its purpose. Social influence manages human resources, unites, and mobilizes people to work for their personal or collective goals. Social influence facilitates getting along with people and adjusting to various social challenges. Social influence helps individuals grab opportunities in their favor, especially in scarcity, work and achieve personal goals, and maximize gains. Social influence is a skill to win, manage popularity, impress others to like and obligate as desired. Social influence also raises group cohesiveness and morale for higher productivity. This book is about social influence, nature, and dynamism, focusing on interpersonal and organizational contexts. Democratic societies allow open opportunities to all who compete in almost all spheres, social, political, workplace, and business, to influence people and win them in their favor. The competitive world requires winning others by influencing them to serve the general welfare and some vested interest. The social influence by nature requires understanding how individuals change their attitudes and behavior as per the demands of a social environment. Individuals may go to the extent of grabbing resources and promoting themselves undeservingly at the cost of work quality and productivity. Social influence may work as a handy tool. Thus, on the dark side, social influence may involve manipulation for selfish gains, organizing people for divisive conflicts, obscurity, and ignorance, and on the positive side, social influence may mobilize people to unite and work for socioeconomic development and changes for the welfare of society. The social influence could be a source of positive outcomes like love, cohesiveness, mobilization of human resources, and on the other hand, adverse effects like selfish competition, manipulation, damaging productivity, and hurting social unity, vital for individuals and society. Undoubtedly, social influence is a phenomenon that is of primary concern for social psychologists. xi

xii

Preface

My interest in social influence has probably roots in my growing-up experiences in an extended joint family community with scarce resources. By all accounts, early years’ experiences in a remote deprived village environment, in many ways, worked as resources to teach creativity, innovation, variety of skills, competing, child-like fun, and the joy of sharing. The deprived resource environment imparted skills to live in scarcity without complaint and learn the intricacies of interpersonal life. Significantly, siblings’ support and family values of honest hard work facilitated school, college, and university education in the urban settings of Ranchi and Patna, to the Fulbright Scholarship, an opportunity for Graduate School education in social psychology at Kansas State University (1971–74). As a keen observer of people’s interpersonal skills to influence others for their gains in various contexts further shaped my interest and curiosity in the study of social influence. My personal experiences sowed seeds of my research interest in social power and how people impact others. My interest further strengthened while working (during the late 1960s) as an associate with my mentor, Prof. Jai B. P, Sinha, whose enthusiasm for social psychological research to untangle the issues for development and change in Indian society inspired a generation of young enthusiasts, like me. He associated me with opportunities to work on dependence proneness and achievement needs; both appeared vital for the contemporary social reality and relevant for change and development. During the discussions, it was apparent that manipulative social influencing flourished in Indian society at the cost of the actual quality and productivity of both individuals and their organizations. After completing my doctorate at K-State in 1974, I joined the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, and on the first opportunity, presented my budding research ideas on ingratiation. The faculty and scholars present in the seminar critically responded. Some colleagues commented that I was using a jargon “ingratiation” for rampant flattery and questioned what was to research. Some others commented that though it is widely prevalent in Indian society and organizations, affecting productivity, we know little about its dynamics, and therefore, research would certainly enhance understanding, and that may have positive contributions in many ways. Observation of the social reality of the rampant practice of flattery with its deep roots was a powerful motivation to study ingratiation. It is a daunting task to identify research questions related to social reality and develop an appropriate research paradigm acceptable to the discipline. My interest and research background converged and motivated me to pursue ideas, build research questions, and seek answers. The book represents the journey of my efforts to understand social influence. The Indian Council of Social Science Research was hesitant but later generously supported two research projects on ingratiation, facilitating several studies reported in the book. Dr. Renu Rastogi doing her doctoral thesis under my supervision joined me in the first study on ingratiation. Dr. Kayyum Ali Bohra joined the ICSSR project. I moved to Psychology Department, Allahabad University (1978), which provided a supportive, collegial environment for research on ingratiation, and the project continued. My colleague at AU, Prof. R. C. Tripathi’s interest in Machiavellianism, converged with mine, strengthening the social influence research.

Preface

xiii

A few master’s students and doctoral fellows choose to work on social influence. Most of the thesis research published in journals and reported in this book make significant contributions. A brief discussion of chapters may help readers follow the book. The book integrates our research within the general framework of social–psychological literature. Influencing others has always been in human social life in one form or another during all periods of human history. Therefore, the introduction presents a brief historical account of social influence, and how it existed and was practiced, followed by impressive scholarly research in social science disciplines, especially in psychology, enhancing our understanding of persuasion and influence. The chapter also draws attention to how psychologists have been shy to study ingratiation, the most intriguing aspects of influencing. The book references the Indian social–cultural context, and therefore, the second chapter examines the nature of the societal structure, norms, standards, and culture, determining social influence. Chapter 3 reviews the relevant psychological research and theories explaining the intricacies of social influence. Chapters 4 and 5 constitute the book’s core evolution of research on impression management and ingratiation. Research on ingratiation and impression management started picking up in the 1960s; development in other fields like the study of self, power, leadership, and organizational behavior served as an impetus to influence research. The impression management chapter deals with self-concept, selfpresentation, and impression management tactics. The self-enhancement chapter deals with various facets of ingratiation, its tactics, related dilemmas, and theoretical explanations of such acts. Chapter 6 draws attention to manipulating influence tactics and interactive roles of personality dispositions with situational factors. The chapter emphasizes interactions of the personality dispositions of the influencing agent, characteristics associated with the target, and the situation impacting social influence processes. The situational variables occupy a more significant share relative to personal dispositions in social influence research. The chapter briefly presents an overview of relevant personality traits like authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, five-factor model, internal-external control, determining influence processes. Chapter 7 discusses principles and critical aspects of influence, persuasion, and compliance followed by brief descriptions of evidence-based popularly used influence techniques. The chapter describes indigenously and empirically derived influence dimensions and the construction of the Social Influence Scale (SIS) in the Indian context. Chapter 8 presents social influence as a social lubricant for corporate functioning and determining productivity and individuals’ satisfaction. People join organizations to work for their livelihood and fulfill multiple biological, economic, social, cultural, and spiritual needs. Individuals in an organization interact, influence, and fulfill responsibilities, resulting in collective productivity and personal achievements. This chapter focuses on social influence processes in the corporate context, particularly intriguing influence tactics like ingratiation, widely practiced in Indian organizations. Social influence, however, if practiced normatively, may determine work organization productivity and maximize advantages and satisfaction to people who work there individually and collectively.

xiv

Preface

The last chapter is on the nature and practices of social influence beyond the individual level. Group influences individuals and collective decision-making both positively and negatively. Out of the many consequences of a group on individuals and groups, the chapter draws attention to four fundamental phenomena, groupthink, group shift, deindividuation, and social loafing. The active minority may persuade other members to reconsider the new option and impact a significant number of members; consequently, the solution of the minority may get accepted by the group. The concluding chapter discusses social contagion, the power of identity, and the unity principle in the influence process. For illustration and clarity, the boxes discuss research details and the phenomenon’s complexity. The book has comprehensive coverage, but it cannot include all aspects of social influence, which may require a handbook. The book, however, is unique in scope because it uncovers intricacies of the realities of social life, generally ignored or summarily dismissed. I trust social psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, scholars, and those interested in individuals and society would like to read and better understand what goes on around them. Allahabad, India

Janak Pandey

Acknowledgments

Shaping the book “Nature and dynamics of social influence” has been possible with the support of institutions and colleagues, where I worked. Initiating and continuing with a research interest is not possible without a collegial environment. I acknowledge and thank the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, Centre of Advanced Study, Department of Psychology, University of Allahabad, especially the faculty colleagues and scholars, for their encouragement, criticisms, and skepticism. Great appreciation to the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) for funding two consecutive projects: “Social Psychological Study of Ingratiation” (1980) and “Role of Social and Personality Variables in Ingratiating Behaviours” (1986). I am personally thankful to my associates, Drs. Renu Rastogi, Kayyum Ali Bohra, Saroj Kakkar, Anup Kumar Singh, Purnima Sigh, and Shomi Srivastwa who worked with me during different periods. The ICSSR National Fellowship award and facilitative support of Professor V. K. Malhotra, Member Secretary helped me complete the manuscript of the book. The Centre of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences (at AU) provided affiliation and infrastructural support during the fellowship. I am grateful to Prof R. C. Tripathi and Prof. Girishwar Misra for reading a few chapters and for their valuable suggestions. Professor Jai B. P. Sinha read the chapters, gave helpful comments, and kindly wrote the book’s foreword. My special gratitude to Prof. Sinha for his encouragement and support and for kindly allowing me to dedicate this book to him. Janak Pandey

xv

Contents

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Social Influence in History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Social Influence: Foundation of Research in Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Social Influence: Foundation of Research in Social Psychology . . . 1.4 About the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 4 10 13 19

2 Sociocultural Context Perspectives to Social Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Understanding the Sociocultural Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Indian Societal Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Structural Theory of Social Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Authority and Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Social Status, Power, and Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Obedience to Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23 24 28 33 35 39 42

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Attitude Change and Social Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Affective-State (Mood) and Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Individual Differences in Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Social Norms and Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Group Affiliation and Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Conformity, Compliance, and Social Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 46 55 58 61 65 66

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Traditional Perspectives of Self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Self-presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Impression Management Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71 71 75 79 86

5 Ingratiation for Self-Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 5.1 The Concept of Ingratiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 5.2 Ingratiation Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 5.3 Ingratiator Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 5.4 Moderators of Ingratiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 xvii

xviii

5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

Contents

Why Ingratiate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Actor’s Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Target’s Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bystander’s Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

104 109 113 119

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Nature of Manipulative Social Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Personality Dispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Authoritarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Machiavellianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, and Manipulative Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125 125 132 135 138

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement . . . . . . . . 7.1 Principles of Social Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 What Makes Persuasion Effective? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Techniques of Persuasion and Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Taxonomy and Measurement of Social Influence in the Indian Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix: English Version of Social Influence Scale (SIS) . . . . . . . . . . . .

153 154 158 161

152

167 176

8 Social Influence in Organizational Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 8.1 Social Influence in Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 8.2 Ingratiation in Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 9 Social Influence in Social Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 How Do Groups Influence? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Active Minority as Agent of Social Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Social Identity and Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Social Movements for Social Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 Power of the Unity Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 Social Contagion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 Changing Nature of Social Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

203 204 207 208 209 211 212 213

Appendix A: Social Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ): Ingratiation Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Appendix B: Social Influence Scale (SIS) (English Version) . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

About the Author

Janak Pandey Ph.D., a reputed social and cross-cultural psychologist is known for his contributions to the field of applied social psychology particularly for his innovative studies on social influence. His socio-cultural approach is highly relevant in understanding and applications of social influence in variety of domains of social and organizational contexts. He is a recipient of Fulbright and Commonwealth Fellowships. He is an honorary fellow of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology and fellow of the International Association of Applied Psychology, the National Academy of Psychology, and a National fellow of the Indian Council of Social Science Research.

xix

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Table 7.1

Mean ingratiation scores as a function of main effects . . . . . . . . Intercorrelations of influence dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92 179

xxi

List of Boxes

Box 1.1 Box 1.2 Box 1.3 Box 2.1 Box 2.2 Box 3.1 Box 3.2 Box 4.1 Box 4.2 Box 4.3 Box 4.4 Box 5.1 Box 5.2 Box 5.3 Box 5.4 Box 6.1 Box 6.2 Box 7.1 Box 8.1 Box 8.2

Examples of Social Influence in History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Influence Research: Sociology Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Influence: Social Psychology Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meaning of Socio-cultural Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of Socio-cultural Context in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . Psychological Research and Theories Attempt to Explain: . . . . . . Attitude-Change Process According to Hovland-Janis-Kelley Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Understanding Self and Self-concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-presentation and Impression Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salient Characteristics of Self-presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ingratiation Toward Strangers, Friends, and Bosses. . . . . . . . . . . . Social Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ): Ingratiation Tactics Measurement Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attribution and Evaluation of Manipulative Social Behaviors . . . . Social Power Through Ingratiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Target Person’s Perspective: Affect, Attraction, and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perception and Causality Attribution to Manipulative Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Statecraft as Social Influence in History . . . . . . . . . . “Life May Go, but Not Promise” (Pran Jahi Par Vachan Na Jahi!) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ingratiation In Small to Large Developed Organizations . . . . . . . . Task Versus Relationship-Oriented Organizations and Ingratiation Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 11 16 27 30 45 51 75 80 84 91 98 103 112 116 130 139 155 191 193

xxiii

Chapter 1

Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

People Have a Unique Ability to Influence Other People’s Perceptions, Cognition, Thoughts, Feelings, and Action.

In everyday social life, common concerns are getting along with and influencing others in social, business, and other contexts. The moment two or more persons come in contact, social interactions begin for influencing others. It is common to observe that people take well-thought actions to influence and change others’ attitudes, beliefs, affect, and behavior. Thus, individual influences other to favorably extract some benefits or do something they may not usually like. Any social influence episode has two parties, the influencer as the actor and the other influenced as the target. Generally, both the actor and the target develop a mutual interactive influencing relationship. Such relationships may be between two persons, one person and members of a group, or two groups. The actor and the target roles are not only at the individual level. For example, the speaker is an individual, but the target audience could be individuals, groups, communities, or an entire nation. Thus, social influence is between a leader and followers at the mass level. Similarly, in a parliamentary debate, the ruling party and the opposition make the best efforts to influence one another. In such a case, two groups of people are attempting to influence. The face-to-face influencing processes are standard, but they may also be beyond the actor’s physical presence and the target. Controlling processes intended by the actor to influence others are commonly observable in our daily lives. For example, at home, spouses, parents, and children influence each other by asking to act or not act in a particular way in varied situations. In different settings like business executives, salespersons, and customers; a production unit, supervisors and their co-workers; a school, the teachers and the students; a public meeting, the speaker and the audience; a religious congregation, the preacher and the listeners, all are influencing one another in their respective contexts. Efficient controlling processes facilitate quality output and satisfaction for people engaged in the contexts. Our daily social lives are full of various social situations where we enjoy short- or long-term social relationships requiring active influencing processes. These examples © Indian Council of Social Science Research 2022 J. Pandey, Nature and Dynamics of Social Influence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4598-4_1

1

2

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

show that social influence processes serve lubricant purposes for individuals and their formal and informal institutions making, them efficient and functional. Influencing others is not always to win over others for some favor, and it could also be to serve some social cause in the interest of the larger society. For instance, some community leaders may persuade and influence their neighbors to donate generously to the victims of a natural disaster or work together to keep the neighborhood neat and clean. By influencing others, one may restore peace and cordial relationships. The secret to the success of political processes is effective influencing, and one may readily observe the ways the influencing process is in operation to promote business. During the current global Pandemic of twenty–twenty caused by a coronavirus, national and international governmental and nongovernmental agencies are trying to influence people to practice physical distance and adopt various hygienic behaviors to help humanity survive. Thus, the social influence phenomenon is ubiquitous in our daily social lives like covering different human spheres such as family, community, business, workplace, politics, religion, sports, education, and entertainment, proving its importance as a subject of serious study (Pandey, 1981d, 1986a, 1988a). We like and reward those who conform to our views and act positively toward us. Let us assume that one actor wishes such acts that serve one’s interests from a target person. To ensure such favor from the target, the actor may use various social tactics like overtly agreeing and showering praise on him (target) with the intention and objective to influence him. The actor may influence positively and seduce the target to act favorably. In our daily life, influencing others is a widespread and universal phenomenon. For the vast presence of the influence process, some examples are: To influence potential buyers, a salesman uses varied tactics to sell his product; A job applicant presents his qualities in the best possible way to attract the employer; To succeed in the competitive politics, a politician uses his social identity to connect and influence the voters of his caste, religion, and community regarding his candidacy; A young man uses all possible tactics to control and win the love of the target person. A friend influences his other friends to maintain friendship bonds, and the parents affect their children for the right kind of values and behaviors. The examples of influencing others are endless because we need co-operation with others, covering almost all spheres of our social existence in real life. Interactions and social influence processes are mechanisms to change others, and their attitudes, feelings, and behaviors. Social influence is pervasive on both the actor and the target affecting their cognition, opinion, feeling, and behavior. Human nature and society have evolved to live in an interdependent and cooperative way facilitated by influence processes. Social influence is a general phenomenon to understand our evolving social nature. Social influence is a broad, interactive process, not just studying social tactics to win favors. In brief, the book is about a pervasive and widely used influencing process, determining various facets of our life, like social, work, business, and politics. A man is interdependent and interacts with others to satisfy various biological and social needs as a social being. Our work and social lives depend significantly on our mutually meeting social interactions and influencing processes. Even alone, a person may get affected by an imagined and implied presence (Allport, 1924). A child grows and matures through socialization processes inclusive of continuous

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

3

influence processes. The socialization processes include parents, teachers, peers, and society, inducing individual, societal norms, values, rules, and laws. The influencing process continues in different domains of our lives. The social, political, religious, and business leaders influence other people in their respective fields with their philosophy, ideology, and way of life, adhering to indiscriminate consumerism or austerity. The ubiquitous nature of social influence in our lives makes it challenging to define a general widespread phenomenon like this in a few words. However, for academic communication convenience, we attempt to precisely define it as, “Overt or covert efforts of one or more individuals to change in own or others’ interests, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, affect, and behavior of one or more others.” The definition of influencing is inclusive. Influencing efforts could be by one person or more than one person. The target of influence also may be one or more than one individual. For example, when one teacher advises students regarding the class code, there is one influencer, but all the class students are the target. If a panel of teachers speaks on conduct rules to all school students, more than one person is the actor and the influence target. Influencing could be one-to-one (e.g., two partners) and more than two or more to one (e.g., both parents to a child). Method of impact could be direct (i.e., overt or covert), like asking the students what to do or not do. The principles of conduct (e.g., to be honest, truthful, and democratic) are communicated to the students, and they infer what to do or not do. Influencing in the above example is in the interest of the students and institution. But if a teacher impacts the students to join coaching and pay a fee, then such an influence is selfish. The influencing processes continue lifelong and shape us appropriately for suitable adaptation in a wide range of real-world contexts. Influencing is omnipresent and functional in human social life (Pandey, 1981d, 1986a, 1988a). Generally, social, political, and business leaders may influence their target persons without being conscious of their intention. Their objective could be to remain influential on others and feel powerful, hoping that such power of influence may be beneficial someday in the interpersonal social world. For example, neither parents nor children are always conscious of the ongoing reciprocal influence process. However, influence processes may be deliberate, intended, and planned by the influencer, directly asking someone to do something. For example, a salesperson may exaggerate a new dress’s qualities to indirectly influence the target to buy it without asking him directly. The salesman may indirectly communicate that such new dresses generally get sold out soon after arrival. Thus, the salesman may influence the target person, who may also start believing that he really liked the dress, and therefore, he bought it of his own free will. This example suggests that the influence process was in operation in a shuttle way, and the salesman influenced the target to buy the dress. Understanding social influence is also significant to plan, execute, and manage change in the social world. Like other things, the influencing process is well designed and executed well or poorly. Applications of social influence change negative and foster positive habits by encouraging new behavior. For example, there has been a social drive to influence people to clean their environment in recent years. If the social campaigns are attempted clumsily, then instead of moving toward desired effects, they may cause resentment due to people’s perception of curtailment of their freedom

4

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

(Steiner, 1970). Poor communication may backfire and also may result in uncalledfor conflict and negativity. For example, during the national emergency mid-1970s, the Government of India used harsh measures to control people to accept the “small family” norm. People resented the extreme and coercive methods of adopting family planning. They perceived it as their curtailment of freedom (Steiner, 1970) of choice, resulting in widespread resentment in people, which became one of the significant causes of the ruling party’s election defeat. Since then, the family planning program has suffered a setback, and therefore, the subsequent governments in India have been avoiding giving due attention to much-needed population control measures. In brief, wrongly implemented influence strategies for the “small family” norm did not work and eventually backfired. Evidence-based approaches lead to efficient and effective influencing of others in different domains. Social influence science answers intriguing questions about individual differences and situational factors, facilitating the adoption of the right strategies for influencing others. Social psychology is a rich depository of knowledge related to the influencing process among the social sciences. Since the beginning, understanding social influence, attitude formation, and change have dominated the field (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991). However, mainstream social psychology texts have neglected comprehensive coverage of social influence-related tactical and strategic behaviors (Jones, 1964; Jones & Wortman, 1973; Pandey, 1981d, 1986a, 1988a). In the 1960s, the study began on tactical behaviors like ingratiation in the American and western contexts (Jones, 1964; Christie & Geis, 1970a), but it did not receive due attention outside the Western world. Probably, social psychologists were shy in studying strategic aspects of our interpersonal social interactions. Pandey (1981d) documented strategic social influence in Indian social life and emphasized its systematic study in the Indian sociocultural context. This book summarizes work done in the Indian context for nearly four decades, by Pandey and his associates (Pandey, 1981d, 1986a, 1988a) and discusses commonly practiced social influence processes in our society. As you progress through the book’s pages, discussion on the nature of widely prevalent social influence processes taking place in different domains of our social life would provide new insights and understanding of the social world we live.

1.1 Social Influence in History One may identify great historic and highly influential leaders like Chanakya, Niccolo Machiavelli, Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and many others in various human civilizations. These great people differed in their objectives and methods of influencing others, but they possessed exceptional social influence skills. They were competent and skillful in planning the contents of their communication and preferred the effective medium of reaching out to their audience. Some of them were not excellent at delivering speeches. Still, they represented ideal values for the larger society and suitably adopted other means like

1.1 Social Influence in History

5

Gandhi’s nonviolent protest (Satyagrah), peaceful march, or hunger (fast) strike. Gandhi succeeded in persuading the masses to join the freedom movement and impacted the state’s authority. The social psychologists have unambiguously demonstrated that the messages with arguments and emotional appeals change attitudes and behaviors (Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991), as discussed in Chap. 3. There are similar examples of religious and mythological figures since the ancient period. For instance, Lord Shri Krishna’s sermons in the form of well-argued speeches changed Arjuna’s attitudes and prepared him to fight with his family members in Mahabharat’s war. The great leader’s appeal quickly reaches out to the masses to encourage them to stand up and act for a general cause like removing a foreign or dictatorial regime or practicing certain evils with crippling effects on society. Of course, a leader’s credibility is a critical variable for influencing the masses to change their attitudes and motivate them to rise and act for the community and nation. Some others have used their communication and influence power to serve their interest. In the recent past, a great Christian Missionary preacher Billy Graham used his influential speeches to provoke guilt and fear in his audience’s minds. During his speech, he provided skillful pauses and opportunities to his audience for emotional Catharsis and assurances. He led the audience to get over sin by self-sacrifice in God’s name and by making an over pledge or taking a vow to donate. There is no shortage of Graham-like examples in other religions and ethnic groups. Tactical and strategic social influence is not new for human interactions limited to contemporary societies. Tactical and strategic social influence history is as old as social interactions. Social influence has been present in some form since the beginning of human civilization. To win or coerce others to act favorably, the nature of strategic influence processes changes with variation in society’s socio-economic conditions and governance system. Communities are full of situational variations that continuously evolve, requiring different ways and means of influencing others. Thus, influencing keeps growing and changing according to the demand of the evolving society and situation. Based on primatologists’ research describing chimpanzees’ manipulative behavior as Machiavellian, Stengel (2000) traces the evolutionary family tree of influencing beginning with chimpanzees who flatter their target for sex, status, and existence. Even prehistoric, primitive, and medieval periods were as concerned about influencing others as contemporary societies. Much like nowadays, they also used contextually suitable persuasion, praise, arguments, negotiation, verbal and nonverbal aggressive and nonaggressive behaviors to influence and get others’ compliance. They also used clothing, dresses, hairstyles, cosmetics, jewelry, and tattoos to influence and attract others. The motivation for the best possible self-presentation is human nature. Therefore, beautifying techniques and makeup products have always existed and continue to expand as mass consumption goods. Though flattery is considered a derogatory behavior in modern and particularly the western world and certain sections of our society, this behavior is widely prevalent in different social life domains. According to historians and epigraphists, such actions were even institutionalized and professionally practiced in ancient and medieval times in our society

6

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

(Tiwary, 1984). One may read about the flattery practices in ancient classical literature like Kama-Sutra, Natyashashtra, Daskhumarcharit, and Chaturbani (Avari, 2007). Some of the leading administrative thinkers and leaders of ancient times, like Kautilya (Rangarajan, 1992), a great statecraft practitioner, argued that too many personal interactions among the executives might negatively influence compromises and corruption. Human emotions and personal concerns impede a rule-based administration’s successful running due to such personal interactions. Chanakya Neeti, i.e., policy (Choudary, 2009), also advises how to be influential and warns that it is always foolish to work under peer pressure or indulge in flattery for some gains. Chanakya Neeti (i.e., policy) further advocates acquiring special social skills to serve a king successfully. Chanakya warned and advised the wise men to stay away from flatterers who always manipulate the situation in their favor. Chanakya (also known as Kautilya) was a keen observer of human nature, and advocated efficient and effective social interactions. In ancient Indian classics, Ramayana and Mahabharata prescribed standard conduct practices in various contexts with different relations, functionaries, friends, and enemies. Farooqi (2002), in his documentation of “diplomacy and diplomatic procedure under the Mughals,” traces the practice of appointing Dutt (i.e., envoys) to communicate and influence other friendly and enemy kings. For example, to avoid war, Rama sent his Dutt Hanuman to Ravana to control him to release Sita, unlawfully detained by him. On behalf of Pandavas, Shri Krishna himself failed to influence the Kaurav King Dhritrastttra to return to Panadava, their kingdom, to avoid war. The mighty kings and rulers of ancient and medieval societies, particularly India, allowed themselves and their courts (Darbars), professional flatterers, to praise and enhance their even undeserved strength. These flatterers specialized in the art of pleasing the rulers who enjoyed the world of self-glory. The kings, surrounded by flatterers, rewarded them based on their quality performance. Such rewards were not for productive work. The ruling class patronized such actors to keep the rulers/masters in high spirits and make them feel powerful. In return, the rulers rewarded them out of turn. Thus, such characters were institutionalized in the courts (Darbars) and were employed as court jesters by the rulers. It was common to have flatterers who practiced this profession from generation to generation (Tiwary, 1984). In India, they belonged to a community or caste called Bhants and practiced court jesters. They acquired knowledge of the royal family’s genealogy and strength and used it skillfully in their speeches and spontaneous poetry recital. Professionally, they maintained records of genealogy, heroic deeds, achievements, and the social welfare of their masters. Thus, the Bhants were expert historians and literary, creative writers, and experts in the recitation of poetry. They preserved the oldest treasures of the rulers and their people. The traditional Bhants community mastered poetic (Phakra/free and frank), praised their masters, and received encouragement and support from the rulers and Zamindars (big landlords). They recited poems and ballads in a high-pitched sing-song tone in the courts of rulers. As a community, they flourished, particularly in Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Haryana, Punjab, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, states of India. The Bhants loyal to the master from generation to

1.1 Social Influence in History

7

generation also enjoyed individual freedom for mixing sarcastic wits with praise for the master. In the twelfth century and later, Rajput kings used to have court jesters who made themselves indispensable in the royal palaces with their ready wit, sharp intellect, and poetic skill. One such example is a Brajbhasha poetry epic, the Prithviraj Raso on the life of the twelfth-century Rajput king Prithviraj Chauhan by Chand Bardai, a court poet. The Raso was written in praise of bravery, heroism, and strength of king Prithviraj Chauhan to keep him glorified and in high spirits. Later, other Rajput kings inherited the legacy of the original Raso and adopted and got it rewritten in favor of their glory. The Raso tradition of praising the king’s bravery in the Darbar was supported mainly by the Rajput kings in Rajasthan (Prithviraj Raso, published by Nagari Pracharini Prakashan, Varanasi). During the medieval period, detailed protocols and practices for the king’s court (Darbars) related to dresses, mannerisms, greetings, and gifts were known as Dastoors (traditional protocol), and Nazrana (courtesy gift) for various occasions were meticulously standardized and followed (Mukhia, 2004). To maximize influence on the rulers for the desired reward, innovative and surprising practices were used to please them. To ward off any possible punishment by the king, the court members and others indulged in flattery. They also followed other traditional ways to compensate for their shortcomings to remain in the king’s good books. Also, mannerism, courtesies, and etiquettes including body posture combined with verbal communication, evolved with variations across times and cultures for various occasions and situations. Following the nature of governance and society, these practices continued and varied in forms with time. Historians have elaborately discussed etiquettes practiced by the Mughal king’s courts (Darbars). The Mughal Courts were well known for meticulous etiquette regulations and strictly followed standing and sitting arrangements. The king was the pivot around which the Mughal court and its society revolved. While discussing practices in the court, Mukhia (2004) narrates the existence of “…graded spatial distance between the throne and the courtiers, measured in almost to an inch, and defined their social standing” (p. 77). The court rituals and norms of conduct to maintain a visible imperial majesty and grandeur existed and practiced. The Mogul courts witnessed the practice of “… prostration before the Emperor or his throne; kissing of his feet or any other limb; the hand in particular; several forms of salutation by bending from the waist downwards; and the custom of distribution of gifts; titles and offices on special occasions such as royal birthdays, or festivals like New Year…” (Mukhia, 2004, p. 78). One of the most frequently referred to names in Indian medieval history is that of Birbal in the court of Akbar. Birbal was not a court jester in the usual sense. He enjoyed the status of a minister and was well known for his intellect, wit, and practical knowledge, and therefore his king Akbar used to depend on him for advice (Mukhia, 2004). These court professionals, also called Darbaris, knew well how to please the ruler. They knew very well that once the king’s mental state is positively affectively aroused and he was pleased, it would be possible to extract the best possible reward from him. The regular such visitors (Darbaris) of the courtroom and officials with

8

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

paid salaries had to learn expected courtroom curtsies and skills to praise the king and keep him in high spirits. Those skillful in such a social craft enjoyed a more significant influence on kings, and they also yielded more power to the state. They were also recipients of greater rewards. It is beyond the book’s scope to review the practices of courtroom jesters and entertainers in the history of different nation-states. However, some examples are to show the universality of such practices. The ancient Greeks had a tradition of intellectual debates and recognized the importance of eloquence and the art of persuasion to argue that “white is black successfully.” Plato’s scholarly disciple Aristotle founded argumentative studies to influence others. In his analysis, the persuader as the source of information, the contents, and the recipient were critical components for significant influence. Aristotle advised that to impact public addresses, the speakers must concentrate on sensitive issues necessary for the audience (Lasswell, 1948). During the medieval era, the British and European societies also had similar court jesters, courtroom fools, who played entertainers for the king and noblemen. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Marc Anthony’s skillfully delivered a funeral speech, and his oration persuaded the audience to alter their attitude and modify their behavior. During the Renaissance, the British aristocratic households employed licensed fools and jesters wearing a motley-coat and a hood with donkey ears. They served not merely to amuse but also humorously criticize their master or mistress and guests. The British Royals also employed the court jesters or fools to entertain them by itinerant performance and occasionally even entertain common folk at fairs and markets. Jesters entertained with various skills like singing, playing musical instruments, storytelling, and reciting poetry. Besides, they also performed acrobatics, juggling, magic, and told jokes. They followed a comic style and served to make fun of people and events happening around them. Such characters were employed as household members to entertain a nobleman and his guests. In the British theatre culture, generally, an actor performs the role of an entertainer. For example, the Royal Shakespeare Company kept a fool to add entertainment to the play (Otto, 2001). Another popular term used was buffoon representing someone who amuses others through his inappropriate dress, and ridiculous but amusing behavior. The buffoon is used today in a derogatory sense for socially vulgar misconduct.

Box No. 1.1: Examples of Social Influence in History • Some exceptionally influential personalities in human history: Chanakya, Niccolo Machiavelli, Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela. Their objectives and methods were different, but they changed the course of their respective society. • Chanakya: A wise man must stay away from a flatterer who continuously attempts to manipulate the situation in his favor.

1.1 Social Influence in History

9

• It was common for the ancient and medieval king’s courts (Darbars) to maintain and reward the professional flatterers for praising the undeserved strengths of the rulers who loved to enjoy false self- glory. • The Prithviraj Raso epic was written in praise of bravery, heroism, and strength of the twelfth-century Rajput king, Prithviraj Chauhan, to keep him glorified in high spirits. • Mogul courts practiced “…prostration before the Emperor or his throne; kissing of his feet or any other limb; the hand in particular; several forms of salutation by bending from the waist downwards; …” (Mukhia, 2004). • The ancient Greeks had a tradition of intellectual debates, eloquence, and the art of persuasion to argue that “white is black successfully.” • The institutionalized modes of the feudal social influence style received social recognition and encouragement during the British Raj in India. • The culture of flattery and sycophancy, called “Chamchagiri” in derogatory colloquial language, is not uncommon in contemporary Indian society. In some countries like France and Italy, jesters practiced traveling across the country and performing theatre-related socio-politically eminently well-known stylized characters. A similar folk tradition of a puppet show (e.g., Punch and Judy) existed in British society. In France, the practice of the court jester ended with the French revolution. In Poland, the court jester Stanczyk was most famous for political satire. In medieval Germany, Till Eulenspiegel was a hero for his wits as a political figure. In the thirteenth to eighteenth century, the Japanese male character (geisha) entertained the feudal lords by dancing and storytelling. The Japanese lords also used them for strategic advice. Thus there is a worldwide spread of examples of social influencing and entertaining the powerful in their courts (Billington, 1984; Janik, 1998; Otto, 2001). These institutionalized modes of social influence received social recognition and encouragement during the British Raj. The culture of flattery and sycophancy, called “Chamchagiri” in derogatory colloquial language, is not uncommon in contemporary Indian society. The socially, politically, and economically powerful followers and co-workers are encouraged to hang around them. They keep their target in good humor by praising and drumbeating for them. If needed, they raise slogans in favor and create a facade of greatness around him. The target is generally of the political field, and is projected as a great leader to expand his influence in the community. The target also encourages such practices and even pays or promises to reward his supporters. In a way, these practices are part of power politics. This book is about patterns of influence processes, including flattery and related intriguing questions like under what conditions such techniques flourish and possibly at what cost.

10

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

1.2 Social Influence: Foundation of Research in Sociology Though most people believe that they are autonomous and self-directed individuals, they also readily comply with the authorities and accept the opinions and views of relatives, friends, leaders, salespeople, and media (Moscovici, 1985). People may be rational in their conduct, but they show collective outbursts of enthusiasm, violence, panic, and even cruelty in crowded contexts. An individual in a group or alone occasionally may act surprisingly differently from usual expectations. These puzzling and intriguing questions have been studied and answered, especially by sociologists and social psychologists. Some psychologically oriented eminent sociologists have considered interpersonal social influence behaviors a central theme in human affairs. They have mostly treated social influence in an integrated way, including mental and behavioral phenomena. Tarde (1890) and LeBon (1908) explained that people powerfully exert their opinions and influence others through hypnotic suggestions. In the state of hypnotic suggestion, an individual’s consciousness and reason go to sleep, leading him to accept others’ views, opinions, and actions. In such a state, particularly in the crowd’s condition, people act in surprising ways as if they have lost all rationality and are hypnotized. However, the construct hypnotic suggestion remained mostly hypothetical as related ideas and hypotheses of Tarde (1890), and LeBon (1908) were not verifiable. The topic of advice and related phenomenon persuasion is vital with several social influence implications; therefore, other (Chaps. 3 and 4) include these topics. The integrated mental and behavioral approach has taken over a century to understand the interactive complex influence process. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the sociologist Cooley (1902) carried forward James’ (1890) social construction of self. Cooley (1902) examined a person-other relationship’s salience, which predisposes to a role-appropriate behavior. Cooley’s concept of “reflected” or “looking glass” self is best explained in his words: “As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass, and are interested in them because they are ours, and pleased or otherwise with them as in imagination we perceive in another’s mind some thought of our appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character, friends, and so on, and are variously affected by it” (Cooley, 1902, p. 184). Cooley’s postulation implied that aspects of self are in people’s environment, and therefore they observe what others know about themselves. Mead (1934) developed a comprehensive integrative theory of symbolic interactionism of interpersonal behaviors. Mead’s (1934) approach emphasized the interdependence between symbolic mental processes and reciprocal influencing actions. Mead’s thesis (1934) on symbolic interactionism explains that interpersonal behaviors are symbolic representations and expectations formed from interpersonal interaction experiences. The actors, however, may construct their experiences of social encounters in unique individualistic ways. Humans have the unique mental ability of symbolic representations by internalizing social experiences, impacting social influence processes (Mead, 1934). Mead’s (1934) psychological analysis posits that

1.2 Social Influence: Foundation of Research in Sociology

11

an individual’s behavior results from an individual’s interactions with reality. He conceived of man as an active agent who establishes a relationship with other persons in a sociocultural environment. An individual’s self develops through experiences and encounters with others in varied situations. For a person, others become a reference point he utilizes for his behavior. Extending Cooley’s ideas further, Mead suggested using another person’s social reference to construct the self and identity. Perception of others and responses to them are active processes in a context. A person responds to the other selectively and appropriately according to his assessment of stimuli. New incentives may require individual responses during the action, including verbal and nonverbal gestures. Gestures as acts have evolved since primitive times, enriching man’s communicative ability, and Mead recognized the importance and convenience of vocal gestures than sign gestures. In the communication process, one should anticipate other people’s responses before his act. According to Mead, the actor takes the other’s role by viewing oneself in another person’s condition, determining the interaction processes of reciprocal influencing. Thus, for Mead, the self is a social process. According to Mead’s analysis, the “I” is the core self, and the resultant social self is the “Me,” and interchangeably, the “I” and the “Me” become the response of each other. Mead’s (1934) analysis further implies that an individual’s response is handled by “I.” The “Me” represents attitudinal and other dispositions, and both constitute individuals’ social selves.

Box No. 1.2: Social Influence Research: Sociology Tradition 1.

2.

3.

4.

French sociologists LeBon (1908) and Tarde (1890) explained collective influences. Le Bon postulated that an individual’s consciousness is submerged in the crowd’s mind, which takes over and dominates the crowd’s behavior that becomes unanimous, emotional, and intellectually weak. Tarde suggested that individuals imitate others’ opinions and actions in public like a hypnotic suggestion state when consciousness and reason go to sleep. “As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass, and are interested in them because they are ours, and pleased or otherwise with them as in imagination we perceive in another’s mind some thought of our appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character, friends, and so on, and are variously affected by it” (Cooley, 1902, p. 184). Mead (1934) postulates that humans have the unique mental ability of symbolic representations by internalizing social experiences, which impact social influence processes. Weber (1947) assumed that the relationship between how individuals think and cognitively construct social situations determines an individual’s actual interpersonal behaviors.

12

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

5.

Goffman (1959) explains, “Information about the individual helps to define the situation, enabling others to know in advance what he (the individual) will expect of them and what they may expect of him” (p. 1).

A well-known social scientist Weber (1947) assumed that the relationship between how individuals think and cognitively construct social situations determines an individual’s actual interpersonal behaviors. Weber’s insightful analysis suggests that mental constructions and ideas about the social world are critical factors for understanding an individual’s behavior and social influence processes. Weber’s seminal work on bureaucracies probes the complicated relationship between the bureaucratic rules, regulations, norms, and subjective understanding and beliefs of people determining interpersonal influences. In addition, Weber (1947) argued that the broader sociocultural contexts determine an individual’s mental representations of the social world, impacting interpersonal behavior. Though Weber was not a social psychologist, his approach integrates the more extensive social system, an individual’s social cognitive representations, with real-life social behavior. The sociological analogy of Goffman’s (1959) theatrical performance insightfully explains social interactions and influence processes. Goffman (1959) used an analogy of theatrical performance to develop a framework for analyzing social interaction in a wide variety of situations. According to Goffman, individuals need information about those they have to interact with for possible social interactions. There could be many sources for such information, like appearance and expressions, past experiences with similar persons, and the setting. Most importantly, what the other person says about himself and what he does. Goffman (1959) explains, “Information about the individual helps to define the situation, enabling others to know in advance what he (the individual) will expect of them and what they may expect of him” (p. 1). Thus, Goffman tried to explain people’s techniques to “present themselves” to others. In Goffman’s (1959) analysis, “performance” is a central construct, defined as “…all the activity of a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence in any way any of the other participants” (p. 15). Goffman’s ideas are similar to some extent to the role theory. “Front” is another relevant term used by Goffman, who considered it the individual’s expressive equipment during his performance. The front may consist of a “setting,” including furniture, décor, and physical layout. Other elements such as official dress, clothing, age, gender, posture, speech patterns, facial expressions, and gestures could be personal. According to Goffman, the front is the actor’s expressive characteristics that impress others. Goffman’s insightful analysis explains the importance of the delicate interplay of external norms, roles, and an individual’s thoughts in self-presentational strategies toward others. Even though the sociological approaches have enriched understanding of the social influence process and, in many ways, impacted social psychological research, social psychologists hardly acknowledge and refer to other sociologists’ work except Goffman’s work.

1.3 Social Influence: Foundation of Research in Social Psychology

13

1.3 Social Influence: Foundation of Research in Social Psychology One of the most influential founders of social psychology, Allport (1924), defines social psychology as studying physical, implied, or imagined others’ presence in an individual’s behavior. Commonly, others influence us, and we affect them. The influencing process is reciprocal and dynamic, and it takes place in a context; therefore, both individuals and the situation interactively determine the influencing process. We are not always conscious of such mutual influences in different contexts in our daily lives. However, we plan how to influence and accordingly execute the process. A young man plans to act confidently to control their partner to achieve it. A leader plans to deliver his speech hiding his real intention and communicates his messages with certain mannerisms and gestures to impact his audience. An authority figure passes a particular order and decides to communicate with his subordinates in specific ways to influence them to follow his directions. We observe some people we respect practicing certain social rituals, and several situational factors determine our conformity. There could be endless examples of social influences, a pervasive phenomenon of our everyday social life, which constitutes the core of social psychology. Since the beginning of social psychology in the last quarter of the 19th century, tremendous knowledge has accumulated on social influence processes. The overarching coverage of social influence has a wide range of topics like attitudes, leadership, social power, authoritarianism, authority, social norms, conformity, compliance, obedience, and persuasion (Moscovici, 1985; Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Other equally pervasive and socially strategic areas of social influences like self–presentation, impression management, ingratiation, Machiavellianism, and social manipulation have neither been studied nor presented extensively in textbooks as mainstream topics of social psychology (Jones & Wortman, 1973; Pandey, 1986a, 1988a). Over the past few decades, research on strategic social influence received greater attention, enhancing scientific understanding and identifying powerful skills to influence others and even win against opponents (Kenrick, Goldastein, & Braver, 2012). This book’s thrust is to analyze and discuss commonly used strategic social influence behaviors with particular reference to the Indian context (Pandey, 1986a, 1988a). The first social psychology experiment by Triplet (1897) examined and demonstrated the effects of others’ presence on performance. He experimented with children up to twelve years of age and asked them to work on winding fishing reels alone and together. He found that 20 out of 40 participants excelled in their solo record in together conditions. The other 10 participants did less work together, probably excited to win, and another ten were unaffected. Triplet’s classical experiment’s findings had far-reaching consequences on developing experimental tradition on social influence research in social psychology. Allport (1920) experimentally studied others’ presence on an individual’s performance for understanding social influence. In his experiments, the participants performed various cognitive tasks (e.g., multiplications of numbers, judging weights of objects) entirely alone, but knowing that others work

14

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

elsewhere simultaneously and with others on the same table. The presence of others had three general effects. First, there was a greater rate of responding. Second, other’ companies caused distractions, and in a rush, the participants committed more errors. Third, there was a more significant concern with what others thought. Interpretation of the findings provided insights into how others’ presence influences social behavior and performance. Allport’s (1920) results are of a heuristic nature, demonstrating that others’ mere presence can be psychologically crucial in influencing thought and behavior. The presence of others affects individuals’ performance. Still, such influences are not alike for all individuals. In India, Sengupta and his student Singh (1926) carried out similar experiments showing how others’ presence impacts as a social facilitator on performance. Sherif (1935) carried out innovative studies of norm formation, explaining that their perception and judgment were uncertain when individuals observed ambiguous phenomena. To deal with their uncertainty, they interact and exchange available information with others to establish a norm. The norms serve as a frame of reference for subsequent judgments and perceptions. The formation of the norms also transforms individuals as a group. In a way, psychological reality changes to social reality, which is possible through mutual interactions, and co-influencing. Sherif (1935) studied how several individuals’ independent judgments converge, leading to the emergence of a group norm. Sherif (1935) conducted a Gestalt auto-kinetic experiment where individuals perceive and judge an ambiguous situation. He found that individuals may have different objective frames of reference but gradually converge for a standard reference, which becomes a group norm, providing stability in judgment. Social norms have a more significant influence on the situation of uncertainty. Sherif’s (1935) consistent findings supported the contention that norm formation in ambiguous situations occurs through mutual influencing and arriving at a consensus. Individuals like to maintain a relationship with those with whom sharing judgments leads to convergence of reference points and forming a standard norm that affects subsequent decisions and behavior. Interest in suggestibility led to another line of research on conformity, different from normative behavior. Conformity is like acting not as one would like to but according to others’ perceived or absolute pressure. Conformity is a change in behavior or belief due to a person, or group (Asch, 1948). In a way, conformity is a change in behavior desired by others without agreeing. Conforming with the majority regarding action, ideas, and preferences, an individual wins some favor and avoids conflict and punishment. An individual may act or express belief or opinion as expected by others to please and win him over, so strategic behavior could be well thought out. Deutsch and Gerard (1955) found conformity to the (inaccurate) judgment more significant when the experiment participants worked for a reward. Conformity also increased when the identity of disagreeing persons was to be known. In a face-to-face situation, psychological pressure and resultant conformity of others are more incredible. Psychological stress toward uniformity motivates people to feel and behave alike. In their research, Festinger (1950) and Schachter (1951) investigated people’s tendency to dislike and reject those who hold different views from

1.3 Social Influence: Foundation of Research in Social Psychology

15

others. A group member with deviant views may avoid being so out of fear of exclusion. Therefore, most group members submit to and support the group to prevent isolation and exclusion. Conformity may, at times, be a blind auction for an individual, but it is a collective strength for the group. Festinger (1950) and Schachter (1951) utilized a normative explanation for understanding social influence. Social psychology’s concentration until the 1960s was on how influence processes operate on maintaining the status quo in the group and broader society. Deutsch and Gerald (1955) raised and answered why people conform and act according to others’ expectations. They suggest that people have two needs. Each motivation of social influence operates, such as: (a) People need to be correct. Therefore, they accept information from others as evidence to be sure of their proper position. Deutsch and Gerald called it informational influence that gets operative when uncertain and confused due to inherent situational ambiguity or social disagreement. (b) People need to be liked and accepted by others. The normative social influence motivates them to conform to others’ expectations and get others’ liking and acceptance. Kelman (1958) concluded that, on the one hand, normative influence leads to public compliance, and on the other hand, informational influence serves the purpose of acceptance privately. By the 1960s, research on social influence related to the majority-group influence on the minority (Asch, 1951) and deviant, emphasizing social adaptation accumulated in abundance, reached a saturation point of standstill. However, there was a lack of empirical studies on the role of minorities and individual’s assertions, which may lead to a normative shift in the group and social change (Moscovici, 1985). It was challenging to look at the effect of the minority’s independence and assertion on social change. Active minority and majority indulge in the reciprocal and interactive process influencing acceptance of new ideas that change the group and society. The research paradigm led by Moscovici and his associates (Moscovici, 1976, 1985) demonstrated that social influence is a reciprocal process in which both the majority representing the dominant section and active minority reciprocally influence. This new perspective (Moscovici, 1985) explains that a minority is not merely a passive receiver of the majority; it can challenge the status quo and create conflict leading to innovation and change instead of compliance and stagnation. In brief, this discussion suggests three distinct paradigms, normalization, conformity, and design, emphasizing group norm, majority power, and active minority, respectively, complementing comprehensive knowledge of social influence. In the 1970s, several social psychologists highlighted their concerns regarding the inadequacies of social psychology. They raised the issue that social psychology did not contribute to resolving social problems competently. They called it a crisis and advocated for new directions for the discipline. Social psychology has rightly or wrongly gone through a paradigmatic shift in response to the discipline’s situation. With the emergence of the cognitive approach, social psychologists have spent more time studying internal mental processes, representations, and thoughts of isolated participants in experiments rather than studying their reactions to real situations. In the past few decades, the preference for social psychologists has been an increasingly individualistic cognitive approach. An overwhelming number of social

16

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

psychologists’ primary focus has been on an individual’s thoughts and motivations. We have witnessed a lesser emphasis on the importance of interpersonal behaviors (Wegner & Gilbert, 2000). As a result, we have a greater understanding of how individuals process information about the social world and relatively lesser how motivation, thoughts, and decision-making explain interpersonal influences. This trend has led to a shift in researching persuasive communication and how people respond to messages. Of course, for a comprehensive understanding of the social influence process, “… we should look toward a greater integration between impactful, behavioral research, and cognitive and motivational approaches” (Forgas & Williams, 2001, p. 5). Leadership, social power, authority, and obedience overlap with social influence and are used as tactics to change target individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (Kipnis, 1984). Leadership involves a process of social impact between a leader and followers to achieve the group goal. A person who yields the most influence on the followers is an effective leader. Though social power and influence overlap and are interchangeably used, both have distinctive meanings. Social influence is persuasive, but social power involves direction, coercion, and control. There is an intricate relationship between leadership and power. Cartwright (1965) integrated multidisciplinary literature and research findings to explain social influence and control phenomena in organizational settings. He identified the influencing agent, the methods used for influence, and the target subjected to influence as critical three aspects of the influence process. An organization has interdependent parts consisting of individuals who exploit and predictably control others to achieve common goals. The dynamics of social influence have greater detail in Chap. 8 on social influence in contexts. We do not intend to review massive literature on these topics to overshadow the discussion on strategic social influence processes, the book’s main thrust. Chapter 2 on the sociocultural contexts discusses the nurturant taskmaster leadership theory (Sinha, 1980) and Kakar’s (1971) conceptualization of authority patterns in social relations in India.

Box No. 1.3: Social Influence: Social Psychology Tradition 1. 2. 3. 4.

The first social psychology experiment by Triplet (1897) examined and demonstrated the effects of others’ presence on performance. For understanding social influence, Allport (1920) experimentally studied the effect of others’ presence on an individual’s performance. Sengupta and Singh’s (1926) experimental study results supported others’ presence as a social facilitator on performance. Sherif (1935) carried out innovative auto-kinetic experiments requiring interactions and exchanging information with others for norm formation under uncertainty.

1.3 Social Influence: Foundation of Research in Social Psychology

5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

17

Asch’s (1948) experimentally studied conformity, a change in an individual’s behavior as desired by others (actual or imagined) without indeed agreeing. Festinger (1950) and Schachter (1951) used a normative explanation for social influence. Jones (1964): To make oneself more attractive to others, individuals use ingratiation and self-presentation. Cartwright (1965) conceptualized social influence as interpersonal interactions between the agent of influence and the target. Kakar (1971): In the Indian context, accepting traditional-moral authority is the most crucial source. Moscovici (1976) demonstrated that social influence is a reciprocal process in which the majority and active minority reciprocally influence. Sinha (1980): The nurturant taskmaster theory emphasizes socioculturally relevant authoritative-nurturant leadership more efficiently effective in the influence process and related phenomena in the Indian context. Jones and Pittman (1982) and Schlenker (1980): Work on selfpresentation and impression management significantly added social influence knowledge. Pandey (1986a): Ingratiation and manipulative behaviors, widely prevalent in Indian contexts, with self-depreciation, name dropping, and instrumental dependency as unique tactics. Ciladini (2012) “Persuasion is a way to move people that does not require coercion, intimidation or brute strength.”

In the1960s, Jones and his associate social psychologists further developed Goffman’s self-presentation analysis and designed creative experiments to study interpersonal influence processes. Their research findings suggested making oneself more attractive to others using various ingratiation tactics (Jones, 1964; 1965; Jones, Gergen, & Davis, 1962; Jones, Gergen, & Jones, 1963). They studied ingratiation as an attraction-seeking behavior, its different forms, determinants, and consequences for the ingratiating actor and his target. Chapter 5 is devoted to ingratiation, and therefore, you may refer to Chap. 5 for further discussion on the subject. Different but related concepts representing social strategies used in various contexts explain prevalent influence phenomena. Traditional concepts like conformity, compliance, and persuasion have been more visible since the 1940s, both in social psychological research and textbooks. Though Jones (1964) introduced the importance of ingratiation in interpersonal behaviors, only a few researchers followed this social influence work. New initiatives began in the 1970s, leading to new concepts and expanding social influence applications in various life domains. Due to applied value, self-presentation and impression management have been the favorite researched topics (Giacalone &

18

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

Rosenfiiield, 1989; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Leary, 1995; Schlenker, 1975, 1980; Tedeschi & Riess, 1981). In the last few decades. Social psychological research has clarified numerous negative misconceptions that exist in impression management. Impression management is not merely for enhancing public relations and manipulating self-image enhancement. And it is the study of self, identity, and interpersonal relations (refer to Chap. 4). Another area of research has been a manipulative social influence, inclusive of deceptive methods to control others. Manipulation and deception are not necessarily for selfish gains as applications of such strategies could help the target depending on the motivation of the actor and the contexts (Prabbal, 2007). Chapter 6 discusses such a category of influence process. The study of influence has expanded to other areas like organizational functioning, management, and political processes to understand and enhance the impact and win others. Business establishments routinely try to influence others to sell their product. Social institutions influence to win others to enlarge their base. Political leaders influence to win new supporters to increase their followers. In a democratic society, the existence and expansion of business, social and political organizations largely depend on influencing others, so they keep on improvising their ways, tactics, and strategies to influence others. In organizational contexts, managerial effectiveness is significant in terms of success in controlling to raise subordinates’ motivation and commitment leading to extra efforts for higher productivity (Bass, 1985), efficiency in decision making (Pfeffer, 1981), and effectiveness in policy implementation (Bass, 1985). Political parties propagate their ideology and manifesto of action for national and international issues in the political spheres and make endless attempts to influence people to believe that they would best serve the people and nation. For this purpose, they use a range of tactics appropriately selected for varied situations and approach people to win them over. As they compete with other political parties to influence, their efforts dynamically evolve and change according to the problems they face. Thus, the expansion of research and applications of influence processes in various social, organizational, and business (e.g., sales and consumers) have been phenomenal in the past few decades (refer to Chap. 7). Social psychologists’ interest in studying the art of persuading others continued and expanded in the last two decades of the twentieth century (Schlenker,1980; Pandey, 1986a, 1988a), leading to a developed science of persuasion (Cialdini, 2009). Ciladini (2012) considers “Persuasion is a way to move people that does not require coercion, intimidation or brute strength” (p. vi). Cialdini (2009) began to research compliance in the early 1980s to understand the psychological principles that influenced the tendency to comply with a request. To start with, he studied the problem experimentally. Still, he soon discovered a necessity to work in the real world and thus adopted the ‘back and forth approach’ to scientifically understand the complex social world. He called it the “full cycle of social psychology.” In brief, Cialdini has scientifically enriched our understanding to answer the question: Why does one person comply with another person’s request? As a result, the science of social influence has grown, and the book chapters help us understand many such intriguing questions related to social power.

1.4 About the Book

19

1.4 About the Book The chapter testifies that accumulated scientific knowledge of over a hundred years on social influence and its applications to personal, social, business, and political aspects of our life has enriched our understanding of how people operate in their real world to win others. It may be nearly impossible to summarize in one volume of existing all-inclusive knowledge covering all aspects of social influence. Therefore, this book has insightful discussions on social influence practices, such as ingratiation, impression-management, Machiavellianism, manipulative social behaviors, persuasion, and compliance. To succeed in the traditional, hierarchical, and scarce-resource Indian society, one has to be socially skillful to find ways of influencing others to get their work done. We learn social influence tactics and behavior in the sociocultural conditions we grow up using to be socially influential. Social influence practices are, to no small extent, culture-bound. As discussed earlier, scientific research on social influence began and flourished in the Western world. However, the generalization of western research findings in other socio-cultural contexts like India is questionable. For example, results of highly creative and innovative research on ingratiation by Jones and his associates (Jones, 1964; Jones & Wortman, 1973) suggested that ingratiation as a tactical social influence was generally risky in the US, but Pandey and his associates (Pandey, 1986a, 1988a) reported it not so risky in the Indian context. Jones and Wortman (1973) argued that for an ingratiating behavior to occur in a social situation, the concerned behavior must be perceived as legitimate as per social norms. They also suggested that ingratiation’s socially risky nature may backfire if the target finds such behavior as socially illegitimate. As social influence tactics are normative and socio-culturally conditioned, one must be cautious in generalizing these research findings across cultures. We will return to a detailed discussion on ingratiation in the book’s Chap. 4. Nearly four decades ago, Pandey (1978b, 1981d) observed that ingratiation, in common usage called flattery was a powerful social influence weapon generally used to please resourceful persons in the Indian society for undeserved benefits. In support of his contention, he cited several daily News Papers and widespread magazine reports describing the use of flattery and other manipulative behaviors to win the favor of the persons in a powerful position (Khosla, 1976; Nandy, 1977; Nayar, 1977). The contemporary Indian society continues to witness the omnipresence of ingratiating and socially manipulative social tactics for influencing resourceful persons in positions to win some favor in a wide variety of situations (Pandey 1978b, 1981d). Though the practice of flattery and other forms of manipulative behaviors were widely prevalent in organizational, social, and political settings of Indian society, there was a lack of empirical research on the subject in India (Pandey 1978b, 1981d). Pandey (1978b, 1981d) argued that in the hierarchal, traditional, and developing societies like India, where resources and opportunities are generally perceived to be limited and controlled by a few powerful, manipulative social influence behaviors thrive in a pervasive way. Under limited opportunities and scarce resources, people compete vigorously and use manipulative social tactics effectively. Pandey

20

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

(1978b) also observed that a wide prevalence of ingratiating behavior implies that such influencing tactics probably have societal normative legitimacy in India and are not perceived as risky as in the western world (Pandey, 1978b, 1980b, 1981d, 1986a). Pandey and his associates launched a research program to study various facets of strategic and tactical social influence in the Indian contexts, using multiple methodologies to answer socio-culturally relevant questions (Pandey, 1981d, 1986a, 1988a). Any act of influence, including ingratiation, occurs if perceived to be legitimate in the eyes of societal norms (Jones, 1964). If an ingratiation act is fair, people may not find it a deviant behavior, and they will indulge in it. It also implies that this category of behavior’s perceived legitimacy would promote its expectancy in society. Further, there will be generalized encouragement to influence the target to benefit (Pandey, 1980b). The traditional, hierarchical, and feudal Indian society nurtures flattery. Therefore, this class of behavior is perceived as legitimate and widely present in Indian culture as a tool of influence. Pandey (1980b) studied perceived ingratiation in daily life, as expected, and as considered a means to succeed in Indian society to understand the legitimacy issue. A 20-item Social Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ) with each statement followed by a five-point-scale was developed and standardized to measure ingratiating behaviors (Pandey, 1978b). The SBQ included the following six aspects of ingratiation: opinion conformity, self-enhancement, other-enhancement, name dropping, changing with a situation, and instrumental dependency. The first three, opinion conformity, self-enhancement, and other-enhancement, were identified by Jones (1964) and found relevant by Pandey (1978b) for Indian society. Pandey (1978b, 1980b) further identified name dropping, changing with a situation, instrumental dependency, and other strategies suggested by Jones as overall strategies working in Indian settings. The SBQ has four items for opinion conformity and other-enhancement with a score range of 4–20. For the other four, there are three items with a score range of 3–15 each. The upper and lower caste participants were forewarned not to be guided by social desirability. They were required to carefully read each statement of the SBQ representing a social behavior and rate it on a fivepoint scale. The study participants first rated the SBQ to record their perceived actual conduct in daily social life. The second instruction asked them to rate their behavior as expected by society. The third instruction required them to think about succeeding in the community and rate each statement to reflect their successful behavior. Thus, the study captured ratings for actual, expected, and strategic actions in Indian culture to be successful (Pandey, 1980b). The participants rated greater ingratiation as expected than actual behavior. The study results showed no difference between the expected behavior condition and the condition which required a rating to be successful. The participants perceived and rated significantly greater ingratiation required for both expected conditions and the condition to be successful than the actual condition irrespective of caste background. The six ingratiating behaviors reversed for instrumental dependency, showing greater instrumental dependence in the real behavior condition. The use of dependence as a social strategy impressed the target to feel obligated to help the actor. Such dependency behavior was instrumental and manipulative (Pandey, 1986a, 1988a). Higher use of such dependency in actual conditions by the

1.4 About the Book

21

study participants reflected societal norms requiring people to depend on powerful others to gain certain benefits (Sinha, 1970). But it did not work when the participants had to present themselves to influence to win some favor strategically. No significant differences between the two ratings representing expected and strategically planned behavior conditions suggested that the general ethos of the Indian society provided fertile soil for ingratiation and other manipulative behaviors. The upper and lower castes participants did not differ in ratings of ingratiating behavior in any of the three conditions. The caste factor did not significantly interact to determine any of the three ratings. Pandey’s (1980a) attempt failed to show caste, a subcultural variation on ingratiation. He explained the findings by arguing generalized socio-cultural-economic and political systems and norms commonly enforce ingratiation in Indian society. Therefore, Pandey and Kakkar (1982a) studied ingratiation on male and female tribal student participants from the Chotanagpur region of the Jharkhand state and compared their responses with nontribal population of Uttar Pradesh, India. The findings did not show any significant difference due to variation in the two distinct cultural groups. However, the gender significantly determined responses showing higher means of men participants for ingratiation tactics like name dropping, instrumental dependency, self-degradation, and changing with the situation (see Chap. 5) than the women participants. Surprisingly, women in a general subordinate position in Indian society showed lesser ingratiating roles than men. Men do more outdoor work in organized sectors with opportunities than women to learn strategic behaviors to influence others. Therefore, men showed higher ingratiation than women. Pandey and Kakkar (1982a) explain that Indian society’s socio-political milieu is over-encompassing, leading to the similarity in ingratiation responses. However, the role of social and cultural variations in strategic influence acts requires identifying and measuring cultural variations on various parameters for establishing linkages with ingratiation and other influence strategies. The socioeconomic development of any society depends on the productive behavior of the members of the organizations. Pandey has argued that in Indian culture, “…. where ingratiation tactics are more prevalent and acceptable; individuals may remain engaged in activities which are not necessary for organizational productivity” (Pandey, 1978a, p. 388). The discussion and analysis of questions about why ingratiation and other manipulative influence tactics flourish in a society like India at the cost of personal and organizational productivity constitute one central theme of this book. Instead of doing hard work, people may prefer to please the boss behaviorally and flourish in their organizations at a productivity cost. Such social influence processes may negatively impact the productivity of individuals and their organizations. Moreover, there may be a spillover of other social prices like lowering the actor’s self-esteem, a false sense of pride in the target’s mind, and a suspicious and deceptive social climate. The book deals with several unseen consequences of our social and organizational life, justifying its importance. The book is an integrated presentation of findings of published and unpublished studies, master’s and doctoral thesis completed under the research program, juxtaposing the results with the larger body of knowledge on social influence. This book is

22

1 Introduction: History and Science of Social Influence

mainly about the influence processes that are shuttle, strategic, and manipulative and planned to influence others and win their favor. An individual may indulge in direct or indirect verbal or nonverbal acts directed at some other target person. The actor’s actions may impact the target individual’s cognitive and affective state and actual behavior. For example, a worker (actor) does routine work but praises his supervisor (target) for his instructions in training him. The supervisor gets pleased with such compliments from the worker and judges him positively. When an opportunity arises, he rewards him more than other workers who did not indulge in praising him. A similar kind of social influence occurs in a wide range of domains of our social life. We believe that the book will interest social scientists of different hues, particularly social psychologists, sociologists, professional managers, administrators, political scientists, and politicians.

Chapter 2

Sociocultural Context Perspectives to Social Influence

To know an object is to lead to it through a context which the world provides. William James

Humans’ social nature is a fundamental characteristic, and therefore people consistently engage in social interactions that also include influencing others. Social interactions and influencing others are common social phenomena and occur in a sociocultural context. The characteristics of the sociocultural context determine the nature of both exchanges and influence. The attributes of socio-political-economic systems, religious and spiritual traditions of the society determine prevalent social influence practices. This chapter on sociocultural perspectives elaborates on the salient features, particularly with examples of Indian culture, to understand the importance of the context and a specific situation that serves as a playground for social influence. Thus, influencing others is relative to the sociocultural context, the background and personality disposition of the actor, and his target. Any sociocultural context includes physical (e.g., habitats, physical surroundings) and other societal characteristics like social systems, norms, values, attitudes, religions, languages, and politics to which both actors and targets belong (Triandis, 1980). Individuals grow up in societal and cultural contexts where they get socialized, educated, and institutionalized and where their mindset evolves, determining their behavioral pattern for social interactions (Sinha, 2014). By nature, an individual’s social behavior occurs in a social– cultural context consisting of a particular social situation that may include a social group or organizations with leadership, social power structure, and authority system, including social norms, values, morals, and ideals. The social behavior of influencing others is, therefore, contextual. The discussion on sociocultural perspectives intends to facilitate understanding people’s intriguing nature of social interactions and social influence processes. The sociocultural perspective posits that individuals acquire their subjective dispositions through socialization, enculturation, and acculturation. Sinha (2014) argues that an individual develops his unique mindset, behavioral skill, and typical personality dispositions relative to the context. Social–psychological literature and theoretical explanations related to social influence are vast, encompassing psychological and other social sciences. The chapter presents the importance of the © Indian Council of Social Science Research 2022 J. Pandey, Nature and Dynamics of Social Influence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4598-4_2

23

24

2 Sociocultural Context Perspectives to Social Influence

sociocultural perspectives for explaining social impact. The chapter discusses aspects of the sociocultural context relevant to social influence.

2.1 Understanding the Sociocultural Context People are a product of their long-term adaptation to their unique sociocultural systems and environment. Social interactions occur in a specific situation in the broader societal context. Thus, the sociocultural context is like fertile soil, determining the nature of human social interactions. The sociocultural context includes its active constituents such as social structure, socio-economic-political systems, traditions, social norms, and values, each having unique complexity. Numerous factors like economic disparities, the plurality of religions, and, most importantly, a complex caste system have traditionally determined Indian social structure and dynamics. An individual’s location in the social network decides his social status. A specific situation represents a set of conditions at a particular time, providing the ground for social interactions. An example of a case may be of a family celebration, a crowd of people on a playground, a long queue to enter the stadium to watch a popular game, or an individual with no cash in hand to pay the bill after a meal in a restaurant. Each of these situations has unique features to influence an individual’s action. In other words, an individual acts as per the situational demands. One perceives and interprets the uniqueness of the situation and acts appropriately. Thus, an individual’s response to a situation is part of a continuous interactive process. For example, imagine that you are seeing a man in fear. The external problem can be: Is there something around frightening? The internal state can be: “Am I calm” or “am I scared?’ Your response would depend on the perception of other person’s facial expression (e.g., raised eyebrows, wide-open eyes), other situational conditions (e.g., no one around to help), your perception of internal state, and on your sociocultural and past experiential background to cope with such a situation. For our understanding, this is an example of typical situational psychology, according to which situational cues perceived by an individual serve the purpose of knowing crucial determinants of behavior. The actor’s sociocultural background and situational demands interactively determine the legitimacy of the actor’s responses. It is imperative to discuss the meaning of culture and its various dimensions for greater clarity of the nature of the sociocultural context. These two terms “culture” and “context” are hard to differentiate as both are inclusive and overlapping, so such an attempt is unnecessary. The commoner widely uses “culture” to refer to social manners, etiquettes, and traditions in a society or community. Social sciences like anthropology, sociology, and psychology operationally define it to explain various facets of culture. Anthropologist Herskovits (1948) made a general statement that “Culture is the man-made part of the environment.“ (p. 12). Whiting (1976) considers culture as “packaged variables”; therefore, it is difficult to define. Anthropologists believe that culture is an inclusive concept consisting of all man-made interdependent aspects of human society. Psychologist, Triandis (1980) introduced “physical

2.1 Understanding the Sociocultural Context

25

culture” and “subjective culture” to clarify the meaning of culture. Physical culture refers to objects like roads, buildings, architecture, industries, agriculture, tools, technology, etc. constituting significant parts of the man-made environment. Culture is the product of accumulated experiences of man’s adaptation to the environment. The “subjective culture” refers to traditions, myths, religions, beliefs, attitudes, roles, and values possessed by individuals of a culture. Emphasizing the structure and pattern aspects of Culture, Triandis (1980) writes, “The tools, houses, laws, values, and attitudes are usually interconnected, often in very complex ways, so that they form some sort of coherent whole” (p. 2). Culture encompasses physical and subjective aspects of human experiences and achievements (Triandis, 1994). The two elements of cultures are interdependent and have dialectical relationships with individuals. Although the founder of modern experimental psychology, Wilhelm Wundt, emphasized the importance of Culture (Blumenthal, 1975), we have witnessed more systematic studies of culture and its impact on psychological processes in the past five decades. The new cultural psychology approach’s fundamental argument is that the relationships between human beings and culture are mutual, i.e., human beings shape their culture, but their culture shapes human beings (Fiske et al., 1998). Individuals’ culture shapes their psychological processes, i.e., perception, cognition, affect, and responses. Cultural psychology posits that our mind and culture are inseparable as both mutually constitute each other. A strong advocate of cultural psychology, Shweder (1991) supports the contention that cultural traditions and societal practices shape, regulate, and transform the human psyche, resulting in less similarity and more variations in the human mind, self, and emotion across cultures. Overwhelming evidence shows that cultures (e.g., social values, customs, and traditions) and psychological processes (e.g., reasoning, thinking, and motivation) differ in many ways. Several studies explain that people of western culture (sarcastically called WEIRD: i.e., Western, educated, industrialized, prosperous, and democratic) generally use analytical reasoning strategies and separate objects from the context to explain and predict behavior (Jones, 2010; Henrich et al., 2010). Therefore, the WEIRD people have a tendency (i.e., fundamental attribution error) to explain an actor’s behavior in terms of personality and other dispositions like attitudes and values. WEIRD people may not see the role of situational factors. For example, the WEIRD’s success is explained by attributing high motivation and hard work of the person concerned with no credit to the situational factors like resources and social support. On the other hand, the non-WEIRD population, like Asians’ thoughts and reasoning tendency, is different. Asians attribute success by crediting more to situational factors. In their collaborative work, sociologists Boris Erasov from Russia and Yogendra Singh from India (Erasov & Singh, 1991) identify activities of culture as: “Culture gathers and concentrates within itself the following factors: (1) the total of forms of activity, existing at present; (2) the experience of a given society’s evolution; (3) the innovations and discoveries which propel society into a new stage in its development” (p. 30). Culture is present, but it also connects people with their past and dynamically prepares them and society to adapt to new demands and challenges. Thus, any sociocultural context is not static and fixed. Its nature is dynamic, and therefore, the

26

2 Sociocultural Context Perspectives to Social Influence

sociocultural context is constantly evolving. The individual and society are frequently in a reciprocal influencing process. Societal values, morals, ethical standards, traditions, and customs are shaped through social interactions and influence processes of individuals who constitute the society, which, in return, impacts the individuals to act accordingly. This reciprocal and mutual influence between individuals and society is cyclical and continuous. Human nature is intertwined with culture, and thus, individuals are sociocultural beings (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). As explained by Chiu et al. (2014): “At the individual level, culture exists in the form of internalized individual-level characteristics, such as values and preferences” (p. 13). Therefore, in reality, what may appear as an individual’s conduct represents his cultural dispositions and the situational demand. Robust empirical evidence from the past five decades emphatically supports Geertz’s (1973) assertion that human nature is not independent of Culture (Cohen, 2014). Human behavior, therefore, can be explained by taking into account both the individual and his culture. An individual’s psycho-physical dispositions are significantly shaped by culture and evolutionary biological factors interact with the sociocultural context in the choice of his conduct. Culture as knowledge and ideas are widely shared at the individual and community levels. At the personal level, cultural values and preferences are internalized and shared at the community level and maintained by mutual reinforcement. Thus, unity in individual and community values makes behavior easier than the opposite condition of dissonance between the two. Culture is inherently dynamic, and people who live in it make changes in their adaptation to it. The sociocultural context also accordingly changes with time. Generational differences are visible in the culture and even in personality, self-concept, values, and behavior. For example, individualistic values are rising at the cultural level, followed by greater individualism. This change also becomes visible at the behavioral level as we observe individuals showing more concern with them and increasingly less in contact with their extended family members (Gentile et al., 2014). The Cambridge English Dictionary defines the situation as “…the set of things that are happening and the conditions that exist at a particular time and place.” So a situation could be social/economic/political and straightforward or complex, easy or difficult. The ways actors perceive a problem and define it determine their interactions with others. Based on their sociocultural background, the actors do things based on what they think others can do. They explain the situation and respond to perceived situational cues. Thus, a situation cannot be the same because each individual perceives it subjectively constructed. The situation is not merely a summation of the whole of the place, setting, occasion, physical and social environment. Berger and Luckman (1966) advocate that situation as experienced and interpreted is a social construction of reality that determines individuals’ interactions. Thus, what people know as the reality of their surroundings is a social construction (Pandey, 1988a). Pandey (1988a) observes, “Man is not an abstract being; he is concretized in a contextual situation” (p. 12). Man is active and competent to transform the context, an outcome of historic–cultural evolution. His activities are dynamically tied together through their existential conditions.

2.1 Understanding the Sociocultural Context

27

Box No. 2.1: Meaning of Socio-cultural Context 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

6.

Social interactions and influencing others are common social phenomena that occur in a sociocultural context. The sociocultural context includes its active constituents such as social structure, socio-economic-political systems, traditions, social norms, and values. The context is like fertile soil, determining the nature of human social interactions and influence. The situational characteristics are also constituents of the context. A social situation may be “the set of things happening and the conditions that exist at a particular time and place.“ People are a product of their long-term adaptation, with their sociocultural systems and environment determining stable personality dispositions, attitudes, and values. The personality disposition and mindset (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, values) and situation inclusive of context interact and jointly impact social influence.

Traditionally, personality dispositions and situational characteristics have been studied as determinants of an individual’s behavior, and quite often, the relative importance of both has been a favorite topic of research (Endler, 1973). Most traditional personologists have argued that personality traits are a significant behavioral variance source, as reflected in behavioral consistency across situations. Based on the evidence, the trait theorists assumed that personality is primarily stable, and therefore, the conduct of an individual remains similar across conditions (Cattell & Scheier, 1961). Some other social behavior theorists have rejected the importance of dispositional determinants and argued to favor situational factors to explain behavioral variance (Mischel, 1968). Situationism in psychology emphasizes the importance of situational determinants of behavior, minimizing dispositional factors (Bowers, 1973). Social behavior theorists like Mischel (1973) emphasize situational specificity and suggest behavioral consistency across similar situations. Endler (1973) systematically studied claims related to the importance of personality disposition as a significant behavioral variance source and rejected it. To a great extent, the personality versus situation issue has been a pseudo-issue because of its conceptualization to testing, which is more important than studying the nature of personality traits and situational factors interactions affecting behavior. Endler’s (1973) conclusion: “The person by situation interaction appears to be an important source of variance” (p. 302) is a sensible one in general and particularly for our purpose. Accordingly, we discuss the characteristics of the societal context in this and subsequent chapters. Chapter 3 analyzes psychological dispositions like attitudes and relevant personality dispositions, specifically authoritarianism and Machiavellianism, on influence processes ( see Chap. 6).

28

2 Sociocultural Context Perspectives to Social Influence

2.2 The Indian Societal Context People like to be sure about their social status and strength and compare themselves to others. As a member of a group, people also compare with other groups. Individuals have multiple identities as members of a family, caste, socioeconomic status (e.g., middle, lower, or upper class), and professions. They use their contextually relevant identity to compare themselves with other groups. Based on such social comparisons, people organize their social world hierarchically. In his analysis of the Indian mindset, Sinha (2014) argues that “…. social comparison is a pervasive and basic human function, which arranges individuals and collectives into various hierarchical orders and strata based on their actual or perceived attributes, success, and failures. Hierarchy is a basic frame that people develop and evoke to organize their thoughts and acts” ( p. 53). Sinha (2014) further argues that cultures differ in interpreting inequality in society. For example, in American society, individuals are treated equally, and accordingly, they hold a superior or subordinate position as part of the contract in a given context. However, in some other cultures, like in India, traditionally, human beings have been treated inherently unequally, and they continue to do so. The predetermined caste hierarchies in India place individuals in the categories they are born. With variations across cultures, different categories such as race, gender, color, region of origin, language, or a mix of more than one, classify people into hierarchies and categories. These categories are not based on ability, efforts, hard work, and achievements but have evolved in society arbitrarily. According to Triandis and Bhawuk (1997), cultures that consider humans inherently unequal are vertical with a steeply hierarchical relationship. In such hierarchical order of society, Albert (1968) explains it further “In parent–child relationships, husband-wife relations, politics, religion, and economics, the same superordinate–subordinate pattern of unconditional submission (of the underdog) applies” (p. 289). Contemporary Indian society has its unique history, social structure, traditions, norms, and values. Indian culture has been traditionally strongly hierarchical. For example, several hierarchy sources are the feudal social structure, caste, and a wide range of income disparities. One may easily observe that people in rank and positions in various professions like business, academic, social, and political institutions are highly conscious of hierarchy. The traditional feudal caste system of Indian society has strengthened a hierarchical solid social structure, making people highly aware of rank and positions in the organization, impacting all other institutions from family to the Governmental bureaucracy (Pal, 2019; Sharma, 1999). The hierarchical social system and institutions require and promote a powerful influence from submission and conformity to domineering and directing style. Based on their findings, Triandis and Bhawuk (1997) argue that most of India’s relationships are hierarchically structured. The overwhelming majority of India’s population is rural (70%), where almost all people are stratified based on the family background of caste, religion, kinship, and size of land ownership. Besides, gender and age also operate in creating hierarchies. Hofstede (1980) extended the power distance construct (Mulder, 1976) to understand the hierarchical order across cultures. The power one enjoys determines the

2.2 The Indian Societal Context

29

person’s position in a hierarchy. The hierarchical Indian society promotes behavior that maintains power distance, and it has a direct bearing on the nature of social influence. Hofestede (1980) has reported that in a hierarchical Indian society, subordinates fear disagreeing with their superiors. In Indian culture, socio-economically poor people agree and flatter influential persons (Srinivas, 1988). Based on various shreds of evidence, the high-power distance between subordinates and superiors promotes among the subordinates, a general practice of consenting, agreeing, and flattering. Indians are very status-conscious, expressed as Bara Admi (high-rank people) and Chota Admi (lower-rank people) (Sinha, 2014). The lower status people are supposed to obey and comply with relatively higher rank persons. As soon as people come together, they become conscious of their relative status, and accordingly, their interactions with others get into operation. In general, to please Bara Admi (highrank people) by Chota Admi (lower rank people), expected behaviors are conformity and compliance without any questioning. A person of high rank expects uncritical obedience from their subordinates. People generally indulge in flattery for reward and recognition to please the supervisor boss instead of commendable hard work. Traditionally, Indian’s value Aram (relaxation or rest) implies that an individual who has many opportunities for Aram even on his job is privileged and lucky because without doing hard work, he receives all benefits (Sinha & Sinha, 1974). In general, Indian people, instead of doing hard work, adopt shortcut methods, including social manipulation, to gain benefits and are pretty comfortable with underserved outcomes. Sinha (1970) suggests that Indian people have a common tendency of dependence proneness. They show a strong tendency to lean on other resourceful people for help, support, and advice when it is not needed. This tendency hinders individuals from taking the initiative and doing hard work. It is commonly observed in Indian society that people, instead of depending only on their hard work to be successful, also indulge in visiting temples to worship their favorite God and pray to shower blessings. They may also promise God that they would return the benefits by expensive offerings and sacrifices. Thus, a student who is to appear in the examination, a young man who has to face a job interview, a businessman launching his new business, and others indulge in good luck rituals. It is pretty standard that Indians indulge in praying the God in like to shower good luck for a positive outcome instead of trusting in their merit and hard work. The religious practices for good luck nurture a social environment that encourages indulgence in a non-productive behavioral bribe of flattery to influence the concerned authority to get undeserved favor and reward. Indian sociocultural context uniquely predisposes the people’s mindset for their strategic behavioral practices of controlling others in family , organizations, and society.

30

2 Sociocultural Context Perspectives to Social Influence

Box No. 2.2: Characteristics of Socio-cultural Context in India 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

Indian society is unique with rigid social structure, hierarchy, traditional norms, and values. The hierarchical society and institutions promote a range of influencing behaviors like participative and democratic to authoritarian and directing. The high-power distance between subordinates and superiors promotes a general practice of consenting, conforming, agreeing, and flattering. The traditional, feudal, and hierarchical Indian society especially encourages compliance and ingratiation (i.e., flattery) to influence resourceful others. High need achievement persons try their best to succeed, and they may also adopt nonproductive influencing practices. Perception of scarcity, limited resources, and lack of opportunities shape ordinary people with a scarcity mindset, promoting manipulative influencing strategies.

Any class of new social behavior may have some historical antecedents. For example, a common practice of ingratiating behavior (flattery) may have historical roots in our society. In traditional, feudal, and hierarchical Indian cultures, social influences inclusive of conformity, compliance, and ingratiation are common in various contexts. The feudal traditions which continue in different degrees and forms in our society provide a base of legitimacy for this class of behavior. The historical evidence has comprehensive support that feudal and hierarchical society expects conformity and compliance, and such behaviors are also rewarded. In feudal India, specific behavior patterns of hierarchical mannerism, rules, conduct, and court procedures were encouraged. Both Hindu and Muslim landlords/Nabab and British rulers promoted behavior patterns that were socially transmitted to the general population from generation to generation. It is common for neo-rich, bureaucrats, and political leaders to expect and encourage compliance, conformity, and ingratiation in some forms in contemporary Indian society (Pandey, 1986a, 1988a). The wellknown “Dastur” (practice) of gift-giving could be considered some form of bribery. The court jesters used to please and flatter the kings in Darbars and receive rewards for their institutionalized roles (Mukhia, 2004). The traditional, hierarchical, and feudal orientation of Indian society has a historical continuity of Darbar culture, fostering flattery in some forms. Those occupying political or bureaucratic authority positions like to model themselves like former Zamindars (feudal landlords) and kings and expect similar behaviors from their subordinates. Thus, widespread manipulative tactics thrive as a mode of social influence and control for underserved personal gains and advantages. Social scientists need to reexamine these practices historically and their effects on today’s society, particularly efficiency and productivity. Unobtrusive evidence, historical records, and writings provide valuable perspectives and

2.2 The Indian Societal Context

31

tools for social research to understand better social influence tactics in contemporary Indian society (Mukhia, 2004). In post-independent India (after 1947), there has been a growing trend in egalitarian practices. Singh (1986) noted the process of restructuration in Indian society “..resulting from the operation of the technological, educational, and economic forces of modernization” (p. 102). The hierarchical structures of organizations and institutions have been changing with the rise of globalization; mainly, the impact has been visible with the turn of the twenty-first century. However, the changes are weak and still have not impacted, leading to a decline in the commanding nature of social influencing in traditional Indian society. Directing and commanding styles of influencing others are fast getting either outdated or modified to participative, particularly in the modern institutions in India (Kaasa & Minkov, 2020). Several surveys and reports conclude that nations differ in socioeconomic inequalities and other development indicators (DESA, 2020). Prosperous and developing countries ubiquitously experience and cope with resource scarcity and opportunities in varied ways and degrees. Actual and particularly perceived scarcity determines people’s behavior. In their insightful analysis, Mullainathan and Shafir (2014) have examined the question related to changes in attitudes and behaviors as the consequences of perceived scarcity. They argue that the perception of having too little shapes our choices and our behavior. A straightforward development of the perception of having less may cause unhappiness. Mullainathan and Shafir (2014) rightly state, “Scarcity leads to dissatisfaction and struggle” (p. 12). They further add, “Scarcity is not just physical constraints. It is also our mindset” (p. 12). So the perception of scarcity influences our evaluation of the situation, and accordingly, the choice of behavior is made out of available options. Under scarcity, we deal with the given situation differently to adjust and survive. Mullainathan and Shafir (2014) think that universally “Scarcity in every form creates a similar mindset (p. 13)”, influencing concerned individual’s behavior. The scarcity mindset may compel individuals to be generous and helpful with their own near and dear and be selfish and competitive with others. So the scarcity mindset may motivate an individual to operate and influence differently depending on the in-group and out-group situation. Although India is a rapidly expanding economy, now rated as the fourth largest globally, this nation continues to be a land of contradictions. The majority of people (nearly 900 million) continuously face scarcity of all kinds, from drinking water and housing with necessary facilities to opportunities for meaningful jobs and creative expression. The majority of India’s huge population (over 1.30 billion) frequently faces scarcity of all kinds. The scarcity situation also teaches people skills to cope with it, particularly social influencing skills. Thus in the Indian context, the lack may lead to cooperation and sharing with the members of their group, as it is common for the family members to sacrifice and share. However, the scarcity may cause selfishness and manipulation in sharing resources with others. Thus influencing tactics in the scarcity situation may vary with in-group and out-group members. The need for achievement (n-Ach) theory of McClelland (1961) postulated that achievement motivation is, in part, determines economic development. Since the 1960s, scholars have debated McClelland’s need for achievement (n-Ach) theory

32

2 Sociocultural Context Perspectives to Social Influence

for explaining economic growth globally. Sinha (1968) questioned McClelland’s position that N-Ach training for business people would cause economic development for India. He argued that high n-Ach might not contribute positively in all conditions, particularly in situations of limited resources. Sinha asked the blanket use of the theory in the Indian case, full of scarcity all around with a widespread tendency among the people to hoard and grab resources. An individual with a limited resource mindset may indulge in hoarding resources inconsiderately and may also use manipulation of all sorts to turn the situation in his favor. Based on his experimental study findings, Sinha (1968) reported that people with high n-Ach might work hard, leading to maximum group output, but only when resources are not scarce. In his reply to Sinha’s criticism, McClelland further argued that high n–Ach persons do not grab resources, but they create new resources. So for a high n-Ach person, limited resource is an opportunity to generate more resources. In his correspondence with Sinha (Sinha & Pandey, 1970), McClelland cited examples of some supportive evidence in the case of Indian n-Ach trainees. He cited examples of Indian Marwaries (businessmen from Rajasthan) known for profit-making and donating to the needy. McClelland argued that altruism shown by the Marwaris for the larger good in the community proves that n-Ach is not “necessarily causatively related to trickery and dishonesty” (Sinha & Pandey, 1970, p. 210). McClelland contended that they (high n-Ach) are supportive and generous rather than manipulative and selfish for personal gains under scarcity. Sinha and Pandey (1970) studied high n-Ach person’s behavior under limited resource conditions. Sinha and Pandey (1970) suggested that n-Ach is neutral. Whether a high n-Ach person will be selfish or altruistic depends on accompanying dispositions and the context. They argued that the group might become competitive under scarcity and indulge in inconsiderate use and monopolization of resources, hurting total productivity. Whether a high n-Ach individual will act selfishly or altruistically is guided by his conscience. A high n-Ach person may think about the larger good of the group and value altruistic cooperation with others to maximize gains for the group. The response of an n-Ach person with a selfish orientation might be different in resource sharing, hoarding, inconsiderate use of resources, and assisting weaker partners. Based on the findings of their experimental study, Sinha and Pandey (1970) supported McClelland’s position that high n-Ach persons have a propensity to create resources, perform better, and manipulate the environment to maximize gains. However, they added that high n-Ach persons also “…engaged in inconsiderate use of resources and hoarding” (p. 216). Sinha and Pandey (1970) concluded that high n-Ach persons use all possible means for their gains, and their primary interest remains to be successful, and means used for success do not matter much to them. Perception of scarcity, limited resources, and lack of opportunities all around shape the scarcity mindset of the ordinary people in India. In the context of the widening income disparities and scarcity of all kinds, the scarcity mindset leads to learning a range of innovative influencing tactics to cope with social reality.

2.3 The Structural Theory of Social Influence

33

2.3 The Structural Theory of Social Influence The structural theory of social influence has a foundation in anthropology, sociology, administrative science, and organizational psychology. Social structures in societal and organizational systems are foundations for the evolution of coordinated activities, facilitating the influencing process leading to consensus. Social differentiation and hierarchies make it hard to achieve and sustain coordination and agreement. However, the structural theory of social influence propounded by Friedkin (1998) argues that the social influence processes facilitate interpersonal agreements among the actors located at different levels of social structure. A complexly differentiated organization has different parts, with actors occupying different positions, performing assigned roles, and influencing others. Thus, the structural theory uses individuals’ roles and functions to understand social influence. Durkheim (1933), in his analysis of the division of labor in society, discussed different forms of social differentiation. And among many such possibilities, one of the possible forms envisaged was differentiation with integration in the social structure. In such integration, organic solidarity limits interpersonal discord. Friedkin (1998) elaborately analyzed social structures with actors occupying various positions and the development of roles and specification of influences facilitating the maintenance of coordination and functioning of groups. Friedkin (1998) proposed structural social psychology that explains associated social influence processes and a social entity’s dynamic functioning and productivity. An example of a large university with complex statutory and administrative bodies consisting of faculties, academic departments, and research centers may explain the above contention. Each department, a part of the university structure, consists of a head, professors, associate professors, and assistant professors as faculty members, post-doc researchers, research degree (Ph.D., M. Phil.), master, undergraduate students, project assistants, and office-lab staff. Several academic and administrative committees at various levels of the university structure meet, deliberate, communicate, coordinate and make recommendations related to admission, teaching and research facilities, and policy related to a complex process of hiring and promotion of faculty. These issues are also discussed at various levels. The complex system and its network allow ideas to influence decision-making and facilitate consensus on numerous issues following norms, goals, mission, and institution objectives. The university’s complex structure has laid down communication procedures and influences decision-making and the day-to-day functioning of the institution. The university as a public institution has stakeholders like general students and their parents and the public, who may not be part of the formal structure. They also communicate with the system and register their grievances and views on various issues. The university structure develops a plan to receive and utilize feedback from its environment. The organizational structures streamline social influence processes and communication across multiple parts leading to consensus decision-making. In a typical societal or administrative structure, the network allows centrality and peripheral positions and allows influence patterns to evolve. Friedkin (1998) explains

34

2 Sociocultural Context Perspectives to Social Influence

the aim of structural social psychology …"that takes into account the structural context in which actors are situated, and that describes how interpersonal agreements and influences arise” (p. 22). However, the actors with identical characteristics may not be alike in social effects and may have more substantial or lower social impacts regarding their positions and roles. Komarovsky (1973) had identified certain limitations of the structural social psychology as: (i) “obscures and neglects the importance of individuality”; (ii) overemphasizes “conformity and stability” by neglecting deviation; (iii) fails to account for the formation of interpersonal agreements. An example of the university structure may help elaborate on the above. The heads of the academic departments of the university structure primarily respond in stereotypical ways on most of the issues showing conformity to the designated body or person holding the high position in the system. In reality, however, some heads may communicate among themselves, develop an interpersonal agreement on a specific issue, and use a different speech route, not accounted for by the structural theory. The concept of social control, as proposed by Janowitz (1975), refers to “…the occurrence and effectiveness of ongoing efforts in a group to formulate, agree upon, and implement collective courses of action” (Friedkin, 1998, p. xvi). According to Janowitz (1975), the objective of the social control mechanism is also to reduce coercion and find non-coercive ways for effective social control. Friedkin (1998) suggests that the classical approach to social control has emphasized, “…voluntary mechanisms of coordination and control that are based on networks of interpersonal communication (social influence), legitimized decision-making procedures (social choice), and bargaining” (p. xvi). Friedkin (1998) posits that the actors achieve interpersonal agreements even if they are located in different parts of the complexly differentiated organization through the social influence process and in a network of interpersonal influence. Friedkin (1998) used the mathematical models and pursued them with empirical analysis of science faculties at the University of Chicago and Columbia University. He studied the relationship between communication structure and interpersonal visibility using computer software resulting in an analysis of the structural features of the network. Based on his work on science faculty in a highly differential social structure of academic departments, he concluded that the social influence process could produce convergence. In an organization, a densely occupied region of social space may have unusually high levels of interpersonal cohesion, and occupants of this region may have a high degree of mutual respect and attachments resulting in high self-weights of the actors precluding a flow of influence. In such a context, a heavily self-weighted actor can be only a power source. Therefore, a heavyweight may emerge in a region with high social ties among the region’s actors where many actors are intimately related. Heavyweights are not distributed across the social space but are concentrated in a small number of areas. Friedkin (1998) concludes, “Therefore, a heavyweight is likely to emerge only from those regions of the occupied social space in which the probability of social ties among the occupants of the region is high, and there are a large number of proximately located actors” (p. 204). A high level of cohesion among actors of relative social positions is the most important for a heavyweight. It is not

2.4 Authority and Leadership

35

necessary to have heavyweights in all influence systems. One may conclude that the existence of heavyweights changes the pattern of social influence. The structural social psychology approach provides insights for understanding the nature of social impact as practiced in complex large-size organizations and social systems. The theory helps understand the emergence of power centers around the heavyweights in organizations that may hinder functioning on the basis of stated ideology, rules, and norms.

2.4 Authority and Leadership Authority and leadership have overriding importance in social relations and influence processes. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines authority as “the power to give orders or make decisions: the power or right to direct or control someone or something.“ Kakar (1971) has defined authority as a “relationship between two individuals, one superior and the other subordinate” (p. 93). Kakar’s definition includes a gamut of authority-subordinate relationships like parent–child, leader–follower, supervisor-worker, expert-trainees, and teacher-students. The authority operates in the positional hierarchy system, as parents and children in a family or supervisor and workers in organizations. Authority is often linked with a person’s family, community, or organization. The superior has the power to order the subordinates in the lower class and to regulate their behaviors. The sources of authority explain the relationship between the superior and subordinate. For example, the law provides rules, regulations, and code of conduct for citizens and the police have legal and formal authority to enforce it. In a bureaucratic organization, individuals hold different positions with authority and perform their assigned roles. The authority has the legitimate right to give an order to subordinates as per rules. The traditional authority pattern prevails in most societies. The Zamindari (i.e., landlord and his subjects) system of Indian culture required the tillers to be obedient. So, obedience resulted from the traditional authority enjoyed by the landlord. In the Indian family system, the father has control over family members. The conventional authority system does not have any formal laws as written rules and regulations. Sociocultural factors like traditions, norms, and values define rights, duties, obligations, and relationships between superiors and subordinates. Besides the above, one may acquire a superior position due to his knowledge and expertise. A competent person may enjoy authority over those who need and seek wisdom. The nature of control sources and their use are complex and socio-culturally conditioned. Kakar (1971) identified various authority constituents, such as superiors’ image, subordinates’ actions, obedience, sources, and relative importance of different authority–subordinate relationships. He studied the social pretext of authority in Indian culture by analyzing the stories included in the prescribed textbooks of school children of three states of India: Utter Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. The primary sources of the selected stories were two ancient epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata. Many stories were familiar across three states. He chose thirty-one stories

36

2 Sociocultural Context Perspectives to Social Influence

depicting authority situations for content analysis. Following the methodology of McClelland’s (1961) study of social values, Kakar (1971) developed a content analysis scheme with: “type of relationship, the main source of authority, supporting source, the image of superior, means of enforcement, conflicts in obedience, degree of conflict, and subordinate action.” (p. 94). The findings implied that the most dominant authority theme was the authority in the family. The primary source of power depicted in the stories was traditional-moral. Conspicuously, rational-legal and a person’s competence were insignificant sources of authority. The most interesting findings related to the portrayal of Kakar’s superior image was of “autocrat–either assertive or nurturant.” The authority figures in the stories used emotional rewards or aroused guilt in the subordinates. The stories depicted the subordinate’s character to accept the authority to the extent of complete surrender. Though findings are based on content analysis of a selected few stories, the results are highly relevant and enlightening regarding the prevailing authority system in Indian society (Kakar, 1971). Several scholars (Sinha, 2014; Pal, 2019) support Indian Culture’s hierarchical features and dominant presence in caste groups and families. Although castes are generally associated with Hinduism, caste-like groups are also a reality in Indian Muslims, Christians, and other religious communities. Indian society across different geographical regions of north or south and urban or rural ranks people. Wealth and positional power in the community serve as criteria to rank people. The wealthy and high position “Bara Admi” (high-rank people) having excess resources enjoy greater social authority and power than the lower position Chota Admi’ (lower rank people), destined to obey the command of the powerful (Sinha, 2014). Gender is another source of inequality and authority, with father and husband having greater control than mother and wife. In a constitutionally democratic country India, equality across individuals and groups is missing at the societal level. Leadership is all about influencing the followers, winning new ones, and leading them. Leadership is a social influence phenomenon. To a great extent, leadership is a reciprocal influencing process with the followers. A successful leader and his followers engage in meaningful social interactions, resulting in a mutual trustworthy influencing relationship. In his theory of bureaucracy, Weber (1947) suggests that organizations exist for some purpose and objectives. To achieve the organizational goals, differentiation of positions and roles with specialized tasks evolves to carry out the corporate mission in a coordinated manner under the leadership. Individuals are assigned jobs and associated positions with defined roles that they perform. Rules and regulations direct and guide participants’ behavior to make the system work properly. Finally, unambiguous chains of commands evolve with authority and responsibility for each position. Thus, down the line, a subordinate’s acts are based on his supervisor’s judgments rather than his own. Social psychologists during the 1940s through 1960s treated leadership and social influence more closely in interwoven fashion (Cartwright & Zander, 1953; Festinger et al., 1950; Lewin, 1947). Cartwright (1965) identified three significant aspects of influence processes: (i) the agent exerting influence, (ii) the method of exerting influence, and (iii) the target subjected to influence. Cartwright (1965) supports Barnard’s (1938) position that social influence emanates from leadership, not the

2.4 Authority and Leadership

37

class. According to Dahl (1957), the leaders exert social influence by manipulating the bases of resources. Traditional positive methods of influence like appreciation and friendliness, and economic rewards are more prevalent under democratic leadership. The democratic leader shares function with the group members and encourage them to participate in the decision-making and planning of the group activities. In contrast, negative influences such as criticism, threat, and punishment of varied kinds are more common under authoritarian leadership. The autocratic leader does not participate in work with the group members. He prefers to direct and order them, and if not obeyed, he likes to take punitive action against the noncompliant group members. Generally, under authoritarian leadership, the members are expected to be submissive and hold an uncritical attitude to leadership. Although democratic and autocratic leadership may differ in style, their common objective remains to influence and guide them to achieve the group goal. Later in the 1960s and beyond, both leadership and influence flourished as independent subjects of inquiry. The recent handbook chapter has rightly treated influence and leadership together (Hogg, 2010). To reflect the interwoven nature of the two, Chemers (2001) defines leadership as “…a process of social influence through which an individual enlists and mobilizes the aid of others in the attainment of a collective goal” (p. 376). Thus, competence in social influence empowers leadership. A leader would not exist if they have no impact on the followers and cannot communicate with their leaders. Thus, any social influence analysis has to include the way leaders function and influence followers. The nature of the social influence varies with variations in leadership style and the groups they lead. For example, democratic and authoritarian leaders influence their group members differently. Social, industrial, service, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations differ in their organizational structure, objectives, and function. The leadership suitably develops in the coordination of work accordingly to the nature of the organization. For the success of any organization, influential leaders must efficiently regulate and coordinate the activities of individuals. Given the heterogeneity of individual members who occupy various positions and perform respective roles, it is necessary to influence and control them to achieve regularity and coordination to fulfill organizational objectives. Effective and successful leadership is possible by developing mutual influence between leaders and followers to reach group, corporate or societal goals. Hollander (1985) cogently elaborates on the dynamic mutual influencing process: “All leaders to some degrees are followers at times, and followers are not cast forever in a ‘passive’ non-leader role. They may and do at times become leaders” (p. 487). Thus, the group’s success is contingent on the effective mutual influencing process by the leader and followers. Though the leadership position is the center of the group’s activities, it must be seen as the central part of leadership and not of the leader as a person (McGregor, 1944). To be an effective leader, one has to be influential to get things done. The nature of the emergence of leadership, to a great extent, determines the legitimacy and authority of a leader. The cultural perspective suggests that all societies have authority structures and normative systems to allocate power (LeVine, 1960). Broadly social psychology has identified two primary sources of the legitimate authority of

38

2 Sociocultural Context Perspectives to Social Influence

leadership: (i) Appointed leadership within various organizational frameworks; (ii) emergent leadership, a choice of followers following a mechanism like a consensus or election. The appointed and elected leaders have distinctively different consequences on the influence processes. The groups led by the appointed and elected leaders differ in several ways, like leader–follower’s relations and mutual expectations (Pandey, 1976). The perception of the legitimacy of leadership authority largely depends on the fairness of the procedure to achieve a leadership position. The legitimate leader has, of course, more power and influence than an unfairly installed illegitimate leader. To achieve his group’s objectives, the leader may serve well by providing a better picture of the reality to followers and motivating them for hard work. The leader gives direction for change. Burns (1978) suggests that some leaders in the process become so impactful that they achieve the status of “transformational leadership” by helping the followers see the reality positively and act innovatively. Transformational leaders inspire followers to adopt a new vision that involves more than narrow self-interest (Burns, 1978; Judge & Bono, 2000). Transformational leaders enjoy substantial social influence over their followers, and he raises the followers’ abilities and encourages them to aspire higher. He intellectually stimulates the followers to have a better mindset for positive practices. Charisma is the critical component of transformational leadership. Weber (1946/1921) coined charismatic leadership from the Greek word charisma, which means divine gift. The charismatic leader attracts loyal followers and has a powerful influence over them. The followers follow the directive of such leaders without any doubt and question. Generally, such leadership develops in highly cohesive social, religious, and political groups engaged in mass movements. Charisma facilitates effective leadership because charismatic leaders are emotionally expressive, enthusiastic, driven, eloquent, visionary, self-confident, and responsive to others (House et al., 1991). Gandhi was a charismatic leader of the mass movement for India’s freedom. His honest commitment to liberty, truthfulness to actions, and fearless challenge to the authority attracted masses that followed his innovative nonviolent protests against the British rulers. Gandhi’s influence on the masses was genuinely charismatic. The masses responded to his call, and many of them sacrificed their studies, career, and comfort in life, joined Satyagraha, broke the law, and chose to go to jails for independence. The sociocultural realities and values determine the nature of an effective leadership style to a great extent. Based on systematic studies of core social values, social practices prevalent in Indian society, Sinha (1980) proposed a culturally appropriate leadership pattern called Nurturant–Task (NT) leader. “The Nurturant-Task (NT) style has two main components: concern for task and nurturant–orientation” (Sinha, 1980, p. 55) for followers. A unique participative leadership style emphasizes tasks and people engaged in doing the job. The leader cares for both the mission and the people working on getting the task done. Without compromising on the quality and progress of the group goals, the leader cares for the people, so he remains influential to them. The NT style is like parenting the workers to develop their competencies and involvement in work to achieve productivity. The nurturant leader is a taskmaster uniquely socio-culturally conditioned, particularly in the Indian context.

2.5 Social Status, Power, and Influence

39

Such a leader uses a parental way of influencing his followers or subordinates to get work done. A broader view may help understand political and ideological leadership in a democratic society. The leadership in the social–political arena plays a role in shaping intergroup relationships, the social identity of people, facilitating socioeconomic change and development. The challenges of modern societies are to promote the evolution of influential leadership for just and equal societal development.

2.5 Social Status, Power, and Influence The study of power is central to understanding social influence because both are overlapping concepts. A person occupying high social status enjoys greater power and a higher capacity to influence others, mainly those in the lower class. Thus status, power, and influence are interconnected. The earlier section of this chapter analyses the structural theory and highlights the relationship between social status and influence. In addition to the most popular social construct of power (French & Raven, 1959), later, Ng (1980) highlights other facets of power as “…the power of the individual person conceived as a latent dispositional construct. Power predisposes an individual to feel, perceive, and act in a certain manner” (p. 119). Some basic underlying features of the power accepted widely are: (1) power is generally concerned with influence or control of behavior; (2) power is not an attribute of the actor in isolation of a specific relationship but is instead a property of a social relation, and (3) power in a relationship can be either balanced or unbalanced (also called as symmetry and asymmetry or equality and inequality of power). These characteristics indicate that power is a situation-specific relationship. The underlying features of power suggest that it is not always one-sided. Power can be balanced or unbalanced in a relationship. Mutual interdependence indicates a balance of power, generally shared in social relationships. For example, in relationships among friends or members of a cohesive group, the balance of power does not neutralize the use of power by other partners (Cartwright, 1959). Each party feels powerful to exert control over the other. However, unbalanced power relationships like an employer to employee, parent to child, or one partner (e.g., employer or parent) are relatively more powerful and influential because they control the resources. The imbalance of power may exist in the larger society. In a minority situation, an individual lacks power and status (Wood et al., 1994), and such phenomena are not uncommon in many societies. Thus, balanced and unbalanced power relationships may impact social influence. The nature of power includes motivational, cognitive, and behavioral constructs. Conceptualization of power as striving for superiority by Adler (1956) and power as a motive (Winter, 1973; McClelland, 1975) constitute the core of the motivational construct of power which implies a continuous desire to assert and influence. The cognitive construct of power, for example, includes personal causation (de Charms, 1968), locus of control (Phares, 1991), and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). With cognitive power, an individual believes and accordingly influences the situation. In his

40

2 Sociocultural Context Perspectives to Social Influence

theory of naïve psychology, Heider (1958) postulates power in terms of the “Can” factor indicating acting capacity. These constructs are not exhaustive, and there could be many other ways an individual strengthens his realization of power. For example, some people achieve power by pursuing spirituality and liberation of consciousness. The motivational and cognitive nature of power explains individual differences in power in behavioral terms. Going further in a detailed analysis of the subject is beyond the present scope. Therefore, we continue to limit our discussion on power relevant to influence, the book’s theme. Interpersonal interactions like submission, oppression, and dominance primarily reflect social stratification, hierarchy, status, and power. Based on perceived relative power, an individual influences others in an organization or community. The status and power are functions of the position one has in the hierarchy of the stratified social system. It would be helpful to understand the vertical ranking of people with unequal access to scarce resources. Social stratification is interwoven with hierarchy, status, and power. Order in groups emerges naturally through an interactive process. The upper level in the hierarchy enjoys a higher status regarding respect, recognition, prestige, and influence on others in the group. Though people in high positions have class status, seniority in age and experience also enjoy social status. It is common to experience such social dynamics in family and workplaces (Fiske, 2010). In social, political, and organizational contexts, a system of authority exists with “superiors” enjoying greater power to influence “subordinates.“ Kakar (1971) suggests that culturally appropriate “…a gamut of authority relationships, such as parent–child, teacher-student, and superior and subordinate” (p. 93) evolve, facilitating the nature of social influences. It is evident that status and power are correlated, but powerful features are more tangible. A person with power may be called a power holder who derives power from his position and the resources he controls or possesses. Based on his status and the power attached to it, the power holder decides how to use the power to influence others. An individual in any human group occupying a higher position has greater power to control his subordinates in many ways like directing, ordering, and advising. The associates also may influence their superiors by giving them positive or negative feedback. However, the higher and lower positions holders may differ in their degree of power, with the former enjoying greater power than the latter. An organizational position and power associated with it determine the efficacy of social influence. Human groups like a family, a social group of voluntary work, a company office, a Government department, and an industrial production unit all have a common feature: individuals occupy positions with related roles and defined power that they use appropriately to influence others. The influence processes make the group function efficiently. No group can function efficiently unless the group members occupy positions and have defined power to influence others. In a way, power and influence coexist across human affairs universally. However, there has been an attempt to distinguish between power and influence. For example, Bierstedt (1950) wrote, “Influence does not require power, and power may dispense with influence. Influence may convert a friend, but power coerces friend and foe alike” (p. 731). This quote implies that power can exert power and control others by

2.5 Social Status, Power, and Influence

41

using power and countering the opposite power. Influence is more like persuasion, which does not include any coercion. An individual in a group or community may hold a position and enjoy the power associated with it, and he may use his power to influence others. Thus power is an indicator of strength, and the more significant the influence is natural with greater strength. A person with power in society or organization has a more significant influence on others. The most influential analysis of power by French and Raven (1959) describes various ways used by a power holder (A) to cause the target person (B) to do something; which they may not have liked to do. They also analyzed the bases of power, which make a person powerful and influential over the other person. The bases of power identified by French and Raven (1959), still popularly referred are. A. B. C. D. E.

Reward Power: The power holder may have control over some rewards wanted by the target person, and therefore the power holder may influence the target. Coercive Power: The power holder may have strength and means of punishment and may influence the target. Legitimate Power: By his position and associated role with it, the target person has to follow the prescribed behavior of the legitimate authority. Expert Power: Perceived knowledge and expertise empower the power holder more influential over the perceiver. Referent Power: Someone is more powerful and influential if others admire, respect, and identify with them. Popularly mentioned two other bases of power: (i) Information power: Based on the perception that someone has excess helpful information; and (ii) Connections power: Based on the perception that someone has connections with influential persons. The first five elaborated bases of power broadly subsume these two bases of power.

A power base is a source of influence in social interactions. Thus, using various means, the power holder can influence the target’s behavior. The power base has to be used in coordination with the satisfaction of some motive of the target person. Kipnis (1976) states that “Person ‘A’ controls some resource to which person ‘B’ will respond, be it expert knowledge, rewards, or threats. Thus, person ‘A’ can use these resources in exchange for compliance” (p. 11). It is possible to explain a wide variety of social-influence acts using the framework of power analysis of French and Raven. The kind of resources available to the power holder and how he can use them as a possible source of satisfaction of some motive of the target determine the success of the influence attempt. French and Raven’s (1959) fivefold typology of power bases has undoubtedly been widely accepted and remained popular to understand social power dynamics and influence. Power can be used in different ways. The powerholders are prone to exploiting and treating others instrumentally (Gruenfeld et al., 2008). Sachdev and Bourhis (1985) have reported that the power holders with control over resources discriminated influence on others more effectively than the powerless. The influential members of the group allocated fewer resources to others, and they also reported feelings of comfort and satisfaction. The social power approach of French and Raven (1959) also predicts

42

2 Sociocultural Context Perspectives to Social Influence

the short- and long-term effects of using various bases of power (Fiske, 2010). For example, using threats and punishment for influence may hurt the target’s self-esteem and cause insecurity. Thus, when power is used negatively with coercion and exploitation, it may damage the confidence of the target persons and the group’s cohesiveness. Coercive power may produce public compliance but not personal acceptance by the target. However, the use of expert power may most likely have both public and private submission. Two bases of influence-referent and expert are generally associated with greater satisfaction and higher performance. When power is used in a positive and supportive way, encouraging others to do the job raises productivity and morale of the group and the self-esteem of the target persons. The power base’s relative effectiveness depends on the nature of the group structure, leader-member relationship, and the task.

2.6 Obedience to Authority Legitimate authority is highly influential on the subordinates in their context. For example, in the family, parents are effective with their children. The head of an institution is a compelling influence on his employees. An authority acquires its position in several ways. One is a parent either biologically or by adopting a child. But a teacher earns a place by achieving the required qualifications, training, and appointment. A common feature of authority is that they all have control over resources. In general, people show obedience to authority. The socialization process teaches people the practical value of agreeing, obeying, and accepting authority advice. Generally, the leaders are perceived as excellent in wisdom with control over resources to reward or deprive. As people age to adulthood, they learn to live and work with various authorities in different contexts. We also change institutions for work and learn to adjust to new leaders. Socialization practices instill in members of society to obey legitimate commands. Compliance constitutes expected desired behavior to new authorities like police, judge, employer, and experts. Our belief in the benefits of attending to the rules gets stronger in our work and social life. We live in a society where most people follow their authorities in various social contexts and work lives. The findings of Stanley Milgram, rigorous experimental studies of the early 1960s on obedience (Milgram, 1974), support legitimate authority’s power in influencing others. He studied compliance which involved dangerously hurting others physically. Milgram’s (1974) experiments demonstrated how many ordinary people as participants in experiments, requiring them to act as a teacher, would continue to obey the commands of an experimenter as an authority, hurting a learner who was introduced as a co-participant in the experiment, to a dangerous level. The experimental procedure required the participant to administer powerful electric shocks to the learner for his mistakes in learning the paired association task. Milgram (1974) and his associates were stunned to record that 65% of participants continued delivering dangerous levels of electric shock to an innocent participant of the experiment, simply because, in this case, the experimenter who pretended to be a scientist directed them to do

2.6 Obedience to Authority

43

so. How can such surprising results be explained? According to Milgram (1974), this kind of compliance happened due to a strong sense to obey the authority. The participants were unable to defy the authority of the experimenter. The participants continued giving shocks due to the insistence of the experimenter. How can such surprising results be explained? According to Milgram (1974), this kind of compliance happened due to a solid sense to obey the authority. The participants were unable to defy the head of the experimenter. The participants continued giving shocks due to the insistence of the experimenter. It may not be wise to accept Milgram’s primary findings blanket generalization. Using his experimental paradigm, Milgram (1974) and others (Blass, 1991) studied various facets of obedience to authority and confirmed the prior results. But if a non-authority gave commands, the compliance dropped significantly (Blass, 1991). Expertise and truthfulness determine the effectiveness of the authority in influencing others. Ashish Nandy (1977) used Milgram’s experiment scenario to analyze and understand excesses committed by the authorities during the national emergency in India in the mid-1970s. Nandy (1977) comments, “They are sure they are doing something wrong, but cannot break with their pseudo-legitimate authority” (p. 13). Most formal institutions’ authorities have an official title like director, vicepresident, or president. In family and other social contexts, relationships are personalized but remain hierarchical. Mainly in traditional cultures like India, parents and other elders are addressed by relationship (e.g., Mata Ji for mother; Pita Ji for father) not by name to show respect and authority, they command. Some leaders also wear a uniform like police or army officer dresses to symbolize their position and power. Like managing director or chief engineer, it is a symbolic title that further strengthens the authority. For example, to control the rowdy crowd, the Superintendent of Police identifies himself to effectively manage the conduct of people and enforcement of law and order. It is common to pin symbols like stars related to position on the dress. The position titles and uniforms are indicators of the authority system as they operate in culturally institutionalized and formally established governmental/nongovernmental organizations and corporations. Based on their studies, Cialdini (2009) and Bickman (1974) have reported that it is challenging to resist requests from the authority figure in proper official dress. The use of dress code practice by the doctors, nurses, police, guards, and suits by the executives probably establishes legitimacy and enhances authority for increasing influence on others (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Ordinary people may have an illusion of perceived freedom (Steiner, 1970) for their actions. However, social–psychological knowledge suggests that the authorities largely depend on people’s obedience to the social system. The tendency to obey legitimate command gets more potent by the systematic socialization processes used in a planned way to instill in people to make them perceive and believe that such obedience constitutes proper conduct (Cialdini, 2009). People learn to obey the societal authority system, which may change due to social circumstances. Although it is a vast area, the chapter summarizes the significance of diverse sociocultural contexts for understanding social influence dynamics with a proper perspective.

Chapter 3

Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

There is no one right way to understand the way people think and act.

Humans, by nature, need others, and therefore they try to influence others to act as they wish. Psychological research and theories developed over the past century attempt to answer the questions listed in Box 3.1 and more related to social influence. The introduction chapter briefly traces the history of the scientific psychological studies on social influence, which made a beginning (Triplet, 1898) soon after establishing the first psychology laboratory in Leipzig, Germany, in 1879. Still, research and knowledge expansion started much later with the research on groups, attitudes (Allport, 1935), social norms (Sherif, 1936), and conformity (Asch, 1951, 1955). Psychological research has unfolded the roles of psychological dispositions of the actor (influencer) and the target (influences), and their choice of influencing strategies to maneuver situations in their favor in varied social contexts. This chapter reviews the relevant psychological research and theories organized thematically, explaining the intricacies of social influence. The questions listed in Box 3.1 are appropriate, and we hope that this chapter helps the readers answer these questions.

Box No. 3.1: Psychological Research and Theories Attempt to Explain: Why do people differ in their motivation and capacity to influence others? Why does one fail to influence all others alike? What strategies do people use to control and win over others? What makes people obey authority? Why do people comply with the group norm? Why do people comply and conform with the group? Why do people not succumb to the majority?

© Indian Council of Social Science Research 2022 J. Pandey, Nature and Dynamics of Social Influence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4598-4_3

45

46

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

How does a subordinate wins his superior and get rewarded? Why do people commit atrocities on people and control them? How does a subordinate manage rewards from his boss?

3.1 Attitude Change and Social Influence The social influence process involves changing the target’s beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. In many ways, the history of social psychology is the history of research on attitudes, critically important for understanding social influence processes. For one of the founding fathers of social psychology, Allport (1935, 1968), attitudes are “the most distinctive and indispensable concept” (Allport, 1968, p. 59). The importance of attitudes for understanding social influence is unquestionable. Attitudes are not an observable entity but rather an underlying mental construct consisting primarily of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Attitudes are an informationbased, relatively enduring mental organization with cognitive–evaluative, affective and behavioral elements toward some objects like a person, a group, an issue, a product, or anything, including even oneself. For example, no one can see my attitudes toward a person, about whom I have my positive or negative evaluation based on some information, like or dislike feelings, and action tendency of meeting or not meeting him. Along with cognitive and affective elements, attitudes constitute predispositions for preferences and action. Learning new and changing attitudes is part of our ongoing social life as an acquired mental organization. Thus, the process of formation and change of attitudes exist side by side. The attitudes explain social phenomena like prejudice, intergroup relations, interpersonal attraction, persuasion, and various aspects of social influence. Research on attitude formation and change has served as building blocks for multiple topics in social psychology, including social influence and persuasion. Usually, an individual has attitudes just about everything that matters to him, and his attitudes are functional in making sense of his world and adjusting to it. Attitudes’ change and influence processes are interwoven and connected. A naïve but important question often raised is, From where do these attitudes come? While explaining the origins of attitudes, in the handbook of social psychology chapter on attitudes, Banaji and Heiphetz (2010) write, “…. social psychologists typically assume that many preferences derive from different parts of the social world, from words and behaviors of other beings, and from events that unfold in the world” (p. 371). Thus, people’s attitudes are shaped by direct experiences and observation at home, neighborhood, institutions of work, the larger society, and information from readings and through technology from far and near places. The social learning processes facilitate the acquisition of attitudes and social values, especially cultural

3.1 Attitude Change and Social Influence

47

traditions (Banduara, 1977). What forms and shapes people’s attitudes also holds the capacity to undo them? Thus, the acquisition process and change of attitudes are mostly simultaneous and continuously impact social influence. It is beyond the scope of this book to summarize massive psychological research and literature on nature, measurement, and change of attitudes, and therefore issues relevant to social influence are presented. First, the relationship between attitudes and behavior is examined, followed by a broad review of the psychological perspectives of attitudes change with implications for social influence. 3.1 (i) Do attitudes determine behavior? The premise that attitudes determine behavior is the basis for planning and taking suitable measures for attitude change. The assumption that attitudes and behaviors are consistent supports attitudes changes to achieve desired compliance in behavior. So, attitude changes are standard practices for persuading and influencing someone to act in a particular way. Although the study of attitudes has been a central topic for nearly a century, the notion that “attitudes determine behavior” was not questioned initially. However, the proverbial statement “saying one thing and doing another,” has also been famous in real life. The attitude-behavior consistency issue has also been controversial for a long. There is a history of early research findings failing to demonstrate a strong relationship between attitude and behavior (LaPiere, 1934). LaPiere (1934) traveled with a young Chinese couple in the western part of the U.S. and recorded service quality in restaurants and hotels/motels during their overnight stay. After returning from travel, LaPiere sent letters to all places they had stayed, asking them whether they would “accept the Chinese race guests.” The responses from almost all hotels were negative. LaPiere (1934) interpreted his findings and concluded that prejudiced attitudes did not predict the extent of actual discriminatory behavior. A recent replication of LaPiere’s (1934) study found a highly similar pattern (Howerton et al., 2012). As reported, what people said they would do, they did not do in reality. Research on attitude-behavior consistency has made great strides in the last five decades. In the 1950s–60 s, some social psychologists (Blumer, 1955; Campbell, 1963) reported that attitudes were poor predictors of behavior, so they also doubted the usefulness of the attitude construct. Wicker (1969) reviewed many studies and found inconsistency in attitudes and behaviors and even gave a call to abandon this construct. Wicker (1969) questioned the relevance of attitudes to behaviors and concluded that, at best, attitudes are slightly related to action. Wicker’s pessimistic conclusions served as fertile soil leading to innovative research on attitudes in social psychology, surrounded by a crisis of confidence in the 1970s. The challenging question was, “Why bother with attitude when it does not influence behavior?”. The scope of this book does not permit us to discuss at a length diverse research programs carried out to resolve issues related to inconsistency between expressed verbal attitudes and overt actions. Instead, a brief review of trend-setting research summarizes how attitude changes are relevant to social influence and behavior. The ultimate goal of social influence is behavior change, and therefore, the present purpose is to resolve ambiguity as much as related to attitudes-behavior consistency. Generally, the poor attitude-behavior relationship has been explained by the incompatibility of assessing these variables’ generality. General attitudes toward people,

48

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

policies, or any other issue correlate well with behavioral patterns but not necessarily with specific behavior. The compatibility principle requires the exact measures of attitude and behavior, target, act, context, and time (TACT) (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) support the principle of compatibility between attitudes and behavior, and therefore, to predict a specific act, it is essential to measure attitude toward the specific action itself. Based on a review of a wide range of research, Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) concluded that assessment at compatible levels of specificity or generality of both attitudes and behaviors yields high positive correlations between the two variables. In the case of incompatible measures, the correlations were very low and mostly insignificant. A reasoned action approach, especially the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991, 2012; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), has been highly influential in this domain. It implies that behavior performance follows from such proximal antecedents as behavior-specific beliefs, attitudes, subjective norms, perception of control, and intentions. Based on their research findings, Fazio and his associates (Fazio, 1990b; Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999) supported the contention that general attitudes may determine specific behaviors. Fazio (1995) summarized research findings in a model with the acronym MODE, which he explained as “…. motivation and opportunity act as determinants of spontaneous versus deliberative attitude-to-behavior processes” (p. 257). The MODE model implies that general attitudes may bias perceptions related to the attitude objects only if attitudes get “activated.” If people have cognitive capacity and are motivated to retrieve their attitudes from memory toward the object in question, they also act consistently. In the case of inadequate cognitive ability, attitudes become available to people only through automatic activation. Fazio’s (1995) model further suggests that automatic activation occurs for strong attitudes determining behavior. People hold strong attitudes with conviction because of the personal relevance of such attitudes. These attitudes are persistent across periods and influence perception and judgment. People’s strong attitudes continue to determine overt behavior and are difficult to be changed (Krosnick & Petty, 1995). In general, those attitudes readily available from memory are better predictors of specific behavior than less automatically available attitudes. However, due to people’s poor motivation and cognitive capacity, they may fail in retrieving their attitudes influencing particular behavior. Fazio’s (1995) approach is highly insightful for planning and executing social influencing. For example, a person who has been a believer in left ideology, a sympathizer of the left political party, has a positive attitude to the left organizations. But due to recent years’ decline of the left movement, he is indifferent during the ongoing election. He is not sure whether to vote for the left candidate in the ongoing election. His thinking gets activated, and he remembers his long association with the left movement and votes for the left candidate. The relationship between attitudes and behavior may not always be consistent. In addition to attitudes, behavior is also determined by equally essential factors like the recipient’s personality traits and situational characteristics. Therefore, it would be wrong to expect a perfect consistency between attitudes and behavior. When the situation is compelling, or some other disposition highly drives the individual, he may not act according to his attitudes. Social psychology attempts to explain

3.1 Attitude Change and Social Influence

49

such inconsistencies. Most often, behavior is the outcome of the interactive effects of many factors. Thus, attitudes are one of them and not the only determinant of behavior. Though it is generally considered that attitudes determine behavior, there is evidence to show that behavior may also influence attitudes (Bem, 1972), making the relationships between the two reciprocal. Someone may accept the proposition of Bem’s (1972) self-perception theory and, without wasting time on attitude change, may persuade the other person to act in a certain way. For example, quite often, we hear such a story that X worked in a particular way because he was persuaded to do so, not because of his attitudes, and later X appeared to be not so adverse to his act. For example, the salesmen distribute free product samples and suggest to the new customers: “please try the product first.” The idea is to target the change of behavior, and if that results in a positive experience, it will certainly be followed in the proper attitude change. Generally, it is relatively easier to attempt a change of attitudes than other determinants of behavior, like situational factors or personality dispositions. Therefore, the path of attitude change is preferred for persuasion and influence. The common practice favors changing the attitudes of the target person with the expectation that his behavior will also change. However, a careful practitioner of social influence may also consider the personality dispositions of the target and the context in planning the social influence process. The complex nature of the issue requires thoughtful consideration in the stratification of the influence process. Our follow-up effort would be to move forward to examine some theoretical perspectives of attitude change. 3.1 (ii) Attitude change and social influence: Though attitudes are relatively stable cognitive–affective mental organizations and resistant to change, attitudes are liable to change in degree and direction. For example, a salesman uses all kinds of tactics to influence a potential buyer’s attitudes in favor of his product, hoping that the target person may buy it if affected. A political worker attempts to exploit fellow citizens with the ideology and policies of his party to influence the target persons’ attitudes and possibly their voting behavior in his favor during the election. In our daily life, people attempt to change the attitudes of others to mold others’ behavior for their benefit. Though the relationship between attitudes and behavior is complex, attitude change is widely prevalent in influencing others. Consistency in cognitive, affective, and action aspects of attitudes is the source of comfort. People, in general, believe that others’ attitudes can be changed and also their behavior. People trust in the widely prevalent notion that attitudes influence thinking, feeling, and action, and therefore they consider attitudes an essential tool for social influencing. Thus, according to the perspective that attitudes determine behavior, if accepted, it implies that influencing others’ behavior depends on how the actor succeeds in changing the target’s attitudes. Attitudes are necessary for micro issues related to an individual and macro problems like development policy and safeguarding sanctity of the constitution. Therefore, attitudes play an essential role in public affairs and social policy. No one can successfully implement a social policy without positively influencing people’s relevant attitudes and actions. Take an example of a professional psychologist, confronted with a question to suggest measures to solve environmental problems. As the first

50

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

step, he would most likely recommend assessing people’s attitudes toward the environment, followed by the second step of making efforts to change people’s existing attitudes in a way that they move toward adopting pro-environmental attitudes and action. As Lewin (1951) advocated, “There is nothing more practical than a good theory,” the psychological theories based on ways to change people’s attitudes and actions are the most critical strategies to influence. In a democratic civil society, using force and coercion to act in a particular way is undesirable. Therefore, the process to change people’s attitudes to influence their actions is the most acceptable way. In various domains of our social life, interested political, business, religious, and social leaders are engaged in changing attitudes and possible actions of the target population to serve their interests. It is not feasible to review many major and minor theories of attitude change in a limited space. The classical main theoretical approaches of attitude formation and evolution, (a) stimulus–response and reinforcement, and (b) cognitive consistency, are referred for a broad understanding of attitudes and the impact of these theories on the social influence. 3.1 (iii) Reinforcement theories of attitude change: The stimulus–response (SR) approach emphasizes communication quality in attitude change. The characteristics of the communicator (source), the audience, the contents, and the methods of presentation in attitude change are like the learning process. Several factors associated with the stimulus, particularly the credibility of the source (communicator), reward value of contents of a communication (message), and the medium of communication, determine the formation and change of attitudes (Zimbardo & Ebbesen, 1970). Lasswell’s (1948) well-known saying, “Who says what to whom and with what effect,” summarily articulates the sequence of the attitude change process. The systematic research program by Carl Hovland and his associates (Hovland et al., 1953) used the learning theory approach and argued that man as a rational being processes information and gets motivated to attend rewarding communication. Thus, contact with either actual or anticipated rewarding content influences attitudes. For clarity, some factors in the attitude change process deserve discussion. The issue of prime importance in determining communication effectiveness is: Who is communicating? Aristotle’s famous classical book “Rhetorica” or communication is a lesson for the art of persuasion that the communicator should develop to persuade his audience effectively (Cooper, 1960). For persuasion effectiveness and seducing the audience to act in the desired way, Aristotle identified some characteristics that the communicator should have, like moral character, good sense, good-will feeling, logical presentation, and rousing the audience emotionally (Seetaram, 1991). Under the leadership of Carl Hovland and his colleagues (Hovland et al., 1953), during World War II, launched a systematic research program on attitude change to study persuasion and advice the U. S. Army in war efforts. Later at Yale, Hovland and his associates continued researching attitude change and its implications for making persuasive messages effective. Their experiments extensively varied factors associated with the communicator, message contents, the channel of communication, and the audience’s characteristics. One of the robust findings was that a credible source message was attended to and persuaded the audience to accept it (Hovland et al.,

3.1 Attitude Change and Social Influence

51

1953). Hovland and Weiss (1951) reported the importance of the source credibility effect, which was more pronounced for the topics directly not so crucial for the students’ participants. The findings imply that as there are many more related issues, the source credibility may not be blanketed. Several other studies conclude that the expertise and trustworthiness of the source are essential elements determining the communicator’s credibility and effectiveness (Petty et al., 1981). Also, dynamism, sociability, mannerism, reliability, and the personal attractiveness of the communicator do matter. Relative to the nature of the context, the communicator’s demographic characteristics like gender, age, ethnicity, and minority versus majority status play influential roles in influencing attitude change (Petty & Wegener, 1998). It is abundantly clear that from the ancient to the modern contemporary period, the communicator’s credibility has been proved as the most crucial factor in persuasion and attitude change. Finally, acceptance of new responses (attitudes) to persuasive communication depends on its reward value to the audience. Existing attitudes are abandoned by accepting the new perspectives (responses) if new responses are more significant than incentives related to old responses. Thus, the reinforcement value of a communicated message is critically important in accepting the message (Insko, 1967). Acceptance of a new position on an issue largely depends on fulfilling a possible reward in the future. Expected reward serves as a reinforcing stimulus and thus leads to accepting new attitudes. It is, however, unclear how persuasive communication provides reinforcement leading to the approval of contemporary attitudes. The reinforcement theories suggest that acceptance of new responses is dependent on the skill of the communicator who succeeds in arousing high expectations. Particularly in the democratic process, leaders try to use communication skills in convincing the public by making promises for positive gains if they get elected and form the Government. The public compares the candidates and shifts their position toward candidates who seem to convince them to fulfill their expectations. Box No. 3.2: Attitude-Change Process According to Hovland-Janis-Kelley Model Stimulus: Attention: Comprehension: Acceptance: Response → Attitude Change → Behavior Change. To explain Box no. 3.2, an example of a desperate leader trying to win the audience to get their votes in his favor in an election may help. As the first step, the leader prepares information stimulus argumentatively. The leader presents information sensationally, ensuring the audience’s attention—comprehension of his

52

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

story by the audience. The audience must understand and evaluate the communication in terms of reward value that may reinforce acceptance of the communication leading to a change of attitudes. Insko (1967) and others (Hovland et al., 1953) have shown that the strategy to arouse the audience’s expectation by the communicator for future possible rewards results in acceptance of the new viewpoints leading to attitude change. The advertisers persuade by raising consumers’ expectations with the potential benefits of purchasing and using the product. The anticipation of reward leads to a shift in the consumer’s attitudes toward the new development and actual action. For effective persuasion, the persuasion messages should be prepared on the evidence-based principles, presented to get attention, and incentivized to make them attractive enough for acceptance by the target. The best example is the currently ongoing Clean India Mission (Swachh Bharat) campaign, launched by the Government of India, particularly against open defecation. The program is probably the most extensive program globally to change the behavior of the masses, especially of rural poor and urban slum dwellers in India. The program’s success has been possible due to the message informing people about the dangers of open defecation and the benefits of using toilets combined with financial incentives for constructing facilities for long-term gains in personal health. 3.1 (iv) Cognitive–consistency approach to attitude change: The human mind prefers consistent cognitive information and action. The cognitive–consistency theories postulate that attitude change results from inconsistency in cognition and behavior to restore consistency. According to the cognitive–consistency approach, the primary cause of attitude change is inconsistency in cognitive information. The phenomenologist Heider’s (1946, 1958) balance theory served as an impetus leading to the emergence of several cognitive approaches, like Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance theory, Osgood and Tannenbaum’s (1955) congruity theory, Brehm’s (1966) reactance theory and several other offshoots of these theories. The basic premise of the cognitive–consistency theories considers the nature of attitude change as a rational process. Individuals are motivated not only to experience and appear but also to function consistently. Awareness of cognitive inconsistency makes an individual cognitively tense and uncomfortable, encouraging him to change his or both attitudes and behavior to restore consistency and balance. Heider (1958) explained his conceptualization of balance theory by using examples of interpersonal relationships among two persons (P and O) and one other entity (X), possibly a person, an idea, or an object. The balance theory postulated the way relationships among POX are organized in P’s cognitive structure. Let us take, for example, the interpersonal relationship among the three. P is positively impressed by the economic ideology of X, a political party. He attends a lecture of O, an eminent economist who opposes X, and O’s ideology inadvertently advocates for voting to the political party with an ideology opposite P’s ideological position. In such a situation, would P like O and vote to a party suggested by O? Probably not because P wants to have a balanced cognitive structure in a relationship and his actual behavior. P may go to the extent of disliking O and rating him as an ill-informed biased person and may further decide not to vote as per the suggestion of O. In brief, when all three relations of liking are positive or two are negative (P does not like O; O does not like

3.1 Attitude Change and Social Influence

53

X) with one positive (P likes X), it will be balanced states. There will be an unbalanced state when one likes someone who differs on attitudes related to an important matter. The unbalance conditions cause cognitive tension and motivate the person concerned to restore balance by changing attitudes. Heider’s theory has been criticized for simplicity and not considering people’s degree of imbalance and ability to cope with inconsistency without changing attitudes. Heider’s theory, however, is based on commonsense psychology as observed and practiced for influencing others in our daily mundane social life. There may be exceptions in relationships that simple balance theory may not explain, but its importance and use in persuasion and influence are widely recognized. The congruity theory of Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955), an extension of the balance notion, attempts to explain the direction of attitude change. The congruity theory postulates that the direction of attitude change has a purpose, and therefore, it always occurs in a way that may increase congruity and reduce inconsistency and ambiguity. The congruity theory accepts the importance of both source and contents of communication and reactions of the communication recipients. Let us take an example of a person facing incongruity in casting his vote in favor of a liked candidate but is undecided because the candidate belongs to a party not enjoyed by him. He meets an expert who advises him that in a democracy, a candidate’s party is significant for its role in forming the Government. So, one must be sure about the quality of the candidate’s party before voting. The person who accepts the expert’s view because of his high credibility and convincing mature arguments decides not to vote for the candidate he liked. Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance theory uses cognition as an inclusive term: thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and mental awareness of actions. For example, the statements: “X perceives himself a religious person”; “X forgot to pray on the occasion of Lord Krishna’s birthday”; and “X does not like mixing religion with politics”; are three cognitions of dissonant nature. So, it is pretty natural for X’s conscious mind to answer the questions: “How come a religious person like himself (X) forgot an important religious festival? Why X, a religious person should have a reservation in mixing religion with politics?” It would be natural for the X to experience cognitive tension and get motivated to resolve his state of cognitive dissonance. Ultimately, after going through all cognitive discomfort, Mr. X may conclude that “I am not a religious person.” The thoughts related to X’s religiosity may go under the change to restore cognitive unity in his mind and feel balanced in his (X) conscious mind. The dissonance theory postulates that the state of dissonance is an unpleasant situation and source of tension that motivates the person to reduce or eliminate the dissonance. The intensity of dissonance depends on the importance and number of dissonant cognitions relative to the importance and number of consonant cognitions, as summarized below: Magnitude of Dissonance =

I mpor tance × Dissonant Cognitions N umber I mpor tance × Consonant Cognitions N umber

54

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

Cognitive dissonance is a psychologically uncomfortable drive state that reduces the individual by changing attitudes and behavior. The dissonance theory considers the “need for dissonance reduction” as the dependent variable and the “magnitude of dissonance” as the hypothetical construct and independent variable. Regarding the conceptual ambiguity, Zimbardo and Ebbeesen (1970) elaborated that both “magnitude of dissonance” as independent variables and “need for dissonance reduction” as dependent variables are vital hypothetical concepts. Cialdini et al. (1995) argue that mere performance of inconsistent action might not result in dissonance because some people may not need consistency. There may be such cognitive inconsistencies that might not cause dissonance and cognitive tension. The inconsistency must be an aspect of one’s positive self-concept to cause cognitive tensions (Aronson, 1969; Greenwald & Ronis, 1978). The dissonance theory has been questioned for its predictive value due to the theoretical ambiguities. Though the approach has some flaws, the idea has suggested practical techniques for attitude and behavior change. It is widely held that if one experiences dissonance between one’s attitude and acts, one may modify either to achieve consonance to reduce tension. So, the social enthusiasts who are winning the people to their fold use the dissonance-related knowledge in changing the attitudes and behavior of others. The principles of dissonance theory have been extensively applied in attitude change in various contexts, including product marketing and propagation of ideas and ideologies. Brehm’s (1966) reactance theory refers to a specific situation where an individual whose freedom of choice is under threat or restricted reacts to reinstate the lost privilege. The idea is based on the premise that people commonly want freedom and respond when limited or curtailed. When the people perceive a threat or restriction to their freedom, they react to restore and maintain their curtailed freedom. The theory also argues that if an available activity or object is restricted or not allowed, it becomes more attractive and desirable, and attitudes toward it become more favorable. Advertisers take advantage of this truth, dramatizing the scarcity of a product to increase sales. It is widely observed in Indian society that arranged marriages are still common, and some parents disapprove of the son’s or daughter’s choice of partner for marriage. In many cases, such restrictions on young people become a source of unpleasant reactions, including serious family discord. The collectivistic and authoritarian family environment of the Indian society probably puts intense pressure to maintain age-old traditions at the cost of individual choice and freedom. It is appropriate to mention some other theories which have added to the understanding of attitude change. For example, the functional phenomenological theories of attitude change emphasize the roles of people’s needs, personality disposition, and context (Katz, 1960; Smith et al., 1956). The functional theories postulate that people’s attitude serves their needs, and therefore to change their attitudes, it is necessary to identify and measure those needs. The attitudes have a useful function like helping an individual in ego defense, adjustment, and value expression by holding positive attitudes towards useful objects and social relationships which serve some purpose. It is a challenging task to know and measure the needs behind the attitudes. Therefore, the functional theory approach to attitude change may be complex and challenging at times. Still, one may observe that the social and business propaganda

3.2 Affective-State (Mood) and Influence

55

strategists try to convince the people to win them by communicating the utility value of their products or political party, as the case may be, to fulfill their needs. We live in a social world that “…presents, creates, imposes, cajoles, and sneaks in attitudes of all forms all the time” (Banaji & Heiphetz, 2010, p. 371). We acquire attitudes from family, cultural traditions, school, playground, workplace, social institutions, mass media, and social media. Continuously we are exposed to new information, and usually, it may not be feasible to insulate ourselves. We may not always be consciously alert to the process of our exposure to further details. Thus, attitude formation and changes are a continuous process. The social-cognition theory (Bandura, 1977) explains that sometimes one may be unaware of social learning in one’s environment, determining both formation and changes of attitudes. The environmental context is the natural ground for learning and unlearning attitudes. Any relative comparison of attitude change approaches would not be the right step because each has a unique significance. However, to make the attitude change process effective, a theory-based strategy with its social context suitability (see Chap. 2) would be the most effective way to plan for any specific attitude change to achieve social influence.

3.2 Affective-State (Mood) and Influence The cognitive approaches are mainly a computer model for understanding the working of the human mind (Miller, 2003) in terms of information processing. The preceding section on attitude change emphasizes attention–comprehension– decision–action processes (see Box 3.2). It has the missing role of the affective state (i.e., the experience of an underlying emotional state). The cognitive theories consider social perception and judgment primarily as information processing. However, the human mind does not work like a Robert machine, so it does not autoanalyze information to choose a response. Human beings are emotional by nature, and their affective and thought processes are interwoven, and both reciprocally influence. It is expected that our moods may color our thinking. For example, fear may narrow the perceptual field, and we may not see all aspects of the concerned situation. The traditional wisdom is expressed in a famous dictum that ‘emotions contaminate reason.’ Emotion at times may be so vital that it may work as an influential captain of our lives and begin determining our critical decisions. On the other hand, the concept of ‘emotional intelligence’ (Salovey & Mayer, 1990) suggests that no more extended affective state and cognitions are considered at odds, as both are interdependent. The computer does not feel, but we humans do. Thus, the affective feeling aroused by persuasive messages may influence an individual’s cognitions, thoughts, and actions, like purchasing something, voting for a candidate, and quitting a relationship with someone. Some attitudes are also based primarily on our feelings associated with the attitudes of an object or person. For example, someone may be in love with a person and evaluate that person positively. But, if he/she is asked the basis of their such evaluative attitudes, they fail to state

56

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

knowledge of any idea and belief for it. Such attitudes are based on the person’s feelings (Miller & Tessier, 1986). The term affect represents the feeling state of all sorts, such as like–dislike, love– hate, pleasant–unpleasant, and tense–relaxed. Affect is a dynamic feeling state, as its intensity could vary on a scale from positive at the one end to negative at the other (Dillard & Seo, 2013). The present affective state of liking and loving someone may not remain stable; if mistrust develops in a relationship, it may change to dislike and hate the same person. A person may have a liking relationship with another person, and therefore, he will be effective with the person in persuasion. But as soon as liking for some reason gets changed to disliking in their relationship, effectiveness in persuasion declines. People familiar with the commonsense psychology related to the dynamic nature of affect and its influential role in persuading others to use manipulative tactics to induce a positive affective state in the target’s head to win some favor. People learn the importance of affect and tactics to manipulate the target’s affect for effective persuasion and influence through social learning. So, we observe that people use social tactics (see Chap. 5) to induce an affective state in the target persons’ minds to enhance persuasion and influence. Emotions also serve as the source of motivation for particular kinds of actions. Thus, high-intensity affective states (e.g., enthusiasm, disgust) are generally associated with high motivational intensity (e.g., showing exuberance, withdrawal) and may lower cognitive options and ability to think rationally and meaningfully. On the contrary, low affective states (e.g., joy, sadness) are associated with low motivational intensity (e.g., smiling, brooding) and may broaden cognitive possibilities and broaden thinking in search of various alternatives. Human electroencephalography’s brain activation research findings support that motivational intensity is governed by the mood states’ passion, limiting cognitive functioning. The manipulated changes in cognitive scope also impact brain activations associated with passionate intensity. Thus, emotion can impair and improve specific cognitive functioning. Harmon-Jones and Gable (2009) have reported that the relationship between emotive intensity and cognitive processes is bi-directional. Clore and Huntsinger (2009) emphasize the importance of the object of affection, which determines the nature of emotional reactions and the resultant affective state, influencing thoughts and actions. In his study on happy and sad people, Myers (1993) found that unhappy (e.g., bereaved, depressed) were observed to be more self-centered and engaged in brooding. On the other hand, happy people were more trusting, loving, and responsive. Our mood state determines how we receive, interpret information, and respond. The messages in association with positive feelings do become more persuasive. The acceptance value of messages increases if presented in association with some pleasant experiences. The student participants in one of the Yale studies were more convinced by the news when they could enjoy peanuts and Pepsi while reading the messages (Janis et al., 1965). A positive affective state increases the liking and attraction of the person with whom positive-affect gets associated (Byrne, 1971). Pandey and Griffitt (1974), using the standard attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), manipulated similarity–dissimilarity of attitudes to establish in the participants’ likes or dislikes toward the stranger. The participants were asked to volunteer to help, and they also

3.2 Affective-State (Mood) and Influence

57

got real opportunities to help. The findings unambiguously implicated a positive relationship between liking and helping for verbal and behavioral measures. It was a clear-cut demonstration of liking and helping, showing the effect of mood on oral expression and behavior. The positive state of mind associated with the message most often enhances positive thinking and good feeling increasing its persuasibility. In their two experiments, Petty and his associates (1993) exposed the participants to persuasive communication after positive or neutral mood inducement. Both studies found that a positive mood produced a positive attitude toward the advocated messages, and positive affect enhances generalized positive mental state leading to greater acceptance of persuasion. Often people are in a hurry and preoccupied with their many affairs. They do not have time for cognitive deliberation to choose their responses to the stimulus and related feelings. In such a situation, they may be guided by what they feel and use a ‘heuristic feeling’ to choose responses. People often rely on their moods and respond accordingly. The heuristic works as short-cut rules, particularly when an individual has no time for detailed analysis of the circumstances and then decides their responses. A heuristic feeling serves to conveniently represent the positive or negative side toward a stimulus (Slovic & Peters, 2006). We often hear people saying that ‘I do not want to know much, I like this candidate so I will vote for him.‘ Thus, when people do not cognitively analyze the details of the problem, a heuristic feeling serves the purpose of a convenient tool that people use to respond to a stimulus situation. The affective processes are interactively associated with several psychological systems such as cognitive, neurophysiological, and motivational, that impact the influence process in complex ways (Dillard & Nabi, 2006). Each emotional arousal motivates certain action tendencies that can lead to the choice of behaviors, like approaching, engaging, avoiding, withdrawing, and fighting. An individual’s choice of a specific behavior results from the interactive effect of the affective state, action tendencies, and context. For example, if someone has insulted, say X person causing a heightened hurt feeling may motivate him (X) for an action tendency, resulting in verbal abusive and aggressive behavior. But if the context is unsuitable for such retaliation, he (X) will be restrained by the circumstances. The affective state serves as a motivating source for the action tendency, but the actual choice of action is also contingent on the sociocultural context. The emotionally loaded message may induce affective state arousal in the receiver, but the receiver can also defuse it (Dillard & Seo, 2013). It is important to note that cognitive and affective psychological processes function in a context that plays an essential role in determining actual behavior for persuasion and influence. Chapter 5 discusses the target’s mood state elaborately on influence.

58

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

3.3 Individual Differences in Influence Psychological research and knowledge mostly converge around the core concept of personality, enriching our understanding of individual differences. Research on personality and sociocultural variables and human nature and how these variables interact demystify the complexity of the psychological phenomenon and human behavior. Personality traits are sources of individuals’ differences in perception, cognition, affective-state, motivation, behavior, and effectiveness in influencing others. Personality traits variations are sources of differences in individuals’ motivation and influence skills. Some personality types and traits, for example, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, self-efficacy, locus of control, and big five-factor traits, are associated with motivation, action, and ways to influence others. The influence agents endowed with one or more of these traits effectively control others. People are also not equally susceptible to persuasion and influence. For example, a recent study has reported that generally, shy and fearful people were socially inhibited and anxious. They were more inclined to get into the trap of persuasion, particularly if asked by the authority (Wall et al., 2019). Some personality traits are commonly associated with the influence agent, such as authoritarianism and Machiavellianism, and the target (e.g., fearful, socially apt). The personality perspective untangles the individual differences in the effectiveness of the influence agents and the targets. Our effort is on understanding the linkages of personality traits associated with the influence agent’s effective influencing and powerfully impacting their targets (see Chap. 6). Emphasis is on personality as a unique dynamic organization of traits and other human characteristics interacting with situational variables to determine social influence tactics. 3.2 (i) The authoritarian personality: Interest in studying the psychological makeup of authoritarians picked up after the Second World War. In search of answers to questions regarding the rise of autocracy in Nazis Germany in the 1930s leading to hatred, discrimination, and brutal mass scale killings of Jewish minorities, a well-planned research program of the 1940s directed by Adorno and his associates Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, and Sanford led to the conceptualization of the authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950). The Authoritarian Personality, a significant landmark in psychology, was published in 1950 (Adorno et al., 1950). The authors developed a measure of an individual’s susceptibility to anti-democratic ideology without mentioning any racial or ethnic minority. This construct became known as authoritarianism, measured by the Fascist scale (F scale). Adorno and his associates conceptualized the authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950) as an entity of certain deep-seated personality traits that predispose an individual to anti-democratic ideas, making such a person prone to prejudices, particularly to ethnic minorities. They hold aggressive biased attitudes, indulge in discrimination toward ethnic minorities, and expect submissiveness. They categorize people as “us” and “them” and rate their group as superior. The authoritarians show dominant and submissive behaviors toward people lower and superior to them in rank, respectively. They have stereotypical thinking, traditional values, and they

3.3 Individual Differences in Influence

59

show rigidity in their social beliefs and opinions. They like power and also use it to dominate others. Thus, authoritarian personality research developed in the historical context to explain ethnocentricism. All people are high on dominance orientation, may or may not be authoritarian. If a person is high on both dominance and authoritarianism, he would strive for status more vigorously and use social manipulation tactics to achieve it (Altemyeyer, 2004). The authoritarian personality research has been criticized for over-emphasizing right-wing authoritarianism and ignoring dogmatic leftism. However, the authoritarian concept has survived to explain ethnic tensions and upheavals during economic and political uncertainties (Doty et al., 1991). As other factors like cultural and social conditions and norms add to the scientific explanations, the theory is no longer acceptable as initially formulated (see Chap. 6). 3.2 (ii) Machiavellianism: Machiavellianism (Mach), a personality type, is endowed with social intention and skill to manipulate the target to serve his interest. Based on their systematic research program on Machiavellianism, Christie and Geis (1970a) suggested the following significant characteristics of a typically high Machiavellian person: (1) a relative lack of feeling in interpersonal relationships; (2) a lack of concern with conventional morality; (3) low ideological commitment; (4) an instrumental view of others (Sinha et al., 1982). Christie (1970) developed and standardized the Mach scale to measure Machiavellianism and identify individuals with high and low traits. In general, high Machs believe that people are manipulable, so they are often inclined to manipulate others to gain advantages (Geis, 1979). High Machs possess the ability and skill to assess people’s strengths and weaknesses and, therefore, succeed in manipulating others. The high Machs may use social strategies for personal gains, for the group (e.g., political party, nation, corporation, or business) to which he belongs or has an interest. High Machs do not get involved emotionally to get distracted. They concentrate on influencing the target to achieve the set goal (Geis, 1968). In brief, a high Machiavellians person possesses attitudes and skills of controlling, and therefore he can be seen as effective in securing the compliance of others. The discussion on Machiavellianism continues in Chap. 6. 3.2 (iii) Acquired social competencies: The trait and type approaches of personality somewhat ignore an individual’s learned competencies, acquired through cognitive processes with the environment. The acquired competencies shape individuals’ realization of self-efficacy, which determines their behavior. According to social cognitive theory, individuals differ in their acquired competencies, self-efficacy, and behavior (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy evolves out of interactions of mental, personal, and environmental factors that determine motivation and behavior (Crothers et al., 2008). Self-efficacy represents one’s perception of capabilities of completing tasks (Locke & Latham, 2002). Bandura (2005) conceptualizes an individual as an agent capable of effectively changing and adapting to the situation. So, a person who believes in his strength also determines his functioning and shapes his circumstances. He does not think of himself as helpless, and therefore, he is also not static. He is forward-looking and moves ahead. Bandura considers people as active and dynamic agents constantly interacting and learning from their environment. He elaborates, “… people are self-organizing,

60

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

proactive, self-regulating, and self-reflecting. They are contributors to their life circumstances not just products of them” (Bandura, 2005, p. 1). People observe and judge their performance, acquiring beliefs regarding competencies to complete a goal. The task-related self-efficacy motivates the individual increasing his chances to complete the task. The self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) is valuable in realworld applications increasing self-productivity and influencing the enhancement of their associates’ self-efficacy beliefs and, in turn, raising motivation and efforts to achieve goals. Although social psychologists have been traditionally fascinated with attitude measurement and change to influence others, as early as in the mid-1950s, Rotter (1954) and his associates developed the concept of internal versus external (I-E) control of reinforcement for explaining social action and change. The internal versus external (I-E) control of reinforcement is an essential aspect of the social learning theory to explain an individual’s efforts to deal with the demands of his environment (Rotter et al., 1972). Phares (1965) explains that (I-E) control of reinforcement “…refers to the extent to which an individual feels that has control over the reinforcements that occur relative to his behavior. Externals feel that forces beyond their control are the essential factors determining the occurrence of reinforcements. Internals, however, tend to feel that they control their destiny and are the effective agent in determining the occurrence of reinforcements” (p. 642). Individuals differ on the continuum of the (I-E) control of reinforcement, source of variations in individuals’ competencies to exert influence upon others. Internal individuals are consistently more influential on others than the externals (Rotter et al., 1972). The internals is confident with generalized expectancies that they have more control over their behavior–reinforcements sequence. Therefore, they prove to be more effective as change agents than the externals who lack such expectancies. Phares (1965) found that the internal experimenters (participants) were significantly more effective in inducing attitude change than the external participants. The internal–external control of reinforcement (Rotter et al., 1972) and selfefficacy (Bandura, 1977) developed out of independent research paradigms related to social learning theory approaches dealing with individual’s trust with own competencies. The internal–external control of reinforcement and self-efficacy primarily empowers and strengthens the people and makes them believe that they have capacity and control over the outcomes. So, they try with confidence to influence others for social action. The audience is the recipient of the persuasion messages. So, unless the audience is motivated and attentive, no amount and methods of persuasion will be adequate. The audience’s personality characteristics like intelligence, self-esteem, social skills, and dogmatism work as the determinants on audience motivation. Wall and associates (Wall et al., 2019) investigated the relationship between personality traits with susceptibility to persuasion. The researchers surveyed 316 people about their personality traits and how easily others persuaded them. The team then identified three primary personality profiles, which are influenced differently: the fearful, the malevolent, and the socially apt. They observed that those with fearful profiles were more likely to be

3.4 Social Norms and Influence

61

persuaded by authority figures. The malevolent profiles were less likely to be influenced by authority figures but more likely to be persuaded if something was available only for a limited time. And the socially apt were more likely to be persuaded to do something if they had done it before. Wall and associates (Wall et al., 2019) suggest these findings imply that creating personalized approaches for convincing people to make positive changes in their behavior would be the best strategy. Thus, personality plays a critical role in persuasion for both influencer and influence.

3.4 Social Norms and Influence The attitude section refers to sociologists (Deutscher, 1969; LaPiere, 1934), who questioned the importance of personal dispositions, including attitudes as determinants of behavior. Instead, the sociological emphasis has been on the social contextspecific norms determining human action. The norms evolve in a social group through social interactions and are dynamic. Acting according to social norms implies action as per societal expectations. However, the usefulness of norms has also been questioned as to the determinants of acts. Some psychologists have argued that norms are valuable concepts, merely for post-hoc explanation of past action and not its determinants (Darley & Latane, 1970). However, Cialdini and his colleagues (Cialdini et al., 1991) have clarified how “how and when” norms facilitate influencing people. They argue that social norms help shape action, maintain a relationship with others, and manage self-image. In our daily lives, we observe how people use norms by suggesting others act according to the norms, and they succeed in securing others’ compliance. People use norms to justify their behavior and self-image. Irrespective of the importance of social norms, both sociological and social psychological approaches widely use norms to describe and explain human behavior. There are varied conceptualizations of norms. Norms are “folkways” and customs habitually displayed by a group to adjust and meet the demand of the immediate situation (Sumner, 1906). Sherif (1936) considers norms as customs, traditions, values, and standards, which develop through social negotiations and function as rules of social behavior. According to Pepitone (1976), norms reflect a collective sociocultural group’s uniform pattern of functioning. Norms are like control mechanisms for society’s functioning and keep anarchy at bay (Pepitone, 1976). The influences of norms on observed behavior are not random. Cialdini and Trost (1998) briefly summarized, “Social norms are rules and standards that are understood by members of a group, and that guide and/or constrain social behavior without the force of laws “(p. 152). 3.3 (i) Societal values and norms: Both sociological and social psychological approaches attempt to explain the origin and functions of social norms. Two significant views, emphasizing societal–value and the other functional aspects, try to explain the nature of social norms. The societal–value perspective suggests that the power of a norm depends on the level of its acceptance within a culture or group (Berger & Luckman, 1966). Most of the norms that guide the daily activities of the group

62

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

members evolve by encouragement and rewards delivered for actions performed as per the expectation of the concerned norm. A cohesive group requires uniform behavior that may be possible if members follow the norms and act accordingly. Thus, any norm formation process requires reinforcement of norm-related behaviors, directly or vicariously. We may take an example of the formation of a pro-secularism norm. The norm of secularism may gradually establish if positive attitudes and acts toward different ethnic groups are rewarded and encouraged. Encouragement of positive attitudes and actions facilitates people appreciating ethnic differences that may lead to enacting appropriate laws to ensure mutual respect and acceptance by the people of different ethnicities. The social processes slowly lead to establishing the secularism norm, acceptable to the group members, and it serves as the guide for the people to act accordingly in society. Any deviant act to the secularism norm is discouraged and punished socially and by law enforcement agencies. Not all social norms need to be formalized by the laws. For example, our society has social norms for interpersonal etiquette and courtesies, but the rules do not formalize such norms. Deviant behavior is frowned upon by other members of the group. Thus, the group develops its checks and balances to regulate its members’ actions and maintain coherence to satisfy their human needs and desires. 3.3 (ii) Functional perspectives of norms: The functional perspectives consider man as a group–loving species capable of understanding and initiating standard rules for survival. Genetic and cultural mechanisms facilitate the evolution of norms for social control, which help balance the individual’s selfish desires and collective survival. So, norms are adaptive social mechanisms (Campbell, 1975; Triandis, 1994). Successful norms are adaptive in the survival of the fittest and are also practical and relevant for the group (Schaller & Latane, 1996). Norms of some other cultural groups may appear bizarre, but those norms may be functional with a lot of wisdom behind them (Campbell, 1975). For existence and continuity, the community members, family, friends, coworkers, and anyone else shares norms as part of the context. Norms are both individual and collective levels phenomena. Norms as belief systems exist both at the level of an individual’s psychological system and as part of the sociocultural system to which an individual belongs. 3.3 (iii) The focus theory of norms: To explain normative conduct, Robert Cialdini and colleagues (Cialdini et al., 1991) formulated the focus theory, which postulates two kinds of norms: descriptive and injunctive. The descriptive norms are related to what people generally do in a given situation. The descriptive norms motivate individuals to select an effective “what is generally done” in a particular case and respond accordingly for the best adaptation. On the other hand, injunctive norms refer to what actions are “generally approved or disapproved” in a situation. The injunctive norms guide reward or punishment for an individual’s behavior. The focus theory elaborates when which social norms may exert influence. Goldstein and Morttensen (2012) briefly summarize, “In brief, descriptive norms refer to perceptions of what is done, whereas injunctive norms refer to perceptions of what ought to be done” (p. 70). It may be confusing to distinguish between “what is commonly approved within a culture” (descriptive norm) and “what is commonly done within a culture” (injunctive norm).

3.4 Social Norms and Influence

63

The effectiveness of the descriptive and injunctive norms on persuasive communication to influence people has been studied by Reno et al. (1993). They tested the postulates of the focus theory in a field experiment that included observing the participants’ littering behaviors while walking from the library to a car parking lot. The participants of the experiments walking to the parking watched a confederate who littered a piece of trash, picked up a bit of waste, or passed by (the control condition). The environment was manipulated to appear either full or no litter to enable the participants to perceive the descriptive norm for littering in the situation. The confederate’s littering of rubbish focused on the environment’s descriptive norm (full or devoid of litter). Reno et al. (1993) found that the descriptive norm focus condition participants littered less when it was a litter-free environment compared to the control condition participants. The confederate’s behavior to pick up litter was planted to focus the participants on the injunctive norm to convey that people may happily eliminate garbage from public places if they could take some initiative. The findings revealed that the injunctive norm focus condition participants littered less than the control group participants, irrespective of the environmental surroundings. The study supports the contention that the injunctive norm proved to be more potent in influencing pro-environmental behavior. Cialdini and colleagues (Cialdini, 2003; Goldstein & Morttensen, 2012) have argued that descriptive norms provide a standard people like to follow. People are more comfortable when they perceive that their action is not deviant from average. Any communication that conveys acceptance of ordinary people serves as a “magnetic middle” that draws people toward the norm regardless of whether they are on higher or lower sides. For example, suppose a worker realizes that his performance is below the average of the organization’s performance level, he will be motivated to work hard to get closer to the average performance. On the other hand, if a worker performs at a higher level than the average, he may decide to slow down in productivity. The norm, therefore, might have a constructive influence on poor performers but might prove a destructive, backfire effect influence on high performers. The effectiveness of social norms approaches and particularly descriptive norms have been widely studied in field experiments as facilitators of desirable behavior in people in various domains (Bergquist et al., 2019). The focus theory suggests that people are more inclined to influence the most salient prevailing norm. Therefore, to eliminate the unintentional backfire effect of the descriptive norm, a message that genuinely the majority are following the expected behavior may help to motivate people to act as per descriptive norms. Goldstein and Morttensen (2012) suggest that to manage an undesirable backfire effect of the descriptive normative information, “…adding an explicit and attention-grabbing injunctive element to the message might prevent the occurrence of the backfire effect” (p. 74). The findings of a field experiment on household residential energy consumption and conservation (Schultz et al., 2007) suggest that people tend to be like the average, which works like a strong magnet. Thus, those with below-average performance get motivated to improve to be closer to the average. But to reduce the backfire effects on those already performing higher than the average, appreciation for their higher-thanaverage performance may effectively be communicated by awarding them symbols

64

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

like “Gold Stars” or “Thumbs Up.” The focus theory further adds that the descriptive norms work like heuristics for an individual showing him what is best to do in the given situation. Thus, the individual gets relieved from effortful thinking and mental debate regarding what to do or not to do (Jacobson et al., 2011). Injunctive norms, on the other hand, are for social approval. Therefore, logical and systematic thinking and conflict resolution related to various options facilitate action. An individual may indulge in effortful self-control and set aside the easiest way of doing something for social approval. This brief review of norms leads to conclusively summing up those contextual social norms that powerfully influence people’s behavior. It is a common observation that the herd mentality is a human nature that guides people to follow and prefers a herd located in and around their social environment. Still, the question arises: which herd of their background will people follow. The social identity literature suggests that generally, people follow and comply with the relevant reference group. Regarding the situation, circumstances, and physical locations, the contextual similarities determine people’s choice of the reference group. Generally, people tend to comprehend the local context, and therefore, they adhere to the descriptive norms of their setting (Goldstein et al., 2008; Goldstein & Morttensen, 2012). The tendency to comply with the reference group norms of own context is like “provincial descriptive norms” than the “global descriptive norm.” The local and contextual descriptive norms are of greater significance in our mundane lives than those of a global kind in influence processes. The famous saying that “when in Rome, one should do what Romans do” is age-old wisdom that supports the view that the local descriptive norms are handy in decision-making than the global descriptive norms. But it is also argued that regardless of surroundings, one should follow the people’s standards with whom one identifies. Based on the review of the findings of their experiments, Goldstein and Morttensen (2012) concluded that “…persuasive appeals should ensure that norms are originating from a group that is as situationally similar to the intended audience’s circumstances” (p. 77). For example, for an effective “keep the clean city campaign,” emphasis should be on using the local context, environment, and reference group in persuasive communication and advertising. This approach enables the people to relate to the message and change their behavior meaningfully. To be comfortable and fit in a particular group and the social environment, people suitably change their behavior as expected by the norms. Sakshi Ghai and her associates (Ghai et al., 2020) have reported findings of their study related to social norms in influencing people to deal with persistent sanitation problems in India proactively. The clean India Mission (Swachh Bharat) launched by the Government of India, particularly against open defecation, is probably the most extensive campaign globally to change the masses’ behavior, especially rural poor and urban slum dwellers. Sakshi Ghai and her associates report that to fit and get accepted in the group with which people identify, adopt the practices of the reference group. Therefore, social norms have played a critical role in the trend-setting and inspiring people’s behavior change on a large scale. The context of a collectivistic society like India provides

3.5 Group Affiliation and Identity

65

fertile soil for the normative approach of social influence strategies to be more effective. Additional comparative research may facilitate understanding the unintended impact of social norms on the group members, making them less individualistic. The norm-based messages and strategies are the most effective tool for social influence and behavior change. Normative-based social influence processes facilitate social unity, cohesion, and stability. It also motivates the group members to work together to serve the more significant interest of the group and society at large.

3.5 Group Affiliation and Identity Affiliation to groups is part of our social and work lives. An individual’s family determines his ethnicity and religion, and caste in the Indian context. By the time an individual reaches adulthood, he has already joined many groups that serve his sociocultural and livelihood interests and needs. Membership of some groups acquired by birth (e.g., family, ethnicity, caste) is challenging to change. Still, people keep joining and quitting other groups and organizations to fulfill their current interests and needs. The groups are purposeful for the members and influence their attitudes, perceptions, and judgments. The groups also shape the members’ social identity determining their behavior toward the members of the in-group and the out-groups. The social identity defines an individual and determines his world views toward the larger society and its sociocultural, economic, and political issues. The social identity influences an individual’s perception and intergroup comparisons leading to experiences of relative deprivation or superiority over other groups. Generally, people treat their group as superior to the outgroup. Tajfel and his associates (Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel et al., 1971) suggest that the “minimal group paradigm” operates universally. Thus, naturally, an individual categorizes oneself as a group member. They conducted a series of experiments and concluded that even an arbitrary classification of individuals into groups makes them favor their group and show biases toward the other group. Individuals develop “we” and “they” feelings for their own and other groups, respectively, which differentially influence conduct with their and other groups’ members. The research program (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) on social categorization and social perception resulted in the social identity theory, which explains people’s social conduct. Tajfel (1972) defines social identity as an “… individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of this group membership” (p. 292). Tajfel and his associates’ research has helped understand intergroup relations, prejudices, discrimination, and conflicts in contemporary society (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The social identity may be related to membership of a group from a broad demographic group (e.g., belonging to a religion or a national political party) to a small work team temporarily created in the social psychology laboratory by the experimenter. The theory argues that any group membership provides a shared identity that defines who they are and what they should believe, think and do. Group affiliation and social identity significantly influence people’s thoughts and actions (Turner et al., 1979). The social identity is

66

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

functional. For example, to overcome a lack of perceived personal worth, people try to raise their self-esteem by identifying with a group with a favorable social position. For example, sometimes, a young man may feel powerful by placing himself in a gang. Many patriots use their exciting national identity to define themselves and feel great (Staub, 1997). Thus, group affiliation and social identity work as a significant influence in raising self-esteem, positive affect, and social effectiveness. Social interactions are not limited to the members of the ingroup. People interact in the larger society with others, and they may not be friendly in different groups. The nature of an individual’s relationships with the group may determine the quality and effectiveness of the groups’ influence on him. Social scientists have studied and theorized about intergroup contacts to explain prejudices and discrimination. When people of different groups come in contact, their social interactions may help reduce their biases or increase their social distance. For example, Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis identified the four situational conditions like equality of status among the groups, common objectives of groups, cooperation in groups, and support of the authorities, which determine the nature of influence. The critical review of research on the contact hypothesis by Pettigrew (1998) concludes, “Both individual differences and societal norms shape intergroup contact effects. The deeply prejudiced both avoid intergroup contact and resist positive effects from it. Societies suffering intergroup conflict both restrict and undercut intergroup contact” (p. 80). Sen (2006) has advocated that intergroup appreciation of differences and “pluralistic human identity” weaken society’s divisive tendency, leading to more significant cooperative influence across the groups. The social traditions, customs, and laws also influence positive intergroup relationships, contributing to lasting peace. The social identity helps create an impression on others and determine others’ perceptions. Social identity and impression management are socially constructed and essential in interpersonal interactions. The significance of group affiliation and social identity on social influence has many other facets to be discussed in Chap. 9.

3.6 Conformity, Compliance, and Social Influence The ultimate goal of an influence agent is to change the target’s behavior. The influence agent faces the challenging task of impressing the target to conform to his (the agent) position. The agent uses social tactics to convert the target’s disagreement into an agreement. When the target matches his attitudes, beliefs, and behavior with the influence agent or the group exerting influence, he conforms to the agent or group. Sometimes, conformity may be at the cost of an individual’s independent position. Suppose an individual’s view is not in tune with the group’s consensus. He may choose to surrender and conform with the group or remain independent by sticking to his position. People like to be accepted by the group, and therefore, they act according to the group norm. Thus, conformity implies conforming to the group norms and acting like the majority of group members. Several factors associated with the group (e.g., size, cohesion, norm), the target (e.g., status, gender, age), and context

3.6 Conformity, Compliance, and Social Influence

67

determine conformity (Bond & Smith, 1996). An individual may not compromise with his position and may choose to remain independent. Some social psychologists have also studied how an active minority consisting of some individuals may not stay quiet and may start vigorously asserting their views and influence the majority (Moscovici, 1976). Thus, opposite to conformity is individuality which allows an individual to hold one’s views, position, and personal control. Some groups promote such identity by encouraging the principle of agreeing to disagree. On the other hand, some other groups may not allow such dissent and force individuals to conform or quit the group. Though conformity may be seen negatively in some cultures, it is widely prevalent in primary groups like family to large groups like political parties and work organizations. To some extent, conformity helps the groups function smoothly. Still, at times, this may be at the cost of innovative ideas and constructive debates, allowing a group to find new directions. Generally, people belong to many groups and organizations in their active social and work lives. For uniformity and harmony in a group, each member must adhere to the group’s norms and consensus on various matters. Therefore, the group members show uniformity in their attitudes, beliefs, and behavior. A situation, however, may arise that because of their independent views, one or a few members of the group may not agree with the group’s consensus on an issue. The group may pressure such members to agree with the group. However, an individual or a minority may not agree to the accord. A member of a minority with an independent position may yield to the group and confirm (Asch, 1955). However, the other possibility is that the independent members do not yield and remain independent. The active minority may also influence the group to change (Moscovici, 1976). Thus, continuous interpersonal interactions and mutual controlling processes, on the one hand, may lead to uniformity, but on the other hand, may also cause innovation and change in attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Compliance and obedience are similar as well as distinct to conformity. All three are persuasive forms of social influence. Think of a situation that requires dressing up in a particularly formal way. We do not like it, but still, we do it. Agreeing to dress up in the standard form is conformity, and dressing up that way is compliance. So, compliance is an overt act. Thus, the follow-up action as expected in a context is compliance. Obedience is to follow the exact order of the authority without any question. The officer who orders is obeyed. Obedience is a command, direct order, and is used to control people. There is no place for personal preference and choice both in compliance and obedience. The classical conformity studies answer intriguing questions about an individual’s converging behavior toward the group position. These studies were conducted in the rigorously simulated miniature social world, representing everyday social influence (Sherif, 1935; Asch, 1951, 1955). In the classical experiments of Sherif (1935), the participants observed a stationary light in a dark room, shown with a time gaps of a few seconds. The static light in the darkroom appears to move due to the optical illusion phenomenon, called the autokinetic effect. The participants were asked to estimate the amount of its movement. The darkroom provided no reference point, so the participants showed a wide variation in estimated movement in the alone conditions.

68

3 Psychological Perspectives to Social Influence

But in the group conditions, other participants discussed their estimates when the light went off. After repetitions of such experiences in the group, the participants’ estimates showed convergence. Sherif found that participants changed their estimates and converged with the estimates of the group members. This effect was visible in the participants when some were tested even after a year. The participants used the group’s frame of reference to deal with the unknown task. Asch’s (1951, 1955) classical simulated group experiments had one actual participant and seven to nine confederates. Both the actual participant and the confederates sat around a table and participated in a visual discrimination task. In a fixed order by the experimenter, each one publicly stated which of the three lines was similar to the standard line. As instructed, the confederates picked up the longest or the shortest lines equivalent to the standard line. So, the overwhelming majority individually choose and publicly announce wrong answers, creating social pressure on the participant to select the wrong answer. The results of the studies were loud and clear, showing conformity by the participants but with individual differences. Although a quarter of the participants remained independent throughout, three-quarters of the participants at least conformed once over the trails, and in general, 33% of responses were of conformity. The participants reported that feelings of self-doubt, disapproval, anxiety, and uncertainties led them to fit. They also shared experiences of self-doubt that they could be wrong (Asch, 1955). Individuals like to feel secure about their beliefs and perception of the world (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), and so to be sure, it is easier for them to conform to the group norms. Deutsch and Gerard (1955) also suggest that individuals are influenced by external information. That is why people keep seeking advice from family and friends to make sense, particularly in ambiguous situations. Based on the review of research, lower self-esteem, high need for social support, lower I.Q., high anxiety, feelings of insecurity, and low status in the group are factors for higher conformity (Hogg, 2010). People who conform in one situation may not do so in another. Conformity is contingent on the context. Although the agreement is universal, the social-cultural context determines the extent to which people conform. In their survey of studies across nations on conformity using Asch’s paradigm or its modified form, Smith et al. (2006) found support for cross-cultural variations in conformity behavior. The comparison of results showed differences across nations with the lowest level of 14% conformity among the Belgian students (Doms, 1983) to a high level of 58% conformity among Indian Fijian teachers (Chandra, 1973) of 31.2%. Smith et al. (2006) explained that people of North America and Northwestern Europe with individualist cultural backgrounds were fewer conformists (25.3%) than the people of collectivist cultural countries (37.1%) of Asia, Africa, and South America. Bond and Smith (1996) performed a meta-analysis on Asch’s paradigm-based 133 studies of 17 countries. They found that people who scored high on the collectivism scale (Hofstede, 1980) were also higher on conformity than those who scored low. Therefore, African, Asian, and South American countries are generally labeled high on collectivism and conformity. Social psychologists have studied the way groups try to socialize and integrate dissenter and deviant members to keep them to the fold of the group (e.g., Wicker, 1968), as ousting such members remains the last choice, particularly in the small

3.6 Conformity, Compliance, and Social Influence

69

group situation (e.g., Darley, 2001). The marginal members are not powerless because they can raise questions on the norms and rules of the group and ask for a fresh debate for changes in the changed circumstances. The ingroup critic can sometimes transform the group ideology, norm, and goals. Sometimes, the deviants are not just a few individuals. Once they articulate their views, silent others also join them, and soon they become a force to change the course of the group (Sani & Reicher, 1998). Sani and Reicher (1998) consider schisms a reality and complex issue in the functioning of groups, primarily ignored in social psychology. The French social psychologist Moscovici and his colleagues (Moscovici & Faucheux, 1972; Moscovici, 1976) questioned the traditional social influence research and argued that the Asch paradigm led to “conformity bias” tradition demonstrating how individuals yield to the majority. Moscovici argued that a minority that takes a position stands up, takes a morally consistent position, and makes personal sacrifices that may prevail over the prevalence and impact the group’s decision. Consistency is the most critical behavioral style of the influential minority. Based on the review of research, Hogg (2010) concludes, “…. minority influence leads people to explore different strategies for problem-solving whereas majority influence restricts people to the majority endorsed strategy…” (p. 1187). Chapter 8 further discusses applications of issues related to conformity and active minority. The psychological perspectives of social influence summarize critical psychological processes for understanding social influence. This chapter provides psychological research and theories-based views to understand social influence processes.

Chapter 4

Self-presentation for Impression Management

Choose your self-presentations carefully, for what starts out as a mask may become your face. Ewing Goffman.

Self-study has a long history, especially in philosophy and theology worldwide. The Indian traditional metaphysical systems are rich in knowledge about self and cognition. In recent decades, Western, Indian, and other psychologists have studied the conception and awareness of self-functioning. This chapter presents a brief account of traditional conceptualizations of self as rooted in Western and Indian sociocultural contexts, followed by a discussion on self-related concepts relevant for understanding social influence. Self-psychology is related to understanding self-presentation and impression management, which constitutes social influence. To be successful and effective in today’s globalized world, people often indulge in pragmatic and strategic self-presentation for impression management to influence others in various domains like social, political, and business. The readers may refer to the first chapter to refresh with the work on self as “looking glass” by sociologist Cooley (1902), followed by Mead’s (1934) analysis of the way others serve as a reference for an individual in the construction of his self and identity. The social-psychological analysis and research on self-presentation picked up momentum in the 1960s, after the seminal publication “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” by another sociologist Goffman (1959). In the past five decades, research on self-presentation and impression management has flourished under the broad social influence area. The applied value of social influence research has widely expanded in various domains of our personal, social, and business lives.

4.1 Traditional Perspectives of Self Many eminent contemporary Indian psychologists have analyzed rich traditional metaphysical Indian perspectives of self, conceptualized in the Indian epistemological systems (Misra, 2001, 2011; 2013; Rao et al., 2008; Singh & Tung, 2019). © Indian Council of Social Science Research 2022 J. Pandey, Nature and Dynamics of Social Influence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4598-4_4

71

72

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management

Contemporary Eastern and Western scholars appreciate the Indian traditional conceptualization and interpretations of self and related concepts (Misra, 2001, 2007; Paranjape & Rao, 2008). As conceptualized by the ancient Indian treaty, the Atman is considered the authentic (real) self (Singh & Tung, 2019). The Upanishads postulate that a man can only experience the ultimate reality called Atman by delving within oneself. The Atman is the true self, different from the experienced existential selfexposed to suffering and sorrow of man’s mundane life experiences. The nature of true self, Atman is of an unchanging and undying kind. The Atman also observes and experiences the external world but remains unaffected. The ultimate identity lies in merging the empirical self with the supreme sell, Atman. The core of the Indian conceptualization of self-Atman is metaphysically embodied in a biological self that acquires a social self in the sociocultural context. The Upanishads conceptualize “Ahamkara” as parallel to the ego that includes “I” and “mine,” representing the empirical self and not the true self, Atman. The highest goal of man is to realize true self, and for that, one has to regulate Ahanakara (ego) and indulgence with worldly things and follow the law of Dharma (Radhakrishnan, 1957). The terms Jiva (living being), Purusa (self), Atman (soul), and Vyakti (individual) have been used to refer to a person. The live person, Jiva, has three functions: Jnata, Bhokta, and Karta, representing one who knows, feels pleasure and pain, and acts, respectively. A living person, Jiva possesses specific basic mental processes of cognition, affect, and conation. Advaita Vedanta considers self as transpersonal and spiritual, not an individual’s body. The non-physical spiritual self is held as the true self, an ideal positive state of being. The spiritual self is inherently blissful and represents a lively existence of consciousness, the state of Sat-Chit-Anand. On Vedantic traditions, Sri Aurobindo formulates an integral approach of a person whose consciousness evolves in stages. Although he treats the existence of Purusa and Prakriti as independent, he accepts the mutual coexistence of both. Purusa represents pure consciousness, and its manifestation in some form is Prakriti. Prakriti means the material world, including an individual’s personality-related characteristics like intelligence and mental functions. Purusa, on the other hand, is pure and unconditioned awareness and witness to happenings. For Sri Aurobindo, a person’s consciousness has two kinds of experiences: (a) People’s outwardly ordinary experiences with the external world are considered vital for human beings. (b) A person inwardly experiences about which ordinarily he may not be aware. One can reach such experiences through Sadhana. With dedicated Sadhana, one achieves a higher consciousness level for inner experiences (Cornelissen et al., 2014). The Yoga traditions postulate experiential accounts of self and its transformation through Kapur (2009) narrates that Yoga’s training facilitates attaining a higher level of consciousness. Thus, the journey of the human being is continuously leading to progressive refinement and transformation of consciousness. In everyday life, we are reflexively engaged with ourselves continuously. “I” is used as an anchor and a reference point to organize daily activities. As a result, being an “I” (a subject or agent in a physical/social/spiritual world) becomes critical to their existence. Buddhism, however, does not accept a permanent self but suggests its changing nature like mental processes. The person’s consciousness has a flowing

4.1 Traditional Perspectives of Self

73

continuity and changing mind-sets (Peter, 2013). This approach to self stands in contrast to the personalized individual self of western psychology. The last quarter of the nineteenth century was an exciting period for the evolution of modern western psychology, primarily due to its emphasis on experimental methodology and rejection of subjective concepts challenging to study under the new fade of empirical science. However, James (1890) was credited to be the author of the first psychology textbook and did not ignore the psychological analysis of self and its subjectivity. James (1890) elaborated on streams of consciousness and their personalized nature. He argued a person has personal thoughts like “my thoughts” and “your thoughts.” The self separates a person’s consciousness from others’ consciousness. James recognized the intriguing question related to “I” and called it psychology’s most “puzzling puzzle.” James was fully conscious of the classical answer that existed in terms of the soul and transcendental self, provided by philosophers like Hume and Kant, who had doubted the possibility of its empirical knowledge. The nineteenthcentury experimental psychologists mostly ignored the self except for some British associationists. James believed that people are conscious of their identity, feeling of “I,” and “mine.” He, therefore, argued in favor of the study of self. For James, the self is the total of all that a person may call his own, including his body, psychic processes, family (e.g., wife, children, and ancestors), friends, wealth and possessions, and social reputation. James (1890) conceptualized the “M” and the “I” as two sides of a person’s self. A person treats the “Me,” separately and uses it to describe his personal experiences. On the other hand, the “I” is the thinking self, what a person knows about himself. Thus, the self-as-knower, the “I,” is pure ego. However, the empirical self is the self as-known, the “Me.” James further elaborates that the “I” does not judge and evaluate itself. The “I” acts and reacts to the situations by perceiving, thinking, feeling, and behaving, all required for its survival and prosperity in the environment. So, the “I” is the experiencing and acting being, characterizing continuity to thought and action, which arise from the person’s central, internal locus. The “Me” is the empirical self and represents a person’s self-perception, leading to personal awareness. The “Me” evaluates the qualities of the “I.” The “Me” has three aspects: material-self, socialself, and spiritual-self. The material-self represents things like body, family, and belongings to the person. The social-self is situation and context-specific. A person moves from one situation to another, and accordingly, his social-self changes, and so does his conduct. When a person is at home, he/she is a son or daughter, but when in college, he/she is a student. The social self of the same person changes with changes in the situation. James (1890) postulated an “Innate propensity to get ourselves noticed and noticed favorably” (p. 189). The contents of the perception of others constitute the social self. Schlenker (1980) concludes, “Although James believed that the self has a sense of continuity and wholeness, he also believed that a person could have numerous social-selves” (p. 49). In other words, a person may have a different social-self for his different situations, like a person is a father at home but a worker at the workplace. The spiritual self is the core of the “Me,” which is the most stable self. The spiritual self is a person’s personality, core values, and conscience. James (1890) explains the spiritual self as “man’s inner subjective being,

74

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management

his psychic faculties or disposition, taken correctly” (p. 191). One can look within and experience it. A person may also search for answers to thoughtful moral questions and existential issues. James’s position is succinctly explained by Schlenker (1980): “The spiritual-self exists not because people think but because they can think of themselves as thinkers” (p. 49). James used material, social, and spiritual selves to reflect the way people conceptualize themselves. The spiritual self must not be confused with the “pure ego,” a subjective experience of continuous consciousness of self-as-knower of personal identity. People rate themselves in categories like fast– slow, complex–simple, effective–ineffective, and so on. James’ conceptualization of self is comprehensive and insightful. He sets the agenda for psychology to study consciousness and left it for theology to prove the soul’s existence. The preceding discussion presents a selective sample of central concepts of selfderived from both Indian and Western intellectual traditions. The Western and Indian philosophical traditions evolved in two different contexts and fertile intellectual soil of religious–philosophical systems that resulted in different ways of looking at human nature. Although the self and its related concepts vary under the two traditions, some scholars have attempted to describe some commonality in describing the nature of the self, psychological states, and behaviors (Misra, 2013; Paranjpe, 2011). Misra (2013) discusses the increasing use of the term self, which has expanded in terms of new constructs (e.g., total person, personality, beliefs about oneself) for explaining human conduct in different domains (Leary & Tangney, 2003). Paranjpe (2011) acknowledges that self-knowledge has been of common interest for both Indian and Western scholars. As discussed earlier, Atman, according to the Upanishads, is the true self for knowing and explaining oneself. In ancient Greece, “know thyself” was conceptualized to know one-self. James (1890), while calling self as psychology’s most “puzzling puzzle,” observed that “self is the center of the psychological universe and is the lens through which other aspects of the world are perceived.” An ardent advocate of the Indian perspectives, Misra (2007, 2013) situates self-inclusive of transcendental and a spiritual reality beyond a person’s social context. Misra (2013) aptly explains: “The Indian view is an example of a potential model of self which offers a more inclusive perspective. In real life, the self appears as a multidimensional, dynamic system that regulates and mediates behavior. It acts as an anchor and affords and constrains our behavior, perceptions, feelings, values, and meanings” (p. 373). Our purpose is to understand that people view themselves based on their characteristics, possessions, relationships with others, and thoughts. People have ideas about themselves, and those ideas influence their behavior. Contemporary psychology has accumulated a wealth of knowledge, reflecting on how people form and change images. The study of the self in modern social and personality psychology has gained importance. Under the unitary self-structure, several self-related constructs (e.g., self-concept, self-actualization, self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-monitoring, selfdisclosure, self-categorization, and identity) have been conceptualized to understand various facets of self. The next section of the chapter focuses on self-related concepts relevant to understanding self-presentation and impression management.

4.2 Self-Concept

75

4.2 Self-Concept James’ (1890) analysis of self as material, social, and spiritual selves refers to how a person can see his central core dispositions and linkages with his physical appearance and possessions. An individual also knows that associations with family and friends matter to others in their first impression of the individual being perceived and judged. People are aware that their possessions reflect on their achievements. James recognized social background, possessions, and achievements as aspects of a person’s self. Thus, James’ formulation of self has implications for self-presentation, explaining why people either hide or reveal their family background and accomplishments to others for their impression management. People think about themselves, and their physical appearances and may use cosmetics and dress to match their self-concept. People have their assessment of their physical and mental strengths and weaknesses. They also know their attitudes and social values, think about how others perceive them in various situations, and plan accordingly. Self-concepts represent people’s thoughts about themselves. Thus, the self-concepts are personal and private but also social. It may be secret because it is in the mind of the person concerned. It is social because its construction relies mainly on people’s social experiences. People’s multiple social experiences related to performing social roles, identity development, comparison with others, and perception of what others think about them significantly shape their self-concepts. Though the self-concept has a genetic origin, the current focus is on social experiences in developing self-concept and its various facets impacting various behavior patterns. A person’s accumulative experiences of success and failures in multiple situations help them know their strengths and weaknesses that determine their selfconcept. The social roles we perform, our social identities, the people we compare ourselves to, others’ judgments of us, and the sociocultural context in which we live are important factors contributing to our self-concepts. The attribution theorists (Heider, 1958) and researchers (Dalal, 1988) tell us that people are naïve scientists, so they construct their theories to explain themselves and their conduct. They perceive and judge others’ actions using similar attribution processes. The self-concept is like a theory about own-self (Epstein, 1973) consisting of both strength and weakness. (See Box 4.1 for illustration).

Box No. 4.1: Understanding Self and Self-concept 1.

Misra (2013) summarizes the Indian perspective of self: “The Indian view is an example of a potential model of self which offers a more inclusive perspective. In real life, the self appears as a multidimensional, dynamic system that regulates and mediates behavior. It acts as an anchor and affords and constrains our behavior, perceptions, feelings, values, and meanings” (p. 373).

76

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management

2.

3.

4. 5. 6.

James (1890) called self-psychology’s most “puzzling puzzle” and observed: “Self is the center of the psychological universe and is the lens through which other aspects of the world are perceived.” Several self-related constructs, like self-concept, self-actualization, selfesteem, self-efficacy, self-monitoring, self-disclosure, self-categorization, and identity, conceptualized various facets of self and implications of those in human conduct. Epstein (1973): The self-concept is about own-self consisting of both strengths and weaknesses. The self-concepts result from summated self-constructs, information, and evidence-based descriptions, a kind of theory about one-self. Markus and Nurius (1986): The self-concept also includes the possible self, our dreaming for the future vision plan of what we aspire to be.

We all face numerous challenging situations in our daily lives requiring us to function as efficiently as possible and learn unique ways of resolving problems. In the process, we learn about ourselves and unwittingly develop self-constructs, which are information-based descriptions. The self-concepts result from summated selfconstructs, an evidence-based theory about one-self. Thus, the self-concept is also an answer to the question: Who am I? Markus and Wurf (1987) suggest that organized in beliefs, self-relevant information is called a self-schema, like a mental template. Selfschemas and self-constructs are summaries and concise representations of various personal images (e.g., intelligent, ugly, aggressive, bright, dull, discreet, friendly, conforming, submissive, ingratiating). In turn, the self-concepts determine an individual’s perception and conduct. The self-concept impacts our cognitive processes, the way we think, decide, and guide our behavior. In brief, the self-concepts inclusive of self-schemas and self-constructs answer intriguing questions by explaining: (i) who am I, (ii) having self-knowledge to explain and predict oneself, (iii) experience of having self-worth, called self-esteem, (iv) understanding of social roles in family and society, and (v) awareness of identity. Our self-concepts are not merely accumulated self-schemas representing what we are currently. The self-concept also includes the possible self we aspire to be (Markus & Nurius, 1986). The possible self is our vision plan, dreaming for the future, like becoming wealthy, a successful politician, and an expert in a field. The possible self may include our fear of becoming poor, unemployed, and failing to pursue some goal. The possible self may motivate individuals to pursue appropriately chosen actions to impress those who achieve the desired goals. 4.2 (i) Self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-concept: The self-concepts also include confidence level, conceptualized as self-efficacy expectation by Bandura (1977), and another related concept of self-esteem. Self-efficacy is a constituent of self-concept, representing an optimistic belief in an individual’s competencies and self-worth. A person with self-efficacy beliefs may take a challenging task and persistently pursue it to success. Self-efficacy is a positive attitude that helps a person face difficulty and

4.2 Self-Concept

77

keep trying to achieve the goals. Self-efficacy works as a strength if any problem arises while completing a challenging task. The results of a meta-analysis of over a hundred studies by Stakovic and Luthans (1998) conclude that self-efficacy helps maintain calm and plays a positive role when any problem arises. Self-efficacy has a positive role in the complex self-presentation and impression management tasks. Self-esteem is a generalized feeling of self-worth and motivation empowering a person to pursue a goal. High self-esteem people sustain their self-worth in the face of difficulties, and they succeed in crossing the barriers. High self-esteem serves as an impetus for the person to take the initiative to remain resilient and optimistic. Low self-esteem may lead to various problems like depression, withdrawal, and negativity (Baumeister et al., 2003). Self-esteem is a powerful proposition for understanding the complex nature of self-presentation and impression management among the selfrelated concepts. 4.2 (ii) Social identity and self-concept: The self-concepts include one’s identity consisting of knowledge of personal attributes explaining: who am I? Social identity is also associated with an individual’s gender, caste, religion, profession, etc., distinguishing him from other social categories. In the larger society, we are conscious of our social identity based on social categorizations in the social context. For example, in a multi-religious community, a person may be mindful of his religious identity. Still, his attention may shift to caste or profession for his social identity in his religious group. Generally, as a majority group member, one is less conscious of his social identity than a member of a minority group. For example, in psychology courses, females outnumber males, and therefore males are conscious of their gender identity. However, females are in the minority on campus, and consequently, they are more aware of their gender identity on the campus, outside the psychology department. Chapter 8 discusses at some length use of social identity in social influence. Sometimes, we lose self-awareness in large groups or crowds, like walking alone in a big city downtown. The deindividuation theory suggests that an individual may experience decreased self-evaluation and evaluation apprehension by others in such a big crowd or group situation, leading to strange deviant behavior individually or collectively (Roeckelein, 2006). People engage in seemingly impulsive and even violent acts in the deindividuated case, and they feel that no one will identify them, so others will not check their behavior. They are influenced by the crowd-mind concept of LeBon (1908). Leon Festinger, and his associates (Festinger et al., 1952) introduced the concept of deindividuation. They explained that deindividuation within a group reduces usual constraints and allows individuals to say and do those things they usually would not have done. The phenomenon of deindividuation has a bearing on social influence in a crowd situation. 4.2 (iii) Social comparison and self-concept: People generally compare themselves with others, particularly those who matter. They use such comparisons to judge themselves and also others. By observing others and comparing, we set a standard for judging ourselves and others. The process of comparison, for example, helps us to judge ourselves and others as rich, smart, or dumb (Festinger, 1957). The social comparison process involves judgments about various aspects of self like intelligence, smartness, wealth, education, and professional status. The social

78

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management

comparison thus plays an essential role in developing the self-concept. In real life, people revolve around making a social comparison. People’s standard for comparison keeps changing as they ascend or descend on the ladder of achievement; they look up and down to compare themselves. The social comparison process has a role in selfpresentation. Based on the comparison, one decides the strategy of self-presentation. The self-presentation method may not be the same for a superior and inferior target. 4.2 (iv) Culture and self-concept: Our experiences in our sociocultural context shape our self-concepts. An individual’s self-concepts are a product and reflection of his culture. Famous classification of cultures as collectivism and individualism has been extensively studied and used to understand people’s behavior across cultures (Hofestede, 1980; Triandis, 2018). Collectivism represents a social pattern of closely connected individuals who consider themselves part of various groups like their families and communities. They are motivated by the norms and goals of their groups. They believe and act as interdependent persons. The objectives of the collective become personal goals. On the other hand, individualism represents a social pattern of loosely connected individuals who view themselves independently. Individualists do not bother the collective group, and they are motivated by their preferences and needs. They maintain a contractual relationship with others. Individualism emphasizes self-reliance and assertiveness in socialization to shape independent individuals. However, collectivism emphasizes self-sacrificing, dependability, and helpfulness in socialization to shape interdependent individuals. Individualism is the product of affluence, urbanism, mobility, and industrialization resulting independent self. However, collectivism has strong roots in traditional practices, joint family, and rural agricultural economy, nurturing interdependent self. The elements of the self-concepts are bound to reflect cultural characteristics. Triandis (2018) reports that people of individualistic and collectivistic cultures have varied behavior patterns (Hofestede, 1980). The sociocultural contexts of individualism and collectivism differ in connectivity, resulting in two different self-concepts. When an individual with self-concepts of individualistic values organizes behavior, the essential referent remains motivation, thought, and feeling. An individual with a selfconcept consisting of collectivistic values manages behavior differently; the referent shifts to others’ motivation, ideas, and emotions (Triandis, 2018). To categorize cultures as individualist and collectivist may not be a correct approach to understanding the nature of culture. Generally, Western industrialized and less developed traditional societies of Asia, Africa, and South America are individualistic and collectivistic respectively. Such labeling of a country is probably due to the more significant number of individualistic or collectivistic individuals. In today’s globalized world, independent and interdependent individuals depend upon their upbringing and sociocultural contexts and live under the same national boundary. For example, though India is labeled a collectivist culture (Hofestede, 1980), in reality, an Indian is comfortable being both individualistic and collectivist in dealing with others. They are individualistic with others (Paraya) and collectivistic with their people (Apana), family, and friends. It has been argued that Indians are comfortable with “tolerance of dissonance” (Sinha, 1979). They have no problem with opposite values orientations, because they prefer to respond according to contextual demand (Sinha, 1982).

4.3 Self-presentation

79

Sinha and Tripathi (1994) explain that the diverse cultural influences on the Indian society make people tolerant and unique capacity to live with contradictory values and behavior pattern. Thus, the core Indianness represents an integration of culture, religion, and traditions providing stability and continuity. However, the outer layer of the Indians remains somewhat open to the realities, and therefore their responses are seen to be contextualized (Sinha & Tripathi, 1994). It may not be correct to rigidly classify cultures (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism) and accordingly categorize people because individual differences exist within a culture. An individual may also possess opposite behavior patterns to meet varied contextual demands. Thus, an individual may have individualist and collectivist self-concepts and behavioral patterns that shift with contextual needs. The individualist self-concepts and collectivist self-concepts are sources of different behavioral patterns in individuals. An individualist self-concept will be self-centered, independent, and more concerned for the personal image. However, a collectivist self-concept will be more conscious of the group’s interest and appearance to which he belongs. Cultural differences like self-concepts also have implications for self-presentation. For example, a collectivist may be more concerned than an individualist about “what others think about me?” Such concern may influence selfpresentation (Tafarodi et al., 2004). An individualist may focus on his individual quality and strength in self-presentation than a collectivist. A collectivist, however, may also refer to his group identity and social background in self-presentation.

4.3 Self-presentation It is a widely held common sense and psychological reality that people continually form an impression of each other, determining their interpersonal interactions. People like to win and control others (the target/audience) by impressing them in everyday social life. People try to influence the target to perceive the actor’s personality traits, competencies, attitudes, and values positively. To achieve it, they tactfully present themselves. People do their best to control others’ behavior by communicating verbally and non-verbally, generally positive information to influence others’ (audience) thoughts, attractions, and impressions. Other people draw inferences about our (actor’s) personality, abilities, and attitudes from our behavior, and if they are unsure, they look for more information from other sources. To gain favor and avoid punishment, people put their best foot forward with their positive qualities to impress the target. Thus, self-presentation refers to how an individual conveys images of his strength and qualities to others (Schlenker, 1980). Self-presentation is an individual’s motivating behavior to implant an intended impression in the target person’s mind. The actor is motivated by self-presentation to make others think and behave in a particular way. People use various self-presentational methods to convince them that they deserve love, friendship, reward, and no adverse treatment. To achieve their objectives, people may also indulge in the best of their physical appearances, wearing

80

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management

the best dress and cosmetics. Box. 4.2 constructed story illustrates self-presentation and impression management.

Box No. 4.2: Self-presentation and Impression Management A busy day schedule of Arun is to illustrate his tactics used for self-presentation and impression management. Arun is a final semester MBA student at one of the best management institutes in India. Arun and his roommate are good friends, and they trust each other. Arun does not need an alarm clock ring to get up. He got up at 7.00 AM, thought about his long day, and planned the day efficiently. He rushed to the bathroom to get ready for the day, one class in the morning, a job interview around noon at the placement center, an internship-project meeting with his professor guide, and a debriefing-cumfeedbacks session with the Placement Advisor in the afternoon. Looking at the bathroom mirror, he trimmed his hair, and shaved his beard. He dressed up formally to make himself presentable for the interview. By the time he got ready, his roommate Ram was up. Ram appreciated Arun’s formal dress but commented: “I would have preferred a semi-formal dress.” For a few minutes, Arun got into a dilemma, rushed to see himself in the mirror, and finally decided on a formal dress. Arun kept receiving attention and comments, primarily appreciative of his formal attire. Arun attended his class but remained mentally preoccupied with the words on his clothing. He rationalized and justified his formal dress and reassured himself of his overall preparedness for the interview. Like always, he thought positively of his academic background. He also mentally rehearsed the interview session and practiced remaining confident and calm. On his entrance into the committee room, he was welcomed by the selection committee chair. Two experts and the Placement Advisor of the institution as an observer were present. Arun was surprised to see that no one was formally dressed. Arun felt somewhat awkward due to his formal dress, but the committee members’ supportive attitudes made him comfortable. Arun answered most of the questions related to his academic skills, experiences, and personal background. He felt doubtful about his answers related to job requirements and the suitability of his qualifications and training. During the interview, Arun felt comfortable, and overall, it was a pleasant and positive experience for him. The discussion ended with the Chairman’s best of luck to Arun. Though Arun felt positive after the interview, he was unsure about the outcome. He went to his hostel to change his outfit. He was conscious of selecting the best casual dress as he expected to meet Rashmi. It was a happy meeting and sharing his experiences with her. His project meeting with his professor allowed him to narrate his interview in detail and get some honest feedback. He realized his shortcomings in self-presentation as he did not present his all strength. In the evening, he

4.3 Self-presentation

81

attended the scheduled debriefing-cum-feedbacks session related to his interview at the Placement Centre. He received positive feedback for his performance on academic matters and several suggestions regarding prior preparation for the future. Specifically, he received advice that he should know more about the organization, nature of the job, its requirements, expected dress code during the interview, his strengths based on courses, skills acquired through completed projects, and internships. He should also be ready to share any remarkable experiences working for society, community, and organizations. The debriefing meeting turned out to be helpful to Arun. He honestly accepted the commitment to improve himself to prepare for successful self-presentation and impression management before the selection board in the future. Explanatory Note: (i) Brief description of Arun’s one-day activities is a slice, illustrating self-presentation and impression management in today’s competitive world. (ii) Arun prepared the best self-presentation to manage the impression (evaluation) of the committee. (iii) Likewise, all social interactions involve self-presentation, whether facing a selection interview, interacting with a woman friend, or reviewing with the professor guide. (iv) Self-presentation is motivational and goal-directed. Arun was highly motivated by his selfpresentation. (v) Arun pre-meditated and pre-planned his self-presentation. He mentally constructed and rehearsed the interview situation. (vi) Arun’s day-long activities show that self-presentations vary with the audience and require different dress, make-up, and behavior. (vii) One may improve selfpresentation through experiences, others’ feedback, and training. (viii) Arun’s activities are examples of his motivation and efforts to control images in imagined (mental rehearsal) or objective (selection committee) social interactions. Self-relevant ideas become self-presentation. Previous research on self-presentation and impression management has been chiefly on manipulative behavior to win others, like a salesman’s efforts to impress the target to buy his product. However, contemporary research on self-presentation recognizes its importance in the broad context of social interactions and life. Selfpresentation is common in our daily life, and we are not always necessarily aware of it. People routinely interact with others maintaining certain social courtesy and etiquette, as per the decorum of their mutual relationships. Everyday routine interactions take place with ease and without any prior preparation. A specific situation, like a formal appointment with an official, a job selection interview, meeting a person to influence them for a long-term relationship of marriage, or interactions between a possible buyer of a car and a sales-man requires different self-presentational strategies. The actor plans and executes his self-presentation to meet the situational demands and the target’s expectations. The actor may prepare for improved selfpresentation by training and rehearsals for favorable impression management. Thus, self-presentation is goal-directed, and therefore, individuals selectively try to pass on information, which may help in planting specific positive images about them in

82

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management

the target. One learns how to impact the mark with the right images, which may elicit the desired action. A job seeker may impress the target that he is the best and most hard-working among all candidates. 4.3 (i) Self-presentation is purposive. Self-presentation is a part of the broad area of behavior called impression management. People like to be liked, and therefore they reciprocate toward those who want them and reward them—the actor in selfpresentation implants this image of his liking of the target to gain many benefits. The actor may impress the target by appreciating him as a person, with ideas and action. The target feels good to know such social approval (Byrne, 1971). The target’s ego gets a boost, and he gains greater confidence leading to rewarding the actor, the source of such feeling. Thus, the self-presentation is purposive and motivational. The most commonly asked question that why people engage in self-presentation may be answered by the following brief explanations: 4.3 (ii) Self-presentation facilitates social interactions: In social interactions, individuals play roles. It will be easier to interact if individuals know the strengths and weaknesses of the other role players. Therefore, the interacting individuals share information about each other through their self-presentations. Goffman (1959), in his seminal paper on the subject, argued that this process of knowing one another in a situation defines understanding the problem. Self-presentation is as natural as our social behavior and interactions. DePaulo and associates (DePaulo et al., 1996) suggest that social facilitation is driven by avoiding social conflict and reducing tensions. We commonly observe that the participants like to clarify and explain their thoughts and positions on issues in our interpersonal interactions. 4.3 (iii) Self-presentation to gain benefits and rewards: People present their case for certain rewards or avoid possible punishment. People like to speak out about their abilities, commitments, and efforts to maximize their benefits. Jones (1990) argues that strategic self-presentation is a social influence technique to gain power over others and impress the target for a more significant share of the reward. Selfpresentation may be deceptive or genuine. By exaggeratedly presenting oneself for a prize implies deception in self-presentation. For example, informing the target that he did more hard work than what he did, is a misrepresentation of fact. On the other hand, an individual may be honest by informing the target of the actual work. 4.3 (iv) Self-presentation for self-construction: People like to have their identity to answer the question: “Who am I?” The way others respond to an individual’s selfpresentation facilitates his identity construction. People like to claim an identity and be known with the related image. For example, a young man may want to be a cricketer. To achieve that, he constructs his self-portrait by dressing, playing cricket, and frequently sharing his updated knowledge of the cricket game with other people around him. Thus, self-presentation constitutes a dynamic social process that determines the construction and reconstruction of self and identity. 4.3 (v) Individual differences: Consistency in self-presentation An individual may consistently present himself across the target persons and situations. Another individual may be an opportunist to change his self-presentation suitably, considering what may work for impressing a particular target. An opportunist may be like an actor who adopts appropriately varied self-presentational strategies according to

4.3 Self-presentation

83

the changes in the target person (audience) and the context. For example, the supervisors may differ in their work ethics and personal relationship expectations in work organizations. The style and contents of an opportunist worker’s self-presentation may vary with the target supervisor. But another worker may remain consistent in presenting himself as hard-working irrespective of situational changes. Depending on the target person and situation, a person can offer different images to external demands required for success. People choose self-image portrayal based on the characteristics of the audience and situation. For example, a young man may be polite and formal when interacting with the boss in the workplace. Still, he may interact like an authoritarian boss in dealing with his subordinates. The same young man may be open, friendly, and pleasant at social gatherings. The common factor for the young man is presenting himself appropriately in each of the three situations. Leary (1995) rightly states, “…the impressions people try to create on others are a function of both the situation and the individual” (p. 13). To effectively influence others, the young man must use his experiences related to the best image for different targets and situations and act accordingly. People may directly communicate their one or more characteristics (e.g., honesty, hard-working, helpful, slowness, and laziness) to describe the kind of person they would like to be seen by the audience. Such self-presentation claims a particular image. People may opt to state some examples of behavior like ‘I volunteer for community work’ to indirectly self-present their helpful nature. People may also reveal their attitudes and beliefs to let others know about them. For example, people speak a lot about themselves by telling their faith in left or right political ideologies. Nonverbal presentation also plays a vital role in self-presentation. People use dress, hairstyle, physical appearance, and other body languages like a smile, eye contact, body posture, and nodding to communicate self-related information in selfpresentation. Others judge us based on our associations with significant others. It is common for people to share their associations with other resourceful (e.g., socially, politically, financially) persons directly or in a shuttle way. Many people show evidence like photographs and videos with a famous personality to project their high-profile image. People avoid showing their association with persons of disrepute. People, at times, use non-ingratiating ways by associating themselves with mafia gang muscle-man to scare the target and make him surrender to the demand. The credibility of self-presentation is essential for implanting the intended impression successfully in the audience. Schelenker and Weigold (1992) argue that believability is crucial when constructing their identities. If the target persons do not believe in the actor’s projected images, they will judge the actor as a manipulator and deceptive. The audience must believe that the image presented is correct. The consistent self-presentation creates the appearance of trustworthiness. For example, if a student says that he is hard-working, regular, and attentive in classes, he should also do well in tests to remain consistent with his claims. The audience also has many sources of information about a person. It isn’t easy to convince the audience with selfpresentation if they are already well informed differently. But if the audience knows only a little about the person, accepting information about him would not be difficult. It may be easier to project a wrong impression, but it becomes difficult to maintain

84

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management

public images known to be not true (Leary, 1996). Maintaining consistency for the projected false image is probably complex and riskier than correct. Self-presentation’s primary goal is not to be seen positively but to influence the target to respond favorably (Jones & Pitman, 1982). If a situation requires achieving his goal, the actor may try to intimidate and convey a threat to the target. The street gang leader uses such tactics. The mafia-don or a Goonda (muscle-man) thrives on using self-images (Leary, 1995). Some people also use incompetence, inadequacy, and poverty in self-presentation as a ploy to influence the targets and get favor by creating an image of pity or empathy. The beggers dress tragically and act that way to make their begging effective. Chapter 5 on ingratiation further examines how even self-degradation creates an image of compassion and helplessness. The most important images (e.g., likeability, trustworthiness, competence) that people like to convey directly are challenging to accept. The audience may remain skeptical about buying oral statements without evidence, thinking that such claims are for personal gains and benefits. To make self-presentation believable, people may adopt some other route for self-presentation. For example, a worker may start working hard and following the instructions carefully to show his quality output to impress his supervisor. (See box 4.3 for illustration).

Box No. 4.3: Salient Characteristics of Self-presentation 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

Self-presentation refers to an individual’s behaviors to convey specific images of his strength, qualities, or any relevant information to influence others. People engage in self-presentation to facilitate social interactions, gain benefits, and construct their identity. Principled people remain consistent, but opportunists change their selfpresentations across situations. One may communicate one’s characteristics directly or opt for speaking or acting as examples of self-presentation behaviors. If the credibility of self-presentation is doubtful, the actor is perceived as deceptive and manipulative. The primary goal of self-presentation is not to implant a positive image but to influence the target to respond favorably and achieve it. The actor may try to intimidate, convey a threat, or act helpless to the target. People differ in self-monitoring. Compared to the low, the high selfmonitors are practical, flexible, and always trying to present themselves with the correct behaviors on various occasions.

4.3 (vi) Individual differences in self-presentation: People differ in their ability to monitor and control their behaviors in public situations. Snyder (1974) conceptualized self-monitoring characteristics and developed its measurement scale. We observe that some people are comfortable in different positions and easily decide

4.3 Self-presentation

85

and act according to situational demands. They are high on self-monitoring characteristics. The high self-monitors are practical, flexible, and always try to be the right person with the correct behavior on various occasions. They can understand the unique demands of situations, decide, and act according to requirements. On the other hand, the low self-monitors consider themselves moral and inflexible. They like to perform consistently by their intrinsic attitudes and values across situations. In brief, high self-monitors want to be the right person in varied conditions. However, the low self-monitors like to be consistent with their beliefs and attitudes across situations. Research findings on individual differences in self-monitoring show its effect on a wide range of social behaviors (Snyder, 1987). For example, in comparison to low self-monitors, high self-monitors pay more attention to others’ behaviors in situations, prefer the guidelines for action to various problems, and like those jobs which require functioning in public (e.g., public relations). In brief, the high self-monitors show lesser consistency in their attitudes and behaviors than the low self-monitors. People differ in the degree to which they focus on private and internal state or public aspects. Fenigstein et al. (1975) studied individual differences in focus on public appearances. They developed the concept of ‘private self-consciousness’ and a scale to measure it. The opposite of private self-consciousness is ‘public selfconsciousness.’ People with higher public self-consciousness than the low consider themselves social objects and are more concerned about their public awareness. The two constructs, public self-consciousness, and self-monitoring have similarities as both are highly positively correlated (Tomarelli & Shaffer, 1985). A person with high public self-consciousness is also high on self-monitoring. But both are not identical constructs. A high self-monitoring person is motivated to be the right person in a situation and act for it. But the person with heightened self-consciousness is not motivated to perform or function. The high self-monitoring person looks for opportunities to present himself, but this is not the case for high self-conscious persons. Political skills as a characteristic of the influencer are critical in impression management. Harris et al. (2007) have identified the influencer’s political skills as another critical variable determining impression management’s effectiveness. Individuals with political skills can understand others and effectively use that knowledge to decide the situation’s influencing strategies. They investigated the effect of an individual’s political skill on the relationships between impression management tactics (i.e., intimidation, exemplification, ingratiation, self-promotion, and supplication) and the supervisor’s evaluation of performance (Harris et al., 2007). The findings revealed that individuals who used a high level of any tactics and were politically skilled achieved more desirable supervisor ratings than those who used the tactics but were not politically adept.

86

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management

4.4 Impression Management Tactics Impression management requires an understanding of self-concept and selfpresentation. Social interactions and experiences shape people’s images (Schlenkar, 1980). Self-presentational behaviors are natural without any conscious pre-planning. Generally, we do not care about how others perceive and judge us. But we are often aware of how others view us and their impressions of us. We are also mindful of the images we create in others and try to control them. We precisely plan to conduct to be seen for by a target in the situation, and our efforts to control the beliefs others have for us are impression management (Leary, 1993; Schlenker, 1980). Schlenker (1980) has shown a linkage between social identity and impression management. He posits that both social identity and impression management are social concepts. There are many reasons for an actor to manage self-impressions by controlling the identities perceived by others (Tedeschi & Riess, 1981). Let us try to understand the social psychology of why we engage in self-presentation to manage the impression of others toward ourselves. What makes people feel concerned about managing others’ impressions of themselves? Research findings suggest that several situational variables determine our motivation to impress others. One crucial factor determining our efforts to manage impression is our perception that desired external rewards depend on others’ judgment (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 1980). For example, in a job interview, it is evident how important is interviewee’s impression is in the interviewer’s mind in the selection process. People get highly motivated to manage their image if they think they are being ignored (Buss, 1980). Mere motivation to impress is not enough. One has to be aware and skillful to create the desired impression. In other words, social insight and the ability to know what should be done to manage the impression are critical factors. Mead’s (1934) symbolic interactionism postulates that people must anticipate how others interpret their symbolic gestures. Effective management of appearance requires that people have the skill to put themselves in others’ shoes and perceive others’ judgments. For effective impression management, the actor must also have high behavioral skills to use numerous tactics as needed in a specific situation successfully. Impressions that people try to make are contingent on multiple factors associated with the actor, the target, the situation, and the sociocultural context. There are unlimited kinds of impressions people can create for themselves in the mind of others. For example, an individual may be impressed to be very submissive, obedient, and ingratiating to an authoritarian boss. The same individual may still act differently to impress a demanding, dominating, and threatening person in a hierarchical organization to his subordinates. Still, the person may present highly humble, attractive, competent, and loving to an employee of the opposite gender to win love. People decide the most suitable image which would be appropriate and effective for influencing others in a situation, and accordingly, they manage their impressions to others. Social influence research has identified a wide range of tactics people use in impression management to increase social influence on others. A brief introduction of the broad categories of

4.4 Impression Management Tactics

87

impression management tactics is presented. The rest of the chapters will continue to detail coverage of influence tactics. 4.4 (i) Ingratiation: Ingratiation is the most common impression management social influence strategy (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Pandey, 1986a). Ingratiation generally refers to behaviors individuals employ to elevate their attractiveness to the target person (Jones, 1964). The goal of ingratiation is to seduce liking in the target person. Ingratiation positively boosts the target’s affective state (good feeling), leading to his preference for the actor. Ingratiation is undeniably pervasive throughout organizational life (Kipnis et al., 1980). Through our experiences, we learn that others tend to like those who agree with them, say nice things to them, or do some favor to them, and display their relevant positive qualities. Thus, a socially skillful actor conforms, says nice things, favors, and talks positively about himself to ingratiate the target to seduce him (target) to like (actor). Ingratiating tactics influence the target’s appreciation of the actor, which rewards him (actor). The introduction chapter reviews the historical perspective and concludes with the vast presence of flattery, a commonly used term for ingratiation. The Chap. 5 discusses the theoretical treatment and multiple facets of ingratiation. 4.4 (ii) Intimidation: The ingratiator attempts to impress a target person with his excellent quality. On the other hand, the intimidator may threaten the target person to create fear in him. The bully advertises his power to hurt the target. The actor intimidates the target to influence him for a favor. The intimidator is like a sidewalk robber, who threatens the pedestrians by brandishing a weapon like a knife or gun to extract money. The robbers are successful when the pedestrian believes it is a real threat and surrenders the wallet. Another example could be a person in authority who uses his power to threaten his subordinates with adverse actions. Workers and students use other methods like hunger strikes and passive resistance to influence their target. Even children use tantrums and crying to intimidate parents, especially in a social situation that requires behavioral decency. The tactics of intimidation, designed to induce fear in the target person, are desperate attempts to influence effectively. The agent of influence shows that he has the resources and inclination to inflict pain and stress if the target does not comply with the request. Jones and Pittman (1982) have identified certain conducive conditions facilitating intimidation. Intimidation most commonly occurs: (i) in a relationship that has a non-voluntary status, like families, marriages, student–teacher, and employees–employer, or when an alternate relationship is not available; (ii) when the intimidator is readily equipped with threat inflicting resources like knife or gun; (iii) when the target person is weak to retaliate and counter the threat; (iv) when the intimidator does not care for a positive social image like compassion or humility. For example, let us consider the case of a domestic servant. If he does not have any other option of a similar wage job, he would be more vulnerable to threats without any additional opportunity. The worker would not be quiet due to a weak financial position. On the other hand, the employer can hire domestic help if the present one quits. The employer’s threat and exploitations continue, particularly when the employer does not care for compassion and humanitarianism.

88

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management

At times, managers and leaders like to be tough, powerful, and ruthless, and to achieve it, they would like to be feared. To be influenced, the target has to believe that threats of the intimidator are natural and may materialize. Pressure tactics cause social distance and not liking, and therefore this threatening influence tactic is not perceived positively at the societal level. Like intimidation, the actor may choose to make derogatory remarks to the target, who may get insulted and decide to yield to the request. Sometimes, it is observed that bosses make disparaging remarks to the subordinates for their performance to belittle them and influence them toward greater conformity in the organization. The subordinate workers also make disparaging and derogatory remarks to the supervisor to insult and be powerless. The use of disparagement, ridicules, and derogatory comments are, in a way, intimidatory methods of influencing. 4.4 (iii) Self-Promotion: People try to impress others by informing them about their competence, capability, and talent to do the relevant task. In self-promotion, the actor self-characterizes to highlight desired personal qualities like competencies and skills to enhance personal attractiveness. The actor presents so that the target attributes competence to the actor. The most obvious way to demonstrate one’s competence is to perform well on a task. Schmeichel and Baumeister (2004) report that people try to do an excellent job because others perceive them as competent. In this sense, task performance is like a tool for self-presentation. However, the actor may not always have opportunities to perform and prove competence. The actor has to skillfully manage the show of competence without being seen as threatening. The actor attempts to remain modest and still communicate the strength to convince the target. Social influencer’s success lies in self-promoting skillfully to avoid being perceived as a threat or a challenge. The findings of Jones et al. (1963) experiment suggest that many selves–promoters describe their ineptitude in some minor areas to enhance the genuineness of their assertion of competence in critically important areas. Generally, we learn through our social experiences that many people exaggerate their competencies, and therefore their claims of competencies are to be believed after some discounting. Jones and Pittman (1982) call it the selfpromoter paradox, and they elaborate, “-the paradox arises because it is often the case that competence claims are more likely when competence is shaky than when it is high and securely so” (p. 243). However, a skilled self-promoter does not inhibit paradox and may indirectly influence the target person with his desired competence. For example, the self-promoter may present his hard work background and success experiences in certain selected areas. The self-promoter may arrange his knowledge and experiences with outcomes and let others conclude his strengths and competencies. The experiments by Scopelliti et al. (2015) studied “a trade-off between the goal of projecting a favorble image and the goal of avoiding being perceived as an arrogant braggart” (p. 912). They hypothesized that people might fail to calculate this trade-off because of the erroneous calculation of their feelings with their partners’ interactions. Thus, people end up overestimating the target’s acceptance of self-promotion and underestimating the target’s annoyance. As people exaggerate their positive self-promotion, such efforts may backfire, and the braggarts may end up less liked by the target.

4.4 Impression Management Tactics

89

People also like to present themselves as less intelligent, competent, and skilled than they believe. They play to be dumb. There is a general stereotype that women often play dumb. Supportive findings of studies between 1950 and 1975 (Dean et al., 1975; Komarovsky, 1950) revealed that half of the women pretended to be inferior to men. More than gender factors, the situation and contexts are critical, and both men and women play dumb. Men play dumb more than women in front of their bosses (Dean et al., 1975). There are several reasons to play dumb. One major factor on the side of the actor could be not to be seen by the target as a more significant expert and, by implication, enhance his expertise and let him enjoy an ego-trip. The most critical impression management tactics like ingratiation, intimidation, and self-promotion require a brief comparison. In ingratiation, the actor impresses the target by proving sincerity and authenticity. If it fails, the intimidator has to calculate the danger and cost of threatening behavior. The self-promoter must handle the situation when competence is objectively apparent. In the long-term relationship, competence claims may not work because they may be exposed if it fails on verification. The issues related to self-promotion are complex and highly contextual. 4.4 (iv) Exemplification: Exemplification involves self-presentation of integrity and moral worthiness (Leary, 1989). In addition to morality, an actor may also foster the impression of being dedicated, selfless, and disciplined. For example, a highstanding religious person exemplifies his consistent moral and selfless conduct. He manages to appear morally high to others. A worker works hard to display himself as hard-working to the boss and other employees to impress the boss and fellow workers as a hard-working person. To achieve it, he adopts ways to exemplify and appear hard-working. One must not conclude from the above examples that the religious person is not moral or the worker is not hard-working. They may be valid to the impression they are trying to create. Or, they may not be that way, and they are merely trying to manage their image by using exemplification as a method of impression management. There are also exceptional exemplifiers like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela, who truly practiced their mass protest methods and suffered during their struggle. Their actions served as a powerful message, followed by millions of followers. Exemplification is a unique way of impression management. Jones and Pitman (1982) write, “…to practice what you preach is to give the preaching that much more force, but exemplification may also be effective when the preaching is not explicit” (p. 247). Gandhi was a committed and dedicated leader. He lived a life of exemplification by maintaining consistency in his thoughts, preaching, and actions. So, he was powerfully effective by practicing truth, non-violence, a lifestyle typical of the Indian masses, and serving the downtrodden. He got the entire nation behind himself in India’s freedom struggle; people accepted and named him the father of the Indian Nation. 4.4 (v) Supplication: The actor may choose to use supplication and present himself as weak, needy, and dependent on the target person to make him (the target) feel responsible and motivated to assist. The actor may opt to appear helpless in some respects to the target to gain sympathy leading to assistance. Thus, supplication involves appearance as weak to others to take advantage of everyday psychology that dictates responsibility for the helpless person. Sometimes an actor may advertise his dependence and helplessness to impress the target to solicit help. Elaborating the

90

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management

nurturant task leadership theory, Sinha (1980) observes that in the Indian sociocultural context, the workers show unnecessary dependency and helplessness on the supervisors who reciprocate by nurturance. Thus, dependency is used as an instrument to get help from the powerful authority. By stressing his inability and emphasizing reliance on others, the actor attempts to evoke a salient obligation norm and social responsibility on the target (Berkowitz & Daniels, 1963; Pandey & Griffitt, 1977; Sinha, 1970). The social responsibility norm is binding on the target person with more significant resources to help the helpless. Supplication may work best with someone in a power position and when there appears to be an arbitrary or accidental component in the power differential. The actor’s skillful self-presentation as dependent and weak must be believed by the target to get motivated to help. Supplication requires one to present oneself as helpless and vulnerable, as a last resort for any person. Generally, a person with low power and poor resource has little else to manage the impression, and therefore one indulges in supplication. A supplication strategy involving self-advertising one’s helplessness and incompetence is self-damaging one’s self-pride and self-esteem (Jones & Pittman, 1982). There are also other issues related to the target of supplication. Initially, the target may get trapped by his sense of social responsibility and respond positively to the needy and helpless. But soon, he may find that his resources are draining out, and he may find ways to get out of the social relationship with the supplicant. 4.4 (vi) Behavioral skills and humility: Behavioral skills play an essential role in self-presentation and successful impression management. People assess the target and the context and suitably act to create the desired impression. Generally, pleasant manners, politeness, courtesy, etiquette, modesty, and humility represent special skills for proper social interactions and suitably for impression management. However, certain situations may require the actor to decide on rude, aggressive, and other negative behavior forms to intimidate and terrorize the target. Socialization and social interactions in various contexts teach us the efficacy of varied behavioral styles in impression management. By the way, people make verbal claims, mention their qualities, and overtly create the desired impression. On occasions, we select our clothing, hairstyle and do a behavioral rehearsal before actual self-presentation and social interactions. Others observe the manners and acts of the actor and, on that basis, make a judgment. Thus, the target person draws inferences about the actor’s movement, gestures, walking, eye contact, and voice (McArthur & Baron, 1983). People are aware of it, and therefore they regulate their conduct and manners to control others’ impressions. A successful impression manager maintains culturally and contextually appropriate manners and etiquette. Opposite to boastful self-enhancement in various behavioral ways, the actor may act humbly by underplaying his strength. The long-cherished virtue of humility has been studied in recent years, and associated with many positive psychological and interpersonal outcomes (Brown & Leary, 2016; Worthington et al., 2017). It is challenging to define humility precisely because it is difficult to capture a wide range of humility expressions in a few words. The most salient psychological features associated with humble people are: (a) they have a reasonably accurate view of their strengths and weaknesses, and (b) they focus on pro-social orientation. Banker and

4.4 Impression Management Tactics

91

Leary (2019) suggest that humility represents the beliefs that one’s achievements do not entitle one to special treatment by others. A humble person is conscious of his distinguished achievements, but they do not think that such achievements allow them to be treated differently than usual. Though humility may inhibit a humble person from expressing his power in self-presentation, his humility itself may serve as a powerful weapon to impress the target. Humility is socially desirable, and a humble person is respected. Knowing this fact, a non-humble person may act humbly to impress others. But the actor’s success would hinge upon his sophistication to play humility as accurate to impact the target’s perception. Therefore, the effectiveness of acted humility may be a risky strategy for impression management. The concept of trait and state humility has apparent implications in impression management. It is relevant to refer to trait humility and state humility (Banker & Leary, 2019). For the present, briefly, the trait humility is a stable disposition to be humble across situations. On the other hand, state humility is an individual’s functional and strategic act to impress significant others in a case that values such behavior. (See Box 4.4 for illustration).

Box No. 4.4: Ingratiation Toward Strangers, Friends, and Bosses. Bohra and Pandey (1984). People use strategic self-presentational behaviors to influence others to enhance their attractiveness and personal qualities, primarily for undue favor. Bohra and Pandey (1984) added self-depreciation, instrumental dependency, name dropping, and situation-specific behaviors (Pandey, 1986a) to Jones’ (1964) ingratiating self-presentation tactics, namely, other-enhancement, opinion conformity, and self-enhancement. One hundred ten senior undergraduate engineering students rated their expected behavior on a 35-item questionnaire with five items for each of the 7 tactics on a scale ranging from completely true (score = 5) to completely false (score = 1). For each tactic, scores ranged from 25 (highest) to 5 (least). An illustrative item for each category, for example, was: (1) other-enhancement, “emphasize his positive qualities more”; (2) opinion conformity, “support his views even though not in agreement”; (3) self-enhancement, “talk about own positive qualities”; (4) self-depreciation, “presentation of self as in need of sympathy and help”; (5) instrumental dependency, “impress upon that only he can help in the situation”; (6) name dropping, “use influential another person (s) as reference(s) while interacting ”; (7) situation-specific behaviors, “acknowledge his authority in the presence of others.” The participants rated their behaviors toward three hypothetical target persons: stranger, friend, and boss. The participants received the following instructions for the stranger target: “Suppose you meet a stranger, an unknown person. You interact with him and impress him to get benefits and his positive ratings. In other words, you try to impress him to get benefits and try to receive

92

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management

his attention and concern towards yourself. You are requested to rate the statements described in the questionnaire in a manner which reflects the behavior adopted by you for the desired reward and benefits from this unknown person.” Suitably adapted similar instructions were used for the other two targets. The presentation of the targets followed randomized order. Each participant rated their behavior on 35 items separately for the three targets. The results revealed that the participants showed more ingratiating selfpresentation responses toward the boss than the stranger or the friend. A high score for other enhancement in the boss’s case shows less risk with an acquainted boss. Responses for opinion conformity, self-enhancement, selfdepreciation, and instrumental dependency toward strangers and friends were not different significantly. Responses toward friends were significantly higher than the stranger for other-enhancement and situation-specific, and lower for name dropping. Due to the unspecified status, responses toward a stranger and a friend did not differ significantly for conformity, self-enhancement, self-depreciation, and instrumental dependency. Name dropping was adopted more frequently with the stranger, and this tactic was less effective with an acquaintance because of known social connections (Table 4.1). Table 4.1 Mean ingratiation scores as a function of main effects Styles of ingratiation

Stranger

Friend

Boss

F (2, 218)

Other enhancement

14.436a

15.527b

17.327c

40.17*

Opinion conformity

14.145a

14.054a

16.481b

24.13*

Self-enhancement

16.018a

16.036a

17.336b

6.29*

Self-depreciation

15.027a

15.663a

16.800b

16.254*

Instrumental dependency

11.863a

12.572a

14.563b

15.256*

Name dropping

14.072a

13.272b

14.854c

12.309*

Situation specific

16.145a

17.554b

17.663b

11.074*

Note Common superscripts’ horizontal means do not differ significantly. * p < 0.01. (Source Bohra & Pandey, 1984) a, b, and c denote the respective mean to show the comparison in three means. It is the exact copy of the journal article

High positive correlations for all seven tactics across the three social target persons revealed stability of ingratiating self-presentational behaviors. The correlational results implied that those highly ingratiating for one target person were also high with other target persons. Similarly, those who were less ingratiating toward a target person remained the same across other target persons. However, this research neither identifies nor rules out any personality variable determining stability in ingratiating responses. The findings imply that ingratiating self-presentational behaviors varied with the changes in a context represented by the three targets. The results are consistent with earlier studies

4.4 Impression Management Tactics

93

that individuals use more ingratiation with high-status people. This pattern is expected more in a hierarchical society like India, where flattery is common toward resourceful persons (Pandey, 1978b, 1981d, 1986a). 4.4 (vii) Successful impression management The success of impression management lies in receiving the attention of the target audience and their acceptance of communication. The influencers try their best to manage presentations so that the target audience accepts and believes the actor communicator. For successful impression management, two considerations are essential: (a) The actor presents the most advantageous image. For example, a job applicant presents himself as the most competent and diligent person. (b) The actor also likes to make sure that the target believes the submitted image. The actor wants to be judged and avoids presenting himself as a superhuman being. The acting ability also includes an assessment of the possibility of checking the claimed facts by the target, and standing out on it. Further, successful impression management requires a balance between presenting the most beneficial image to the audience and ensuring that the audience trusts the image. In other words, this balance hinges upon usefulness for the actor and believability by the audience. The actor’s awareness of these factors helps him modify his self-presentation behavior and match it with the expectations of the target. In an exciting study, Schlenker (1975) made the participants believe they would do very well or very poorly on an upcoming test. The participants could present themselves to other people who would or would not learn how they did in the upcoming trial. Schlenker (1975) found that the only condition in which the participants did not present themselves in highly favorable terms was when they expected to perform poorly and believed that the target would learn how they did on the test. On the other hand, when the participants thought that the target would not know their performance level, they presented their high ability, even when they doubted their ability. It implies that the participants avoided making tall claims because they feared negative evaluation, particularly when their claims proved to be mere boasts. In a follow-up study, Schelenker and Leary (1982b) found supportive findings that generally, the participants appreciated congruence between public claims and actual performance and disliked those who falsely presented themselves with high ability. In the absence of contradictory information, people trust face value and believe in what is claimed by the actor. According to the self-presentation perspective, presenting oneself as reasonably competent is advantageous. Unless people know otherwise, they trust the actor. People also adopt a strategy like a preemptive excuse to protect their positive impression, particularly when they fear failure. For example, when a person has doubts about performing at the expected level of others, he may state in advance of particular excuses. He may say, “I am not sure; I have all skills to do well on this job.” “I am a person with this characteristic which may not help in doing this job.” These preemptive statements help the actor manage his impression of expected failure (Baumgardner et al., 1985). People not only preempt excuses; they also actively

94

4 Self-presentation for Impression Management

create reasons for failure. People create obstacles to their success. For example, on the high school math examination day, the unprepared student may falsely complain that he has severe headaches. This self-handicapping behavior people create, particularly in a situation of public performance (Berglass & Jones,1978; Jones & Berglas, 1978; Arkin & Baum, 1985). The use of self-handicapping behavior in impression management is like a double-edged sword. On the one hand, self-created impediments to success are seen negatively by others if performance is poor. They may judge the actor as possessing a lower ability. On the other hand, people disapprove of those who fail to maximize their efforts to harvest their potential. Therefore, the public self-handicapping behavior is considered the last ditch in impression management. It may be helpful only when success is improbable. Being disliked is less damaging than being seen as incompetent. Generally, people feel concerned about the impression others have about them. They also worry when they have the challenge to present themselves to create the best images for the target. For example, one may recall the built-up anxiety before a job interview. Schlenker and Leary (1982a) theorized that social anxiety arises when individuals are motivated to make a positive impression, but they see little likelihood that they will do so. In extreme cases, these doubts can be paralyzing and lead to social embarrassment. Leary (1995) briefly states, “People experience social anxiety when they are motivated to make desired impressions on others but doubt that they will successfully do so” (p. 181). There are individual differences in the experience of social anxiety. Some people are more prone to get anxious about social encounters, and they are supposed to have trait anxiety. Leary (1995) suggests that trait social anxiety is dispositional. People who have a high social anxiety level suffer from a psychiatric condition called social phobia (Leary, 1995). We learn to overcome social anxiety and present ourselves efficiently and effectively to succeed in our social world, which continuously adds new ways for our functioning and food for more social psychological studies.

Chapter 5

Ingratiation for Self-Enhancement

In the best, the friendliest and simplest relations flattery or praise is necessary, just as grease is necessary to keep wheels turning. Leo Tolstoy. Chapter 1 has traced a brief history of social behavior flattery, a popular term for ingratiation, primarily used in social psychology. For some favors, people indulge in flattery to influence and control, especially the mighty and resourceful others. Edward Jones and his colleagues began systematic research on ingratiation in the early 1960s. They avoided using flattery because it sounded somewhat pejorative (Jones, 1964, 1965; Jones et al., 1962, 1963). Ingratiation is a broad term inclusive of impression management and self-presentation (see Chap. 4). Impression management represents processes that people use to control others’ impressions. Ingratiation represents a class of strategically planned behaviors by a person (called actor) to positively influence another person’s (called target) liking of him, possibly for gaining some benefits. People indulge in ingratiation to please the target for some purpose, but they hesitate to answer why they did, implying inherent deception in this category of behavior. Ingratiating actions are common in our everyday social life. Generally, we do not confront and embarrass by asking the actor for indulgence in such behavior and the target for favoring the actor. It is probably not delightful to question either of them, perhaps because both are masquerading, and it would be too embarrassing to confront them. The deceptive ingratiating interpersonal interactions go on unchallenged, breeding a tolerant culture and serving as fertile soil for indulgence in it. Also, ingratiation is such a typical behavior that one idea does come to mind: “what is to study about it?” Like ordinary people, social psychologists also preferred to avoid the study of ingratiation, leading to the delayed beginning of scientific research that never became a popular topic. As a Master’s and Doctoral thesis supervisor, I often felt that research scholars were not inclined to study ingratiation. Still, some scholars joined me to study ingratiation and related social influence issues. Pandey (1986a) cautioned against blind generalization of the Western findings of ingratiation research across cultures. Deceptive social behaviors like ingratiation are culturally contextualized. Pandey (1980b) reported that ingratiation is a common, © Indian Council of Social Science Research 2022 J. Pandey, Nature and Dynamics of Social Influence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4598-4_5

95

96

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

less risky, and demanding social phenomenon in a traditional society like India than in Western societies (Jones & Pittman, 1982, Pandey, 1981d, 1986a, 1988a). These considerations motivated us to explore social influence processes focusing on ingratiation and Machiavellianism in the Indian context. Our efforts unravel the complexities of this category of behavior, summarized in the book chapters.

5.1 The Concept of Ingratiation To achieve their objectives, people use various social tactics to influence others in social life. An individual may indulge in manipulative social tactics to impress another person (the target) to get him attracted to himself with the expectation of some favor. A common manipulative social influence tactic is flattery. In common parleys, flattery (i.e., ingratiation) has a somewhat pejorative connotation. Flattery sounds like a negative value-loaded word. However, ingratiation in social psychology is neutral and value-free. We do not always consider ingratiation to cheat others for selfish ends. For example, as said earlier, a teacher highlights a weak student’s strength and praises his hard work to raise his self-esteem and confidence. The teacher is interested in helping the student recover from poor performance. The teacher does not mean what he says in praise of the student. He uses deception to win the student’s liking and trust so that the student follows his advice and works hard to achieve higher performance. Alike, one may observe parents’ indulgence with their kids using ingratiation as a positive reinforcement in their children’s socialization. Thus, sometimes, people flatter and praise a person for raising his sinking self-esteem. There are many occasions when we do not say what we think in everyday social life. We applaud even those who do not deserve to maintain nicety and decency in a social situation. We learn, realize, and accept the value of ingratiation in our social life, and we use it as a social lubricant to make others feel that they are worthy, even if they are not, to help them maintain their self-esteem. In general, most people are ignorant about the truth as to what others know of them, and probably they will be much less happy if they know about it. Ingratiation has acquired acceptability to represent this category of behavior in social psychology (Jones, 1964). In brief, ingratiation means the actor’s impression management behaviors with manipulative intent for the target’s attraction. Jones and Wortman (1973) define ingratiation as:"…a class of strategic behaviours illicitly designed to influence a particular other person concerning the attractiveness of one’s personal qualities” (p. 3). The ingratiator’s ultimate goal is to make himself attractive to the target person, who may in return reward him in various ways. The ingratiator seeks attraction by manipulating the target person’s attributions of friendliness and integrity while at the same time avoiding the attribution of ulterior motivations. According to Jones and Wortman (1973), the ingratiator is an applied social psychologist who tries to “manipulate the outcomes of another’s attribution process” (p. 3) in his favor. For example, the ingratiator would like the target to attribute positive qualities to manage his attraction. Because of all kinds of interpretations of

5.2 Ingratiation Tactics

97

ingratiatory tactics, the target’s reactions to such behaviors are varied, definitely not as the actor always expects. Jones (1964) considers ingratiation as a risky tactic of social influence. But it may not be such risky tactics in some cultures, like India, where its use is rampant (Pandey, 1986a, 1986b). Several personal and situational variables associated with the actor and target affect the impact of ingratiation, and therefore, in general, its overall effect may not be high with surety (Gordon, 1996).

5.2 Ingratiation Tactics Since the ancient period, popular literature has been full of examples suggesting methods to influence others for personal benefits (see Chap. 1). Some people successfully use ingratiating tactics to influence resourceful others to make themselves more attractive and control them for desired favors. Considering the nature of the target and social context, it depends on the actor’s ability and ingenuity to decide appropriate ingratiatory tactics to influence the target to achieve the desired goal. For example, a subordinate employee may not use the same tactic to control his senior manager in a formal committee and a private in-person meeting. The assistant may praise the manager’s policy in the formal meeting, but he may appreciate his dress and conduct of the meeting in his encounter. The same person may use some other tactics to impress a woman colleague. In a friendly social context, he may conform to her in restaurant choice for dinner and the movie they would go to. Though the actor remains submissive and polite while interacting with the manager and the woman, his influencing tactics are different. In all the above situations, the goal is to attract the target, whether the manager or women friend. In the manager’s case, the actor praises the target’s dress, style, and way of conducting the meeting. In the women’s case, the actor uses conformity to show that his likings are similar to her. The examples demonstrate several factors associated with the actor, target, and condition determining ingratiation tactics. A brief review of ingratiation tactics research identifies a broad classification of this behavior class. Jones and his associate Wortman (Jones, 1964; Jones & Wortman, 1973) broadly classify ingratiation tactics directed to the target into four categories: other enhancement, conformity, self-presentation, and rendering favors. However, social psychological research has focused mainly on other-enhancement, opinion conformity, and self-presentation. Jones and Wortman’s (1973) categories are not all-inclusive and universal because, with social and cultural variations, the nature and tactics of ingratiation also vary (Pandey, 1981d, 1986a). For example, research findings suggest that self-depreciation tactics present oneself as helpless in two cultures, like Poland and India (Olszewska-Kondratowicz, 1975; Pandey, 1986a). In Poland, high and low self-esteem ingratiators differed in their preferences of ingratiation tactics. The ingratiators with high self-esteem showed an appreciation for positive self-presentation. But for low self-esteem, ingratiators preferred self-depreciation tactics (Olszewska-Kondratowicz, 1975). The Indian context is dominated by social

98

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

and cultural variables determining ingratiation tactics used to solicit the target’s attraction (Pandey, 1981d, 1986a). In the early 1960s and 1970s, studies related to ingratiation tactics were mainly limited to Western culture, particularly the United States. Pandey (1981d, 1986a) recognizes aspects of the Indian social-cultural realities: social structure, caste hierarchies, widespread scarcity, and economic class disparities that determine social interactions and influence processes. Chapter 2 discusses how India’s feudal and hierarchical social structure and resource scarcities provide fertile soil for thriving many innovative ingratiation tactics and other manipulative social behaviors (Pandey, 1981d, 1986a). In general, the lower status people in the Indian society and its organizations opt to indulge in ingratiation to win the liking of the powerful for favors and survival. To be effective, the powerless people have no choice but to use selfdepreciation and instrumental dependency (Pandey, 1980b, 1980c, 1981d, 1981e, 1986a, 198b). Pandey argues that such tactics are perceived legitimate and considered less risky (Pandey, 1980b, 1980c, 1981a, 1981d, 1981e, 1986a, 1986b). In the Indian context, ingratiating acts are commonly expected and therefore rampant. People mostly indulge in ingratiation to get their rightful share because of expectations (Pandey 1980b, c, 1981a, 1981d, 1981e, 1986a, 1981b). In India, we initiated the research program to study ingratiation in the late 1970s, representing the traditional and developing society. The program picked up momentum in the early 1980s (Bohra & Pandey, 1984; Pandey 1981a, 1981d, 1986a, 1981b). Besides the ingratiation tactics identified by Jones and Wortman (1973), Pandey and his associates (Pandey, 1981a, 1981d, 1986a, 1986b) have added additional tactics prevalent in India’s social and cultural context. Based upon the intuitive analysis, observations, and research findings, Pandey and his associates (Pandey, 1986a, 1986b) reported four additional forms of ingratiation tactics: (1) self-degradation, (2) instrumental dependency, (3) name dropping, and (4) changing with the situation. Box No. 5.1: Social Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ): Ingratiation Tactics Measurement Scale Pandey and Bohra (1981) revised and enlarged the Social Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ), a 20-item, 5-point scale (Pandey, 1981a) to a more inclusive SBQ of 35 items, with five items for each of the following seven ingratiation tactics, presented with a definitive (English version) item: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Other enhancement: “Impress that I have a high opinion about him.“ Conformity: “Give my consent to whatever he says.“ Self-enhancement: “Present to him my positive qualities.“ Self-degradation: “Inform him politely regarding my helplessness in the situation”. 5. Instrumental dependency: “Impress that he is the only person to support me.”

5.2 Ingratiation Tactics

99

6. Name dropping: “Mention personal contacts with other resourceful persons during the conversation with him.” 7. Changing with the situation: “I do such things which please him.” Appendix 1 presents: the English version of the Social Behaviour Questionnaire (SBQ). 5.2 (i) Other enhancement: The actor compliments to raise the target person’s esteem, who returns it by liking him. The ingratiator familiar with common sense psychology knows that when the target person is praised for his qualities, his attraction increases toward the person, complimenting him (Jones, 1964). Thus, the first choice of the ingratiator is to highlight the positive attributes of the target. The tactic of other enhancement works more effectively by complimenting the target for his self-doubtful qualities. The ingratiator camouflages his flattery skillfully to convince the target regarding the genuineness of praise. The actor may identify and praise the target’s self-doubted attributes for effectiveness. The actor’s feedback and support immensely please the target who gets obligated to like and reward him. 5.2 (ii) Conformity: The ingratiator expresses matching views to the target’s beliefs and opinions to please and win the target’s attraction. The attraction paradigm research powerfully supports the contention that positive reinforcement of attitudinal similarity arouses positive feelings of interest toward the source of similarity (Byrne, 1971; Pandey & Griffitt, 1974). People like those others similar in attitudes, beliefs, and values are commonly known psychological tenets that guide the ingratiator to conform to the target. Besides, the ingratiator may imitate the target’s style to prove that he identifies with him. The ingratiator may even change his opinion on issues similar to the target to win his liking and favor. The ingratiator demonstrates that he values the target’s views more than his own by this move. The target appreciates the ingratiator and favors him. 5.2 (iii) Self-enhancement: The actor promotes his relevant abilities, experiences, and skills to impress the target. The actor’s self-presentation of attributes and qualifications aims to impress and win the target’s attraction (Jones, 1964). The ingratiator shows the context-appropriate, his strength, and hides weaknesses. The ingratiator may mention some minor drawbacks to win the target’s trust in his overall strategy. Chapter 4 covers an elaborate discussion on the topic. People engage in self-promotion to achieve that others hold a favorable image. They enumerate their strength, positive qualities, and mention their past achievements. They also attribute their internal strengths leading to their accomplishments impressing others (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Rudman, 1998). 5.2 (iv) Self-depreciation: The self-deprecating style does not threaten authority and target. Therefore, the ingratiator succeeds in earning the target’s liking and desired reward. This tactic is more functional in a traditional society like India, where it is a more effective way of attraction management (Pandey, 1986a, 198b). With this tactic, the ingratiator emphasizes their handicaps rather than strength. The

100

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

modesty tactic involves moderating the estimation of one’s abilities, similar to selfdepreciation (Gordon, 1996). To achieve greater effectiveness, the actor may combine other-enhancement and overplay the target person’s superiority and depreciate own to reduce the chance of being perceived as a competitive threat. Bohra and Pandey (1984) suggest that the ingratiator’s self-degradation may induce pity and sympathy in the target and successfully persuasion. 5.2 (v) Instrumental dependency: Dependency, generally conceptualized as dispositional, can also be instrumental, and an individual may use it as a manipulative social tactic. Instrumental dependency is the tactic of convincing the target person that the ingratiator is dependent on him. Several investigators have recognized the instrumental nature of dependency (Berkowitz & Daniels, 1963; Krebs, 1970; Pandey & Griffitt, 1977; Sinha, 1970). The ingratiator uses dependency as a tactic by imposing his dependence on the target person to induce social responsibility to accept him as his dependent and provide him with desired assistance. Thus, instrumental dependency, purely tactical, is used by the ingratiator to appear dependent on the target person to seduce liking and get a favor. 5.2 (vi) Name dropping: Name-dropping is the act of referencing other individuals to enhance perceived attractiveness (Bohra & Pandey, 1984). The ingratiator uses name-dropping to impress the target obliquely to let him know his connections with influential people. In a resource-limited context, social and personal relationships with powerful and resourceful are precious, particularly in Indian society, where the social network is highly valued (Sinha, 2014; Sinha & Sinha, 1974). By namedropping of powerful and resourceful, the ingratiator enhances his usefulness to the target. Thus, the name-dropping tactic has special importance in impressing people (Pandey, 1986a, 1986b). 5.2 (vii) Changing with the demand of situations: The actor may act according to the target person’s wishes. Opportunism is a guiding principle for the actor and not the consistency of behaviors across conditions. The ingratiator attempts to please the target rather than follow some principle, value, ideology, or norm. Changing positions is a self-centered way of acting in various conditions without committing to self-consistency. The ingratiator aims to manipulate the target’s attraction toward himself for selfish purposes. To achieve it, he acts as per the target’s wishes, without any constraints on his values and norms. The actor, without any conflict, changes his behaviors to fit in various situations to be judged positively by the target. 5.2 (viii) Rendering favors: The actor may opt to render help and favor the target in contextually appropriate ways to make him feel obligated to grant favor. Thus, by causing favors, the actor seduces the target to like and possibly return favor by accepting him. Usually, people get attracted to those who support or do positive things for them. Thus, favoring is a positive ingratiation tactic based on the give– take reciprocity norm. In most cultures, a common practice is gift-giving. However, the ingratiator uses a gift-giving strategy to please the target and win his liking and possibly some other benefits right away or invest it for the future. Though one may argue that gift-giving is a part of self-presentation, Jones (1964) suggests that favors and gifts are essential “…in cementing of relationships or in the more general context of social influence” (p. 44). Rendering favors may work as an exchange between the

5.3 Ingratiator Dilemma

101

ingratiator and the target (Homans, 1961). Accordingly, the ingratiator may plan to influence the target individual to give him something he values and possibly meet his requirements. Let us take an example of a subordinate employee who readily helps his supervisor in household chores to influence him for benefit. For example, the employee may do some of the supervisor’s household odd jobs for valuable returns. This kind of exchange takes place at the cost of the institution’s real productivity where they work. Factor analysis of the questionnaire data supports the above classification of ingratiation tactics (Pandey & Bohra, 1981). (Box No 5.1 presents an illustrative item of each ingratiation tactic, and appendix 5.1 presents the English equivalent of the Social Behaviour Questionnaire (SBQ) with Cronbach Alpha of each dimension.) No list of ingratiation tactics can be all-inclusive and complete. The tactics presented here are broad, primarily based on research, so limitations of the researchers’ creative imagination cannot match ingratiators’ ingenuity. New tactics will be identified as research has expanded on various social domains. For example, Cooper (2005) has reported that the ingratiator may share amusing humor to please the boss and receive liking and favors in return, similar to the practices that existed in the feudal court (see Chap. 1). The choice of a specific ingratiation tactic is dependent on multiple factors like the relationships between the actor and the target and the situation. The sociocultural context, in general, determines the effectiveness ingratiation tactic. For example, as discussed earlier and in Chap. 2, the authoritarian social milieu may encourage instrumental dependency and self-degradation to be more effective than a context dominated by democratic and equality norms. Modest selfpresentation or self-denigration may be more effective than outright self-bragging (Wosinska et al., 1996). The recent work of Scopelliti et al. (2015) report that people overestimate the positive impact and underestimate their self-promotion’s adverse effects on others. So, promoting oneself excessively may backfire, causing the targets to dislike the actor as self-braggarts. The ingratiator may use one or a combination of more tactics.

5.3 Ingratiator Dilemma The actor uses ingratiation tactics for the target’s attention and attraction (Jones, 1964). However, the target may make a wide range of attributions and even suspect the ingratiator’s intention. On the other hand, the ingratiator may have some difficulties and dilemmas that he must resolve before acting (Jones, 1964). The apparent dilemma is associated with the target’s suspicion of the ingratiator’s intention. The ingratiator tries to hide his genuine intention to appear as a well-intended honest person, which he may not be. So, his dilemma is whether to risk himself for such attribution or avoid ingratiation to influence the target. Another difficulty, for example, could be related to choosing ingratiation tactics. He asks a question himself: Which tactics would be the best? Based on the evaluation of the target and the situation, the ingratiator has

102

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

to decide on one or more tactics. The actor attempts to disguise his real purpose and accordingly selects ingratiation tactics for action with deception toward the target. On the other hand, the ingratiator’s transparency in action may help win the target’s confidence and liking. Therefore, the ingratiator must deal with the dilemma related to transparency versus deception to the target. The actor may try his best to appear transparent and, at the same time, hide his real purpose. The nature of the ingratiation dilemma is such that it involves several considerations related to the target, social, and cultural context requiring cognitive and behavioral resolution. The difficulties in applying ingratiation strategies will also be discussed later in this chapter when the debate on success probability is deliberated. In the work–organization context, one must determine which ingratiation strategy will be the best. For example, the high-status supervisor ingratiator successfully uses other-enhancement tactics with the low-status worker target because of consistency in judgment and evaluation with a high-status supervisory role (Gordon, 1996). It is a piquant situation for the target. On the one hand, the target may see through the intention of the actor’s ingratiation, so he may like to avoid him. On the other hand, he is also aware of the reciprocity norm, so he must reward the actor for his compliments. Gordon (1996) suggests that the target may appropriately reciprocate with the expression of “feigned” liking and, at the same time, hold a negative evaluation of the ingratiator. For example, an influential political leader may be aware that several people hanger-on around him are flatterers (i.e., sycophant or Chamchas, a Hindi slang). Due to his political compulsions, the leader needs them to symbolize popularity and boost his spirit. So, he goes around to distribute “feigned” affection to them but does not hold a positive assessment of them.

5.4 Moderators of Ingratiation Gordon’s (1996) meta-analytic review presents a set of moderation effects derived from the previous research. Gordon’s (1996) review identifies potential moderator variables with predicted effects of ingratiation tactics. The effectiveness of the ingratiation tactics is situations specific. For example, ingratiation investigations suggest that opinion conformity works better when a subordinate tries to influence the superior. Impressed by Pandey’s work, Gordon (1996) writes, “Pandey (1986) has suggested that ingratiators are likely to be judged more positively by a target receiving direct compliments, opinion conformity, etc., than by a bystander who observes an exchange between an ingratiator and target.” He cites Goffman’s (1955) writing on face-work and notes that as a function of being an observer only, a bystander’s ego or face are not directly involved in the interaction. Under such circumstances, it becomes easier to question the validity of the ingratiator’s behavior. “Conversely, when directly involved as a target, it becomes more difficult to constantly question the honesty of the other’s assertions and maintain the interaction” (p. 56). Cialdini and his associates (Cialdini et al., 1974) also recognize differential

5.4 Moderators of Ingratiation

103

evaluations by the observers versus the target of ingratiation. They found that individuals who made persuasive appeals succeeded in forming a positive impression on the targets who later expressed opinion conformity. However, the bystanders who watched such interactions showed positive images of those who did not change due to persuasion. Box No. 5.2: Attribution and Evaluation of Manipulative Social Behaviors Pandey and Singh (1987) studied the observers’ attribution and evaluation of simulated manipulative (ingratiation/Machiavellian) and nonmanipulative actors’ behaviors, with success or failure outcomes. Method: Sixty male undergraduate participants were randomly assigned in equal numbers to any of the six experimental conditions of a 3 × 2 factorial (ingratiation/Mach/nonmanipulative × success/failure) design, read a transcribed dialogue between an assistant supervisor, applicant, and the company’s manager. The cover story stated that the manager had interviewed four assistant-supervisor applicants individually for one supervisor post. The participants read the story of their respective experimental conditions; detailed verbatim transcribed supposedly occurred dialogue of an applicant with the manager. The participants reported that they believed the conversation’s secret recording. Each participant read the story attentively to form impressions of the applicant (actor), the manager(target), and the decision. Each participant of the respective six experimental conditions recorded their evaluation. Independent variables manipulation. Ingratiation condition depicted the actor frequently adopting ingratiation tactics in conversation with the target. For example, he praised the manager, conformed with him, mentioned his dependence on him, and changed his opinion to fit with the manager. Also, he offered personal help to the manager. The Machiavellian condition presented the actor as an intelligent and cunning person who attempted to make the target feel slightly insecure and inadvertently advised not to bother about rules and morality in selecting a person of his choice. The actor presented himself as a robust and dependable person to the target and promised to serve him as his superior. The nonmanipulative condition presented the actor as a straightforward person who put his case objectively to the manager and portrayed himself as honest. He did not ask for a favor, even inadvertently, or created any situation to manipulate the target for a favorable decision for himself. The experimental manipulations were perfected through the pilot test. Either success or failure was the outcome at the end of the story. Each participant read the story and answered questions about the number of persons, site, the actor’s objective, and the outcome to ensure that they understood the contents.

104

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

The experimenter proceeded further only after the surety of the participant’s understanding of the instructions. Dependent Measures: The participants evaluated the actor, the target, and outcomes. They recorded ratings on a 7-point scale for each: (i) attributions of causality for success or failure: task difficulty, actor’s, ability, effort, luck, and interest, to achieve the higher position; (ii) The target’s honesty, intelligence, self-interest, and attraction toward the actor; (iii) The actor’s behavior on criteria of legitimacy, occurrence in Indian society, agreement, and empathy with actor’s action; (iv) Approval of the actor’s behavior and their willingness to behave similarly in the same situation. The participants responded on seven-point rating scales. Results and discussion: The results supported the hypothesis that the observers negatively evaluated and disliked the actors engaged in ingratiatory or Machiavellian manipulation. The observers, however, positively assessed and felt attracted to the nonmanipulative actors. The participants judged the nonmanipulative and ingratiating actors significantly higher in ability than the Mach actors. The Mach actors mainly considered exerting more effort than the ingratiator and the non-manipulator. The Mach actors’ task was significantly more complicated than the other two. However, the ingratiator and Mach actors were more interested in their mission than the non-manipulator. The participants evaluated successful actors more positively and showed higher attraction to them than the unsuccessful. However, the significant two-way interaction for the participants’ perception of the target’s honesty, self-interest, and intelligence revealed exciting aspects of the bystander’s perception of the target. The observers rated the ingratiating and Mach targets of failure conditions as honest and intelligent than in success conditions. The observers rated the ingratiation condition target higher in self-interest and favored them over others. In agreement with earlier findings (Pandey & Bohra, 1984), the observers liked and agreed with nonmanipulative behavior more than they did Mach or ingratiating behavior.

5.5 Why Ingratiate? Many factors influence others, so why choose ingratiation tactics to win the target’s attraction to gain some favor? The actor’s compulsions, need to win the target, and preference to ingratiate, combined with the target’s vulnerability and the social situation, largely determine ingratiation. The next Chap. 6, will examine the role of certain personality traits in ingratiation. Chapters 2 and 3 discuss the significance of social–economic conditions and cultural factors, power position, leadership, and

5.5 Why Ingratiate?

105

psychological processes, in general, determining social influence, especially ingratiation. Individuals differ in personality dispositions, social values, work ethics, and past experiences that differentiate their influence practices, including ingratiation (Jones & Baumeister, 1976). Many social, especially exchange theorists, characterize human beings as maximization creatures (Chadwick-Jones, 1976; Homans, 1961; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). According to this approach, an individual searches continuously for increasing his rewards at less and less cost to himself despite the norm that assumes dividing dividends among persons on a predictable basis. Some psychologists have studied how people calculate their payoffs, assess their social context, and manipulate the situation to their benefit, most of the time at the expense of others (Christie, 1970; Jones & Wortman, 1973; Pandey, 1981d, 1986a, 1986b). Manipulative tactics like ingratiation are like a shortcut method to manipulate the powerful by controlling the resources and getting the reward without necessary effort. In other words, people make ingratiatory efforts to manage perceptions of the influential persons to benefit without putting in hard work. The principle of minimum effort is operative in the process of ingratiating others. Humans are generally motivated by self-interest and selfishness. What seems like a generous act may only impress that one is seen as helpful and deserves certain benefits. People may use many ways like positively presenting themselves to ingratiate and win the liking of others successfully. A frequently used method is to greet others with smiles in a meeting hall, show interest in the person, and make him feel special. The second step could be to assist the person appropriately with a glass of water, coffee, and a seat in the meeting hall. The third step could be a little more direct to support his views by nodding when he speaks. The fourth step could directly agree with his thoughts on the issues, presentation style, and person. There are many other ways the actor may influence the target person’s liking for serving their self-interest. The ingratiator makes strategic moves to be judged attractive. But why an ingratiator does it? Why would any person indulge in deceitful actions to positively impact another person? Jones (1964) identified three primary goals mediated by ingratiating tactics. They are acquisition, protection, and signification. According to the acquisitive plans, the actor attempts to bias the target person in his favor to get the desired reward at a minimum cost. An individual may use ingratiation as a protective device to prevent adverse consequences. He: “cultivates the attraction of others from a motive of foresightful defensive planning” (Jones, 1964, p. 47). The signification implies the general approval, value, likability, and respectability of the target person’s ingratiator. In other words, attraction mediated through ingratiation helps the ingratiator realize his worth. To achieve acquisition, protection, and signification, the actor uses ingratiating actions, concealing his actions’ fundamental objective to the target. The ingratiator’s success lies in the concealment of ulterior motivation. Jones and Pittman (1982) appropriately add, “The actor does not wish to see himself as ingratiating; the target also wants to believe that the ingratiator is sincere in following the implicit social contract” (p. 236). The intriguing question, “why people ingratiate?” needs an answer. The social learning processes facilitate our understanding of how people acquire such tactical

106

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

acts to influence others (Bandura, 1977). People observe how others strategize their actions to affect their targets for certain benefits successfully. Thus, people learn by observing others indulging in influencing behaviors for gains. They may also attempt similar behaviors and learn successful influencing skills in various situations. In such a social learning process, they also develop beliefs and motivation to influence others. Social learning processes facilitate ingratiating behavioral skills and strengthening meaningful practice in the real social world. People also learn that ingratiation is a lubricant in social communication and successful social interactions. Ingratiation helps get along with people, so it is a valuable social skill in the social world. The motive for the ingratiating behavior is a critical factor. For example, a junior worker may support his boss in a meeting because he agrees with the boss. The worker’s behavior is not ingratiating because he agrees with the boss. But there are some other related issues. People who observe such conformity may not always be aware of the actual position of the worker. So, the observers may not know the worker’s real motive, and they may end up interpreting the worker’s behavior as ingratiating. Another angle related to the worker is that he may consciously think that he agrees with the boss, but this may not be the case, and unconsciously he wants to ingratiate and please the boss. Thus, ingratiation may happen without the conscious awareness of the actor. Occasionally, we observe some people who keep on nodding in support of the boss. Their acts are without much conscious thinking. This further implies that ingratiating acts may occur without conscious awareness, which enlarges the range of its occurrences in reality. The intriguing question is which conditions and factors determine an individual’s decision to indulge in ingratiation. When does an individual decide to ingratiate, he must resolve what kinds of strategies he adopts? The actor chooses a particular form of ingratiation, like other-enhancement, conformity, self-enhancement, selfdegradation, and instrumental dependency based on the available resources, and nature of the context. The context’s complexity includes social and cultural norms of behavior, the time, the place, and the heart of the power relationship between the actor and target. Undoubtedly, the ingratiation method’s choice is a complex task guided by the actor’s skills and past experiences. For example, a job applicant may choose to engage in self-enhancement to win the selection committee’s attraction. A subordinate worker may show conformity to the supervisor and act accordingly. A political worker may find it appropriate to use other-enhancement to win his leader’s favor. The commonality in all three examples is that all actors are ingratiating to beat the target’s liking. Based on their empirical research, Jones (1964) and his associates (Jones & Wortman, 1973; Jones & Pittman, 1982) formulated the theoretical account of ingratiation and identified three sets of underlying factors determining the use of ingratiation strategies: (i) incentive-value, (ii) subjective probability, and (iii) perceived legitimacy. 5.5 (i) Incentive-value: The target’s importance is critical to motivating the actor to ingratiate. The value of the target generally depends on his power position and resourcefulness. The value of the target person’s resourcefulness to reward determines the actor’s perceived importance of being liked by the target. The actor’s

5.5 Why Ingratiate?

107

assessment of the significance of liking by the target person is a crucial factor motivating him to do his best to win the target’s attraction. Ingratiator attempts to manage the target’s appreciation, which may play a mediating role for some reward, like facilitating promotion to a higher rank, monetary benefits, a good grade in an examination, and a pardon for violation of traffic rules. Jones and Pittman (1982) briefly further explain the complex nature of incentive-value: “This varies directly with the dependence of the actor on the target and inversely with the degree of his power over the target” (p. 237). Jones and Pittman (1982) also argue that most people are generally not indifferent toward others’ attractiveness except for ritualistic relationships. Hence, the incentive value in most of the relationships remains greater than zero. But a lower level of incentive value may not be sufficient to motivate the actor for ingratiation. 5.5 (ii) Subjective probability of success: The incentive value of the ingratiator’s goal and the target’s resources are essential but insufficient for the actor to act. Another critical factor is the ingratiator’s subjective probability of success in the situation. Thus, the actor’s calculation of various ingratiation tactics’ relative success gains significance before actual ingratiation. Jones and Pittman (1982) argue that “the motivational determinant, incentive value, is qualified or constrained by the cognitive determinant, subjective probability, in its effects on behavior” (p. 237). The actor chooses a particular ingratiation strategy based on his assessment of the probability of its success. While calculating the likelihood of success, the actor keeps in mind the inverse probability involving a boomerang effect. For example, a worker may positively calculate a good chance of success for the self-enhancement strategy to manage the boss’s liking. Still, while making such a calculation, he must be careful regarding a possible boomerang effect on the target, who may feel threatened by the actor’s ability. The actor’s dilemma sets in, on the one hand, with the rise of his dependence on the target leading to his increased motivation to ingratiate, and on the other hand, his fear of the adverse reaction of the target, reducing the subjective probability of success. The dilemma occurs because the actor may assess the target’s suspicion of the actor’s ulterior motive, leading to an adverse reaction, a source of the boomerang effect. The ingratiator’s difficulty is to get a liking of the high-power target, but success may be less likely, as stated above. Let us take an example of a junior political worker who desires to win his party’s high-profile leader’s attraction. The worker may think that he may succeed in receiving the high-rank leader’s liking in the party hierarchy using instrumental dependency, raising the subjective probability of success. But the actor may be cautious that the leader may suspect his excessive reliance, and his strategy may ultimately hurt him instead of bringing some reward. Thus, the actor in a dilemma may decide in favor of the policy to wait and see. The influencing process continues, and the actor establishes his credibility by adopting a new strategy. The actor must be alert and ready for twist and turn as the situation unfolds and demands different influencing strategies. 5.5 (iii) Perceived legitimacy: Ingratiation tactics operate under social scrutiny like other social behaviors. Social norms determine as well as constrain ingratiating behaviors. People evaluate social behaviors based on moral and social laws and standards. Before using ingratiation tactics, the actor resolves moral and ethical

108

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

legitimacy issues related to such acts. The general social, ethical considerations also determine decisions to indulge in one or more ingratiation tactics to manage the target’s liking. The actor first convinces himself that tactical social maneuvering is morally justifiable and ethically legitimate. Thus, the perceived legitimacy of social tactics is the third determinant of ingratiation. The perceived legality and social appropriateness of ingratiation tactics are critical factors for an actor to ingratiate (Jones, 1964; Jones & Pittman, 1982). Due to two opposite considerations, the ingratiator often may get in a piquant situation. On the one hand, ingratiation is an illicit social tactic; on the other hand, the actor has to judge such acts as socially legitimate. Such a piquant situation may put the ingratiator in difficulty, and he must resolve with ingenuity and camouflaging his show. Individuals differ in their ethical and moral perspectives of social behaviors. What seems legitimate to a person, others may not see it that way. Sometimes, ambiguities prevail with the perceived legitimacy of ingratiating tactics. Let us take an example of “business ethics” in the business world. The individualistic norms guide salesmen’s behaviors, and their goal is to increase sales of their products. Their business goal is to push sales of the products and achieve the sales target, so they may consider it legitimate to ingratiate the target, influencing them to buy the products. For illustration, take an example of a doctoral student who may follow a different norm to win his mentor’s liking for his thesis work’s speedy completion. The student finds other ways to please the instructor by acting in manners considered illegitimate under the school system. There is also a norm of what “all people do,” allowing general legitimacy to act accordingly. If the target or other bystanders suspect ingratiation tactics, the actors may readily deny insisting that they were acting sincerely without any expectation of favor. For example, let us consider the student’s aims to please the supervisor for speedy completion of thesis work. He may indulge in doing some odd personal work like helping him with daily chores or giving the supervisor gifts (e.g., a packet of sweets). To alleviate any suspicion regarding his sincerity, the student may use some pretext to justify his actions. The student actor may insist on his benign intentions and argue about the social appropriateness of his suspected behaviors. The ingratiators have to be creative to find social justification for their acts (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Pandey, 1986a, 1986b). In this case, the student may say that the supervisor is like his father figure and declare himself part of the supervisor’s family. Therefore, he considers his duty to help with the household chores of the supervisor. As there was a celebration in the family, it is customary to distribute sweets and, therefore, brought a sweets packet for the supervisor’s family. Such acts, as cited above, may not be in all circumstances and may not work with all target persons, even in the Indian context. There may be variations within a culture. The legitimacy variable strongly implicates the role of social norms and cultural variables in ingratiation. Thus, perceived legitimacy is subjective and dependent on an individual’s background and social and cultural ethos, discussed in more detail in Chap. 2. Three determinants, incentive value, probability of success, and perceived legitimacy, by and large, meet certain necessary psychological conditions for the strategic action and answer the question “why one ingratiates?” However, Jones and Pittman (1982) argue that the ingratiation theory does not specify how the three sets of

5.6 Actor’s Perspective

109

factors interact and meet the condition necessary for ingratiating. Three classes of determinants function multiplicatively, and therefore, if any element turns zero, the ingratiation act may not occur. The salience of three significant types of determinants may vary with cultural variations. For example, the target with a feudal background, and similar social and cultural context, may promote ingratiation, determining to some extent the subjective probability of success and perceived legitimacy (Pandey, 1981d, 1986a, 1986b). A democratic and equality-dominated society may not generally legitimize ingratiating acts, and therefore indulgence in such actions may amount to the risk of negative fallouts.

5.6 Actor’s Perspective The actor’s motivation for ingratiation is contingent on his value to the target’s attraction. The value of possible benefits from the target may motivate the actor to ingratiate to manage the target’s interest in himself. Thus, the target’s capacity to reward uniquely determines the actor’s motivation to ingratiate and win the target’s attraction. Jones (1964) suggests that if one person without any other alternative can reward and satisfy the actor, the strength of motive to ingratiate him will be higher than availability of many other targets for this. In scarcity-driven conditions, especially in developing societies, concentration of rewards in a few hands and cutthroat competition are not uncommon (see Chap. 2). Pandey and Rastogi (1979) studied the role of the personality variable Machiavellianism (see Chap. 6) and the situational variable competition versus noncompetition on the practice of ingratiation tactics such as paying compliments for other enhancement and opinion conformity. In the pretested high and low on Machiavellianism, senior engineering students preparing for a job interview participated in an experimental session individually. They were randomly assigned to two experimental conditions representing competitive/noncompetitive hypothetical job interview situations. The participants received instructions that reminded them that they had to launch their professional careers with suitable jobs as they graduated. So, they faced the challenge of obtaining a job, and for it, they may face several personal job interviews. They received instructions to think of a hypothetical interview for a position suitable for their professional qualification. In the noncompetitive interview condition, the participants knew that the number of applicants called for the discussion was around twenty for around forty new available positions. Thus, the participants were impressed that there was no competition except to prove their worth. In the competitive interview condition, the participants were communicated that the number of applicants called for the interview was around twenty, and available job positions were about ten. Participants were impressed that job—interview was highly competitive. The participants of both groups were motivated to handle themselves intelligently during the discussion. As instructed, they rated on a 7-point scale each of four statements related to other-enhancement (i.e., praise, appreciation) of the chairman and members of the interview board and conformity to their opinions and values.

110

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

The results showed that the high Machiavellian participants were more likely to get more opportunities for praising and agreeing with the targets (i.e., interview board members) than the low Machiavellian participants. The experimentally manipulated situational variable, competition versus noncompetition, was significant for opinion and value conformity with the participants in competitive situations showing more willingness to conform to the board members’ views and values than the noncompetitive situations participants. People generally like to hide their open flattery because it may create a low image of their competencies. The graduating participants were probably cautious of such possible interpretation of praising by the target, so they avoided using other enhancement techniques of ingratiation in any obvious way. In competitive situations, the actor probably avoided obvious praising. Presumably, this was true in the case of soon-to-be graduated engineering participants of the study. In such a situation, people may devise more sophisticated tactics to win the attraction of the target. (i) Actor’s tactics vary with the target: The effectiveness of ingratiation strategies may not be equal across different target persons. Therefore, influencing behaviors may vary with the target and changes in the situation. Like any other individual difference, individuals may use influencing skills differently. Some persons are more ingratiating than others across conditions and targets. In other words, one may behave in a more ingratiating manner than others and also remain consistent across different targets. Moreover, individual variations or consistency across various target persons may be due to certain personality dispositions (see Chap. 6). High positive correlations among ingratiation scores across different situations and targets reveal that individuals highly ingratiating toward one target will be the same toward others. Similarly, a less endearing person will remain that way toward different targets. Bohra and Pandey (1984) studied ingratiation strategies toward strangers, friends, and bosses as targets. Male undergraduates (N 110) participants recorded their responses on a fivepoint scale for each item of the questionnaires of 35 statements (five for each of seven ingratiation tactics: other-enhancement, opinion conformity, self-enhancement, selfdepreciation, instrumental dependency, name dropping, and situation-specific behaviors), measuring ingratiating behaviors toward three hypothetical target person––a stranger, a friend, and a boss for seeking attention, rewards, and possible benefits. The results revealed that for different target persons, ingratiation tactics varied. The participants showed significantly higher responses on all seven ingratiation strategies toward the boss target than the stranger and the friend. Ingratiation responses toward the stranger and the friend targets differed for other enhancement, name-dropping, and situation-specific strategies. Other-enhancement and situationspecific strategies responses were higher for the friend than for the strangers. Name dropping tactic was higher for the stranger than for the friend. The results are consistent with earlier studies’ findings that people are inclined to use more ingratiation with high-status persons (Jones et al., 1963). In a hierarchical society like India, individuals behave in ingratiating ways toward a resourceful target boss (Pandey, 1986a). Interestingly, other enhancement, a less risky strategy, was used more for the friends than for the strangers. Name-dropping was adopted more for

5.6 Actor’s Perspective

111

the strangers. Name-dropping was an effective, safe tactic for a stranger target who may not know much about the ingratiator’s social connections. On the other hand, a friend would be familiar with the ingratiator’s social relationships. High positive correlations for all seven ingratiation tactics across three targets indicated the stability of ingratiating behaviors. The positive correlations of ingratiating responses across the different target persons suggest that dispositional characteristics were responsible for consistent endearing behaviors. (ii) Social power through ingratiation: The powerholder has been a popular topic in social psychological research. However, some studies have focussed on the powerless low-status subordinates and their use of behavioral tactics like ingratiation to improve their influence and control on the high-status powerful others. For example, socially, low-status subordinate employees may use ingratiating behavioral tactics to influence and control other high-status influential people’s attraction as part of the more extensive social manipulation to gain some favors. In other words, a powerless subordinate worker devises the use of suitable ingratiation strategies to influence and control an influential target’s decision. Thus, a helpless worker gains invisible power through ingratiation. A junior worker’s efficient use of ingratiation affects the powerful authority, who awards the worker’s desired goal. The worker’s choice of ingratiation strategies helps him manage his dependence on the boss and control the target boss (Jones & Wortman, 1973; Pandey, 1981d; Pandey & Kakkar, 1982b). The ingratiator’s wisely selected ingratiation tactics limit the powerholder’s discretion to reward the subordinates. In reality, this analysis of such intriguing social interactions suggests that the ingratiating assistant is more potent than the person holding a powerful position because he can curtail the powerful’s decision freedom. Still, the powerful may continue to live in the illusion that he is all-powerful (Steiner, 1970). Pandey and his associates (Pandey, 1986a, Pandey & Kakkar, 1982b) studied the prevalence of ingratiation in the workplace and its possible use by the powerless or people in general for influence to control the target’s attraction and decisions (see Box No 5.3). The results of Pandey’s (1981b) field experiment suggested that ingratiating tactics controlled and limited the decision freedom of other influential people who enjoyed the power to give payoffs. The workers showed ingratiation tactics as an exchange and influence mechanism. In reality, the subordinates’ ingratiation tactics reduced the power of the target. The ingratiator equipped with his unique tactics extracts undeserved gains by limiting the decision freedom of the powerful, who may not always be aware of what is going on and may continue psychologically experiencing the significance of his high position and power. Chapter 1 briefly discusses the results of Pandey and Kakkar’s (1982a) study that ingratiation in Indian society is a ubiquitous phenomenon. In Pandey and Kakkar’s (1982a) study, participants completed the Social Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ) twice at an interval of a week. In the first round, the participants responded to the instructions requiring them to complete the SBQ to record “how they behave in the community with others.” After a week, the participants again completed the same SBQ to “become more influential over others in the community.” Thus, instructions emphasized completing the questionnaire to reflect behaviors to fulfill the community’s stated purpose of influence and

112

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

control. The participants’ ingratiation responses for all seven ingratiation tactics (i.e., other enhancement, opinion conformity, self-enhancement, self-degradation, name dropping, changing with situations, and instrumental dependency) were significantly higher in the influence and control condition than in the condition of the neutral instruction. The results were unambiguously consistent with earlier research (Pandey, 1981b), supporting that people opt to ingratiate to become influential in the community. In brief, ingratiation tactics are functional for influencing and controlling others in Indian society.

Box No. 5.3: Social Power Through Ingratiation Pandey (1981b) studied the possible use of ingratiation with a design to control the target’s behavior by technical and nontechnical senior and junior employees of India’s engineering educational institution. It is common to observe that junior employees use ingratiation to influence and control the senior authority’s decisions. Experimental instructions asked the participants to think about their behavioral strategies for influencing their boss. It was predicted that there would be an increase in ingratiating behaviors in such a hypothetical situation. Method: Seventy-six male workers and nonacademic supervisors were the participants. The study’s design was 2 × 2 × 2 factorial involving two technical and non-technical background levels, two levels of job seniority of workers, and two levels of experimental instructions. There were 19 subjects in each of the 4 conditions. The Social Behaviour Questionnaire (Scale), a 20-item fivepoint scale, measured 6 styles of ingratiating behavior (other enhancement, opinion conformity, self-enhancement, name dropping, changing with situations, and instrumental dependency). The scale consisted of four items, each for opinion conformity and other enhancement (scores range 4–20) and for others (scores range 3–15). The investigator approached the participants individually to complete the questionnaire to measure how they generally behave at their workplace. They were asked to read each statement carefully and then rate the statement on a five-point scale ranging from entirely true (5) to false (1). After completing the task and a brief pause, each participant read the second instructions, communicating that some people have relatively more influence over the authorities; while holding a subordinate position, they even exert some control over their boss. Perhaps, these people control their superiors based on their behavioral skills and style. Each participant received instruction to think of himself being in such a situation, where the objective was to influence the boss and accordingly decide on behavioral strategies for it. With the stated goals in mind, they completed the questionnaire. Results and Discussion: The most striking results revealed significantly more ingratiation, especially other enhancement, and changes with situational demands by the junior than the senior workers. The technical workers showed significantly more opinion conformity than the nontechnical workers. When

5.7 Target’s Perspectives

113

asked to complete the measures to influence and control the target, the participants showed greater ingratiation on all strategies than completing the questionnaire as typical normal behaviors. The results imply that the participants believed in the usefulness of ingratiation tactics to influence and control their superiors, and therefore they recorded a higher preference for their ingratiating behaviors. Pandey (1981d) concluded, “Thus, ingratiation seems to function like counterfeit coins or coins of a wrong denomination used to cheat the slot machine to receive the payoffs” (p. 67). The subordinate workers ingratiated significantly more than senior workers, further supporting earlier findings. In effect, ingratiation reduces the decision freedom of the target and, by implication, reduces his power (Steiner, 1970). Accordingly, the ingratiator gains more implied control over the target person in the form of his increased attraction and favor.

5.7 Target’s Perspectives In the dyadic ingratiation social interchange, both the actor and his target person constitute essential roles that require independent consideration because they differ in their psychological perspectives. Ingratiation typically comprises the actor and the target; the actor delivers praiseworthy compliments to the target, who must receive and respond. Ingratiation’s success lies in the target’s liking and possibly favoring the actor. Psychologically, for the ingratiating actor, the target person is necessary. The actor directs his ingratiation tactics toward the target, whose attraction and positive responses reinforce such behaviors to occur repeatedly. The target has to judge the actor’s intention and purpose of compliments hurled at him. The target may be impressed by the genuineness of the actor’s praises and respond with his liking. Thus, the target’s social acceptance, reinforcement, and approval are critical factors for any social behavior’s stability, in the present case, ingratiation tactics (Staats, 1975; Pandey, 1986a). The target’s liking and positive responses toward the actor encourage him and others to learn the functionality of ingratiation practices, facilitating its perpetuation in the larger community. Jones and his colleagues (Jones, 1964; Jones et al., 1963) highlight the target person’s cognitive and affective processes, including his perception and evaluation of the ingratiator. Sometimes, the target can see through the actor’s manipulative intent, but he may decide to provide face-saving to the actor and not speak out about how he assesses the actor. Jones (1964) explains, “…the target person is apt to cover up his true feelings about the ingratiator and conceal from him any suspicions of the ingratiator’s intention” (p. 189). The ingratiator finds it challenging to read the target’s mind and regulate his tactical behaviors in such a situation. Simultaneously, the target person may have difficulty balancing his negative and suspicious private attitudes toward the actor

114

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

and behave positively toward him. Dickoff (1961) found that the target of flattery is attracted to a person (ingratiator) offering lavish praise if he is not dependent on the target for help. The implications of Dickoff’s (1961) findings suggest that the nondependent complimenters are more likely to attract the target. The target’s attribution of manipulative intent to the ingratiator makes him feel negatively for the actor. The target’s positive response and liking of the ingratiator seem to determine his credible rating of compliments (Dickoff, 1961). The ingratiation research has mainly focused on the actor’s perspective and does not elaborate much on the target and bystanders (Jones, 1964; Jones & Wortman, 1973; Jones & Pittman, 1982). Pandey (1986a, 1986b) emphasized that along with the actor, the study of the target’s cognitive, motivational, and affective perspectives for a comprehensive understanding of ingratiation. The target’s acquiescence to such behavior motivates the actor to ingratiate, influencing acts. This chapter highlights Pandey and his colleagues’ (Pandey & Bohra, 1986; Pandey & Kakkar, 1982b; Pandey & Singh, 1987) work on both the actor and the target in non-western Indian contexts, mostly ignored with a few exceptions (e.g., Gordon, 1996) by the west-dominated social psychology. To achieve his objective, the actor makes efforts with the best ingratiation strategies to influence the target’s cognitive and affective responses in his favor. Pandey (1986a) elaborates, “Probably the ingratiator as a master tactician knows that successful management of the positive affective state of the target might operate in a manner that would render the target more helpful and rewarding” (p. 220). The target’s positive affective arousal, liking, and responses to the actor are effective ingratiation indicators. The target may experience overwhelmed and respond positively to the actor. The target’s affective arousal blurs his cognitive functioning, and thus, he may fail to perceive the intention and manipulative actions of the actor objectively. Under affective arousal, the target may not understand what is happening in reality. The target becomes a victim of the actor’s well-crafted social manipulation, gets unduly attracted, and makes favorable decisions. The target’s positive response to the actor further encourages the actor to indulge in ingratiation, perpetuating such behaviors in society. The actor’s ingratiating acts make the target experience pleasure and express his liking and favor to the actor. Typically, when the actor ingratiates (e.g., other enhancement, conformity), the target experiences elevated self-esteem feelings. Under such a positive state, he does not suspect any selfish design of the actor. Also, the target may not see the actor’s manipulative hidden intent in his acts. Although the boss target is a victim of ingratiation, he appreciates and rewards his ingratiating assistant out of the way. The target attributes the ingratiator as the source of his positive affect, so he feels obligated to like and reward him. In the Indian context, the target in power positions considers successful ingratiators as their people (Apana Admi). So, he (target) continues favoring the actors more in many ways than other people (Parya Adami), which further motivates the ingratiator to flatter the target. (Sinha, 2014). Of course, this promotes a vicious cycle of flattery at the cost of institutional work and productivity. It is also not uncommon to observe that though the target finds the flattery obvious, exaggerated, and embarrassing, he continues to favor the ingratiator. In hierarchical

5.7 Target’s Perspectives

115

and feudal organizations, the targets may know what is going on, and the actors are ingratiating; they still allow ingratiators to hang around and continue praising them. The political leaders hire supporters and encourage them to flatter their positive image to the masses publicly. The socio-political context of the Indian society is such (see Chap. 2) that the ingratiators and their targets mutually serve each other’s purpose. The actor may indulge in unscrupulous ingratiation by making undeserved compliments and presenting the distorted reality to please the target who appreciates it, spreading a false image that helps the target’s political survival in society. In return, the target rewards the actor. This reciprocal relationship between the actor and the target flourishes and promotes the culture of ingratiation. Jones and Wortman (1973) have also observed excessive compliments to the target work as sources of his distorted, inaccurate inference. Thus, the actor’s ingratiation influences the target person’s cognitively and affectively. However, the affected target person will depend on attributing to the ingratiator’s motivation and intention (Jones & Wortman, 1973). If the target person accepts the ingratiator’s compliments and comments at face value, these comments may affect his view of reality and overall cognition of himself and the world. The ingratiator’s opinion conformity may lead the target to construct an ill-founded distorted reality. People attach more importance to a person’s behaviors than to others. The ingratiator loses his credibility if the target discovers that the actor also acts toward others in the same way. Ingratiation to be effective, the target must believe that the actor’s ingratiating acts are mostly only toward him. Therefore, a brilliant actor personalizes his strategy to convince the target that he is dependent only on him for help. Thus, the actor leads his ingratiating acts to one target to be effective. The powerful targets rarely get a chance to know the truth of the matter because they mostly remain surrounded by the flatterers who are more interested in telling him the pleasant things and not the realities existing in the situation. The targets enjoy listening to the flatterers’ unrealistic praises, inflating self-images. This analysis may have far-reaching consequences at the societal level if the target person holds an authority position of governance (Thibaut & Kelly, 1959). The ingratiator, like a sycophant, may praise, imitate, and conform to the influential person to win his attraction and favor. As a result, the target person may experience heightened affective arousal, a distorted perception of realities, leading to wrong judgments and favoring undeserving people surrounding him. The most important issue is understanding the changes that facilitate the target person’s attraction toward the ingratiator. Thus, the vital question that needs explanation is how the target’s cognitive and affective changes enable his interest in the ingratiator. Rogers’ (1959) personality theory provides a possible cause. Rogers assumes that people are motivated to evaluate themselves favorably and, for this reason, are attracted to those people who ingratiate and raise their self-enhancement. The ingratiator uses other enhancement and conformity to please and let the target experience elevated self-esteem and positive affect. Under the influence of a positive affective state, the target likes the facilitator (i.e., ingratiator) of such incidents. Heider’s (1958) cognitive balance theory also provides another possible explanation to this intriguing question, suggesting that liking of others increases once we know

116

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

the other’s positive evaluation of ourselves. The ingratiator probably manages the target’s liking and favor by providing positive evaluations toward him. Another alternative explanation, which we would like to advocate, is related to the target person’s affective state. The reinforcement-affect model (Clore & Byrne, 1974) and reinforcement-model (Lott & Lott, 1972) explain interpersonal liking and affective relationships. Clore and Byrne’s (1974) model stresses the role of affective state and conditioning in liking between people. According to the model, reinforcing events or stimuli that evoke positive affect are appreciated, and negative affect triggers are disliked. We want to extend the reinforcement-affect model explanation to understand the target’s affective changes and responses to ingratiation. The ingratiator’s positive evaluation of the target arouses positive affect in him, who in return feels attracted toward the source of the positive affective state. Research on attraction suggests that positive-affective conditions, which mediate with attraction, may be created, for example, by the conformity of opinion (Byrne, 1971). The ingratiator tactfully covers up his real intention to appear genuine to the target. The target accepts the ingratiator’s compliments at face value impacting, his view of reality and overall cognition of himself and the world. In sum, the actor’s compliments and praise to the target get in him positive-affective arousal that mediates to induce attraction and positive responses toward the ingratiator. Pandey and Kakkar (1982b) studied the role of the actor’s other-enhancement ingratiation tactics on the target’s affective and other responses (Box 5.4). The results showed that the targets’ (participants) affective changes mediate different behaviors and ratings toward ingratiators. Compared to the non-ingratiated participants, the participants who received compliments and praises reported higher positive feelings, rated workers higher on attraction, and a more positive role in improving interpersonal climate and productivity. The results reported generalized effects of the mediating part of the affective feeling state. The participants exposed to ingratiation rated the workers with a higher possibility of success and promotion than the non-ingratiating condition counterparts. Also, the ingratiated participants showed more willingness to help and were awarded higher wages to the worker than the non-ingratiated participants. The findings suggest that ingratiation induces positive affective changes in the target and mediates decision-making to reward. Box No. 5.4: Target Person’s Perspective: Affect, Attraction, and Evaluation Pandey and Kakkar (1982b) studied the high and low-status supervisors’ affective responses toward the ingratiator and non-ingratiator in a simulated situation to understand affective, cognitive, evaluative, and attraction responses to ingratiating and non-ingratiating workers. Method: The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions (2 × 2 factorial design) with high/low status of the supervisor

5.7 Target’s Perspectives

117

and ingratiating/non-ingratiating feedback to the participants. Each participant was assigned a high or low-status supervisor’s role. The participants in their supervisory roles were required to write instructions for constructing the Wiggly–Block-Test task. The experimenter was the messenger between the supervisor and the worker. He delivered the supervisor’s instructions to the worker (confederate) sitting on the other side of a portioned room and the worker’s Feedback Form back to the supervisor. The experimenter passed on to the participants(supervisors) the confederate’s (worker) bogus evaluations of instructions. Briefly, a 7-item Feedback Form consisted of a 5-point scale (extreme positive = 5, extreme negative = 1, and neutral point = 3) to evaluate the supervisor’s instructions. These items were related to the ambiguity, helpfulness, logical sequence, and instructions ratings. Three other items concerned the supervisor’s competence, the worker’s acceptance of the supervisor, and overall supervisory ability. For ingratiating and non-ingratiating conditions, a pre-planned schedule consisted of the proportions of positive and negative items. For other-enhancement ingratiating conditions, the Feedback Form had five items (0.72) positively, 1 item (0.14) as neutral, and 1 item (0.14) negatively. For the non-ingratiating condition, the Feedback Form included five items (0.72) negative, 1 item (0.14) neutral, and 1 item (0.14) positive. Two schedules of different proportions of positive and negative evaluations of the supervisor’s instructions helped to provide participants (work supervisors) a convincing type of ingratiating/non-ingratiating feedback. The Feedback Form’s items chosen to be positively or negatively ranked were randomly varied in both conditions to avoid any irrelevant item bias. Several Feedback Form sets were completed in advance (Griffitt & Byrne, 1970; Byrne, 1971). However, the Feedback Form always yielded scores of 29 and 13 in ingratiation and non-ingratiation conditions, respectively. In brief, manipulation of other-enhancement ingratiation was done with great care. Dependent measures: Each participant, as required, studied the Feedback Form supposedly completed by the worker and then rated his feelings on an eight 7-point semantic-differential feeling scale on the following dimensions: active–passive, happy-sad, negative–positive, comfortable-uncomfortable, bad-good, tense-relaxed, non-affiliative-affiliative, and pleasant-unpleasant and also judged the worker who supposedly had completed the Feedback Form on the Interpersonal Judgment Scale (IJS, 7-point scale) with such items as intelligence, morality, adjustment, personal feelings, working together in an experiment (Byrne, 1971). IJS included additional items like acceptance as a worker, role in an interpersonal relationship, climate, productivity, desire to help, success possibility in the organization, and promotion to gauge the supervisors’ broad reactions to ingratiating or non-ingratiating workers. Finally, the participants also suggested per day wage of the worker.

118

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

Results and discussion: The results showed that participants in the experimentally manipulated other-enhancement ingratiation condition showed significantly higher self-reported positive-affect (M = 47.25) than the participants in the non-ingratiation condition (M = 26.68) F = 153.16, P < 0.01). The findings supported the hypothesis that ingratiation effectively influenced positive feelings in the target. The supervisors showed significantly higher attraction toward the other-enhancing worker than the non-ingratiating worker. The participants (supervisors) as recipients of ingratiation significantly positively rated the workers higher on intelligence, morality, adjustment, personal feelings, and working together than the participants of non-ingratiators condition. The main effect of the supervisor’s power status significantly influenced only the “working together,” an attraction measure. The participants of otherenhancement conditions evaluated the worker significantly more positively than the non-ingratiating condition, with more acceptance, a positive role in the interpersonal climate, productivity, and willingness to help, contributing to success and readiness for promotion. The participants recommended significantly higher wages for the ingratiating worker than the non-ingratiating. The results demonstrate that other enhancement ingratiation tactics affectively and cognitively influence the target. The ingratiated participants showed significantly higher self-reported positive affect than the negatively evaluated participants. People have mostly positive views of themselves, and thus, when they are ingratiated, this further enhances their selfesteem and makes them feel good, even if they do not fully trust all the praise they receive. The target cognitively may suspect the actor’s honor, but still, he positively judges the actor because he made him feel good. The actor’s ingratiation tactics positively affect the target person’s self-esteem and make him feel good. Byrne et al. (1974) also demonstrated similar linkages between affective-state and ingratiation. The targets may differ in how the actor’s ingratiation tactics influence them and their differential response. For example, the target’s personality disposition and position power status may determine his reactions to the actor’s ingratiation. Among many factors associated with the target determining cognitive and affective responses toward the ingratiator, the target’s Machiavellian personality disposition and power position were studied by Pandey and Singh (1987). They conducted a simulated experiment on pretested high and low Machiavellian participants (supervisor), whose assigned power positions were high or low. They had the opportunity to respond to either ingratiating or non-ingratiating actors. The participants (targets of ingratiation) as supervisors reported positive affective states, attraction and evaluated more positively the ingratiating than non-ingratiating actors (workers). Besides, the target (supervisors) showed greater liking, empathy, and helpfulness to the ingratiating than the non-ingratiating workers. Pandey and Singh’s (1987) findings imply that other-enhancement-ingratiation induced positive affect in the target, and that led to his(target) favorable evaluation and other positive kinds of behaviors (e.g., higher

5.8 Bystander’s Perspective

119

wages) for the ingratiating actors (workers). The target supervisors whom the actor workers ingratiated also reported an enhanced feeling of power than the target supervisors who were not ingratiated. Pandey and Singh (1987) summarize, “…ingratiation not only produced positive affect, it also made the target person feel powerful, important, and influential” (p. 297). The high-power position targets also reported a higher feeling of power than the low-power position targets. The actors’ ingratiation effects were more significant on the low Mach than the high Mach targets. It seems pretty consistent with low Mach’s personality makeup, who are emotionally sensitive, so they got carried by the ingratiator’s other-enhancement tactics. On the other hand, high Mach targets were alert and could see through manipulating act of the actor and did not get carried away (Tripathi, 1981). Chapter 6 examines the role of personality disposition Machiavellianism in ingratiation at length. Pandey and Singh’s (1987) findings imply that all people do not respond similarly to ingratiating actors. The target’s power position, personality disposition, and sociocultural factors may explain the complex question related to responses to ingratiation. The findings are in accord with other studies conducted under the reinforcementaffect model’s general framework (Clore & Byrne, 1974). Golightly et al. (1972) found that liked others received larger financial loans than disliked others. Similarly, Pandey and Griffitt (1974) have demonstrated that positive affect and attraction mediate helping behaviors. The source of the targets’ positive affect becomes the recipient of positive evaluations and rewards. It seems that the ingratiator who manages to create a positive affective state in the target subsequently becomes the recipient of dividends and gains from him (the target). These findings seem helpful in understanding the target person’s reactions to the ingratiator.

5.8 Bystander’s Perspective Although ingratiation is primarily an individual-to-individual social interaction between the actor and his target, it may take place in the privacy of others or in full view of bystanders. At times it can be partly both. For example, a junior colleague may ingratiate the boss during his private meeting or in the presence of others. Even if such interactions take place in privacy, sooner or later, directly or indirectly, the fallouts of such episodes enter public domains. Besides the actor and the target, the bystanders (observers)may be curious about what is happening. A bystander observes the other person’s ingratiating behaviors to the target and does not receive compliments. Thus, a bystander is an uninvolved observer in a flattery context, with a different but relevant perspective in most situations. They may respond overtly or covertly, either in an encouraging or discouraging manner, to such behavior, and their responses may contribute to forming social norms for ingratiating behaviors in society. The bystander observes how an undeserving actor uses endearing tactics to please the powerful target and control his attraction resulting in some reward. The ingratiation interactions episode involving the actor, the target, and the bystander

120

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

provides social learning opportunities to the larger society. As discussed earlier, the perceived social legitimacy is a critical aspect of the ingratiation theory (Jones & Pitman, 1982, Jones & Wortman, 1973). The bystander’s evaluation of ingratiation episodes plays an essential role in defining ingratiation’s social legitimacy. Often, people in their social life observe the persons engaged in manipulative behaviors, evaluate them, and attribute causes to their manipulative acts. The study of observers’ (bystanders) evaluation of the actor (ingratiator) is vital for understanding social legitimacy and social understanding of the prevalence of flattery in society. There are pieces of evidence suggesting that a bystander and the target differ in their evaluation of the ingratiator (Jones, Gergen, & Jones, 1963). A bystander generally evaluated suspected conformists more negatively (Jones et al., 1963). The bystander has the advantage of having information regarding another person’s ingratiating overtures without being himself the recipient of compliments. Therefore, he remains more alert than the target in judging the manipulative intent of the ingratiator. Pandey and Bohra’s (1986b) experiment partly supports the contention that bystanders negatively evaluated the ingratiator and showed a greater liking for the non-ingratiator. Pandey and Singh’s (refer to Box 5.4) findings imply that the observers negatively perceived others’ manipulative behavior, because they were not participants in the social episode either as an actor or a target. They did not receive compliments from the actor and remained alert and insightful enough to read the actor’s real intentions. The findings support the earlier contention of Pandey and Bohra (1986b) and Jones et al. (1963) that a bystander would evaluate a suspected ingratiating actor more negatively than nonmanipulative actors. Pandey and Singh (1987) further argue that a bystander is a neutral observer because he is neither engaged in manipulative acts nor is the target of such acts. It is natural for observers to differ in evaluating actors’ various actions (i.e., manipulative, Machiavellian, nonmanipulative), and the target’s positive or negative decisions. Pandey and Singh (1987) studied the observers’ perception and attribution of the actors’ manipulative (i.e., ingratiation and Machiavellianism) behaviors and outcomes (success/failure). Thus, the observers may evaluate success and failure outcomes, based on the targets’ positive or negative decisions differently, for manipulative and nonmanipulative behaviors. The bystanders’ perspective is about how observers directly or indirectly influence a mediating force that impacts the actor, the target, or both. As a somewhat detached person, the observer has different perspectives of the situation. He may see through the actor’s intention and manipulative strategies to influence the target. The observers of ingratiation have a different perspective because they are not the recipients of praise and compliments. The most credible explanation of why the target responds more positively to the ingratiator than the observer is related to the self-enhancement motive (Gordon 1996; Vonk, 2002). The targets show bias because they want to believe in compliments received about themselves, so they respond positively to the ingratiator (Pandey & Singh, 1987). The bystander observer does not suffer from such bias, and therefore they tend to attribute ulterior motives and negative opinions to the flatterer (Vonk, 2002). They, therefore, easily suspect the actor’s natural reason.

5.8 Bystander’s Perspective

121

The observers see some undeserved gains through the actor’s manipulation of the resourceful and powerful target. The actor’s instrumental use of dependency attempts to make the target believe that he (i.e., target) is the savior for the helpless, dependent actor, like a benevolent parent (Mai-Bap). It is challenging for the actor to conceal his real intent. The observer quickly understands how the actor intends to ingratiate to escape from the required hard work. It is more evident to the bystanders that all manipulations are at the cost of institutional productivity. The uninvolved bystanders can also judge what is going on between the actor and the target. The observer can also see how the ingratiator manipulates the situation, and the target rewards the undeserving actor. In his Netherlands study, Vonk (1998) found that people are wary about ingratiation, for which the common Dutch word is slime. Vonk (1998) found that generally, the targets of ingratiation are the people with powerful positions. Typically, they fail to see how the subordinates manipulatively behave toward the targets, their boss. The slimy assistants may quickly get away by hiding their intention behind the act of manipulation. But an observer can see how the ingratiator behaves pleasantly with the target, differently from his conduct with others. Pandey and Bohra (1986b) studied how the bystanders evaluate an ingratiating and non-ingratiating person. Thus, the bystander’s perspective to judging the ingratiator is different from the target person who receives compliments directly. In such a situation, the bystander’s ego and face-work (Goffman, 1955) are not involved because there are no direct ingratiating interactions of the bystander with the actor. Forty-eight male undergraduates (i.e., participants) evaluated the completed questionnaire to present as an ingratiating or non-ingratiating employees. Pandey and Kakkar (1982b) used Byrne’s (1971) adopted simulated stranger approach to manipulate the ingratiating versus non-ingratiating experimental conditions. The participants differed significantly in evaluating the hypothetical employees who had supposedly completed the questionnaire either in the ingratiating or non-ingratiating ways. The participants assessed the ingratiating employees (actors) as less moral and less productive than the non-ingratiating. The participants who evaluated the ingratiating type of person showed negative personal feelings, disliked working together, and were less willing to help than those who assessed the non-ingratiating type. The overall results showed that the participants’(bystanders) attraction to the ingratiating type person was less than the non-ingratiating. However, in terms of adjustment, the ingratiating style was evaluated more adjusted than the non-ingratiating type. The findings related to adjustment are not surprising in the Indian social context; ingratiation is pervasive and acceptable in social life (Pandey, 1980b). Summarizing the findings, Pandey and Bohra (1986b) comment, “… a person who is just observing an ingratiator remains more objective and uninvolved in assessing ingratiating overtures and therefore, evaluates the ingratiator negatively (p. 27)”. The bystander not directly involved in ingratiating interactions critically evaluates the actor. He suspects the conformist ingratiator and thus judges him negatively. In the continuity of our earlier findings (Pandey & Kakkar, 1982b; Pandey & Bohra, 1986b), we summarize

122

5 Ingratiation for Self-enhancement

that a target who receives compliments experiences positive affective arousal, evaluates positively, and is attracted to the ingratiator. The observer is neither the actor nor the target of compliments, and considers both the ingratiator and his prey differently. How does an observer judge whether ingratiation is authentic or not? It is difficult for an observer to judge the genuineness of compliments of an ingratiator. The observer’s perception and evaluation of the context, the actor, and the target determine his attributions to ingratiation. The observer perceives the actor’s lavish praise as intentional to gain something from the target (Gordon, 1996; Vonk, 1998). In this sense, flattery is a relationship between the giver (actor) and the receiver (target) of compliments. The degree of dependence between the giver and receiver of compliments determines the observer’s suspicion of the actor’s ulterior motive (Williams et al., 2004). In some cases, the observer may believe that compliments are sincere and the target deserves praise (Vonk, 2002). Besides the target’s deservingness, other factors like the timing of the compliments may also determine the perception of sincerity (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000). For example, after the target has purchased the product, the salesman praising the target (customer) may be judged as sincere by the observer. Main et al. (2007) have used the term ‘genuine flattery’ observed in the world of sales. After purchase flattery, may not be without any purpose, and its purpose of planning and execution may be for a long-term relationship with the customer and future investment. It should be clear that “sincerity” is the bystander’s perception and not the actor’s actual intent. Thus, the perception of sincerity varies in degree, and it is not absolute in terms of either-or. In recent years, marketing research using strategic flattery by salesman has provided new insights. The social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) has been widely used to explain and understand various social behaviors. People constantly compare with salient others, and such comparison may be higher or lower in status or achievements (Tesser, 1988). Some studies have reported that describing other persons with inflated praises or degradation may encourage an observer to compare (e.g., Van de Ven et al., 2011). The social comparison theory explains that the bystander’s perception and evaluation of the ingratiator, and the target receiving compliments on dimensions that he values, induces the bystander to make an upward social comparison, resulting in unpleasant feelings of envy in him toward the target of comparison (Tesser, 1988). Envy represents a sense of frustration, wanting something one does not have, and therefore, it causes adverse reactions toward the target of comparison (Cohen-Charrash & Mueller, 2007; Smith & Kim, 2007). Chan and Sengupta (2013) argue that the observer’s upward comparison cause unpleasantness that induces him to react adversely. Such adverse response does not remain restricted to the person of envy (target of flattery); the adverse reactions get transferred and extended to the flatterer, responsible for making the comparison salient. The observer sees the flatterer as an agent of enhancing the target’s image, an object of comparison and envy. Thus, the envy-ridden observer resents the person ingratiating the target of comparison. The bystander’s dislike of the flatterer is similar to ‘kill-the-messenger’ effect phenomenon (Byrne, 1969). The question arises of how to reconcile the above with other related findings (Vonk, 1998, 2002), suggesting that the observers show

5.8 Bystander’s Perspective

123

regard for sincere flattery. To resolve the observers’ two kinds of reactions, Chan and Sengupta (2013) drew on the dual attitude theory (Petty et al., 2007) to reconcile the ambiguity. On the one hand, they argue that sincerity considerations lead the bystanders to an explicit positive attitude toward sincere ingratiator. On the other hand, this positive attitude coexists with the automatic negative response arising due to social comparison. Chan and Sengupta (2013) suggest that the bystander has simultaneously explicit favorable attitudes and implicit adverse reactions toward the ingratiator and the target. Chan and Sengupta (2013) explain how observers perceive the flatterer’s ingratiation and respond to him and his target. They argue that the flatterer’s praising the target person could be sincere and genuine, or it could be to serve some ulterior motive. Perception of the flatterer’s sincerity in honoring the target determines the observer’s reactions (Campbell & Kimmani, 2000), with relatively sincere flattery producing a positive response toward the flatterer (Vonk, 2002). Chan and Sengupta (2013) combined research on social comparison (Campbell & Kimmani, 2000) and dual attitudes (Petty et al., 2007) to conclude that observing sincere flattery yields two distinct reactions. Chan and Sengupta (2013) briefly conclude, “While considerations of sincerity indeed yield a favorable overt (explicit) attitude, the upward comparison inherent in observing someone else bring flattered produces an automatic negative reaction, further this implicit attitude coexists with, rather than being replaced by, explicit attitude (p. 755).” The chapter attempts to scratch the intricacies of understanding ingratiation, which has existed as the most sophisticated and crude method of winning and controlling others in human history. Influencing and winning others is to remain an everchanging social phenomenon so are our efforts for greater understanding. Ingratiation is mutually beneficial, so it perpetuates in the Indian context.

Chapter 6

Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

A person who cannot decide his goal simply cannot win. Chanakya

The discourse so far makes it abundantly clear that interactions of the personality dispositions of the influencing agent, characteristics associated with the target, and the situation impact social influence processes. The situational variables occupy a more significant share relative to personal dispositions in social influence research. We commonly observe how a situation prevails on a person requiring him to act as per situational demand. Still, individuals work differently in a similar case due to variations in their personality disposition. The choice of a specific kind of influence act is the outcome of the interactive effect of an individual’s personality and the situation. For example, an authoritarian person thrives in a hierarchical organization because he is comfortable alternating his tactics by remaining submissive to his boss and dominant to his subordinates. Due to personality trait differences, individuals differ in their intent, motivations, efforts, and tactics for influencing and controlling others. This chapter begins with a discussion on the nature of manipulative behavior, followed by presenting an overview of relevant personality traits like authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, five-factor model, internal–external control, determining influence processes.

6.1 Nature of Manipulative Social Behavior People who successfully manipulate their physical and social environments win the competition. People interact, cooperate, compete, conflict, and win others in their favor in the social world. In the competitive environment, the process of natural selection goes on, and successful manipulators are generally winners. Children manipulate parents to be fed, warm, and secure. The parents manage the children to learn new skills to successfully adapt to the challenging environment to reach adulthood. People manipulate the situation to get resources in a scarce world to survive and adopt tactics to win a mate of their choice. Thus, manipulation of others is purposive © Indian Council of Social Science Research 2022 J. Pandey, Nature and Dynamics of Social Influence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4598-4_6

125

126

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

for desired goals. Evolutionary theory suggests that manipulation is a significant key to success for competitors, allies, friends, offspring, lovers, and others (Krebs & Dawkins, 1984). Evolutionary biologist Buss (1986) argues that manipulative tactics are goals directed at resource acquisition, alliance formation, mates, and nepotistic investment. In competitive economic life, people prefer to join those whose interests make investment decisions. People who successfully manipulate nonliving and living objects, including people of their environment, win in the natural selection race (Buss et al., 1987). Thus, manipulation in the biological evolutionary sense is inevitable. Manipulation originates from the Latin word “manipulare” which means to manage with skill competently. However, the term “manipulative” generally carries a negative connotation and a pejorative meaning, involving harmful influence over others. The use of manipulation for the present purpose is value-neutral; in other words, the intention of the manipulator may be either to help the target or to get some undue advantages. People prefer to endorse alternate words like “interpersonal skills” and “ability to handle others.” As evident, these terms have subtle conceptual distinctions. So, for the present purpose, manipulation is an inclusive term for positive and negative intentions and consequences. Parents and mentors manipulate their children or disciples to help them grow. Nonprofit organizations and companies with ethical practices exploit and persuade people to achieve positive change for themselves and society. For example, induction of conventional manners and morality in children by parents is desirable and valuable for the children themselves. The children, during their socialization, acquire virtues and values for which they may incur some cost by giving up some pleasure. The parents benefit from the right kind of growing-up of the children, and they feel “satisfaction.” The positive side of manipulation is intended good for the target and society. While discussing the adverse effects of manipulation, the readers must not forget its positive side. The objective is not to judge manipulative behavior as right or wrong as it is evident that all such behaviors are not evils. Some manipulation is necessary to survive in the competitive world and morally correct to assist the target proactively (Geis, 1979). Professional psychologists use psychological theories and techniques-based manipulation to help those who need their services to get over their mental disorders and other behavioral problems. Psychologists and other social scientists play a role and manipulate others for positive changes in people and society. Societal leaders and reformers also suitably manipulate the context to impact individuals and society positively. Manipulative social behaviors are pervasive in various walks of our social life to influence, win, and control others. Regardless of intention and goals, manipulation is a powerful weapon for influencing and controlling others. The question is why people engage in manipulating others for their selfish ends. Some people may go to any extent to advance their gains at any cost to others. Those driving for power and superiority in relationships or their work organization manipulate others and situations to increase their control. They need to feel that they have authority because it helps them to maintain their self-esteem.

6.1 Nature of Manipulative Social Behavior

127

The manipulator pursues his interest and exploits others’ hard work, expertise, and other resources. The manipulator’s first attempt is to know the target’s psychological vulnerabilities (like fear, no sense of identity, low self-reliance) and assess which tactics would be the most effective. The manipulator does not have qualms and may even harm the victim if needed (Simon, 1996). Braiker (2004) identified some of the manipulators’ tactics to control the target. Based on the situation and target assessment, he may use positive ways like praising, showing sympathy, facial expressions (i.e., smile, laughing), innocence, bandwagon effect, or negative tactics, like, a climate of fear, intimidation, sarcasm, vilifying, confusion, seduction, and emotional blackmail by playing a victim, crying, sulking. Manipulation of others is successful when, without using force, someone else does something that they would not normally do, which is in the manipulator’s interest. In general, successful manipulation within the immediate context is a process intended to gain some reward that the manipulator could not achieve otherwise. Thus, the manipulator derives some benefit at a cost to others. The meaning of manipulation is of a shifting nature contingent on the context of action and disciplinary orientation. It represents the strategic mindedness of the actor. The parents may strategically manipulate the situation to teach specific values to the child. For example, they may praise him for good behavior and ignore his mistakes. A person may exploit the rules if it serves self-interest and may bypass them if it hurts self-interest. So selective use of practices is a typical manipulativeness. In an organizational context, tampering with the structure is done selectively for self-advantages. Manipulation is standard in different walks of life, and, most of the time, it may be unnoticed. For example, we ignore what is happening in the political process in the country till we see that politicians of a particular party use some deviant practices as manipulative tactics to win people’s support. The democratic system with multiple political parties always has attractive manipulative activities, like caste-based rallies to arouse people’s social identity and manipulate them to join a particular party. The salesmen use all kinds of manipulative persuasion to increase sales. The managers use all types of tactics to get maximum work done by the workers to maximize productivity. In the context of developing societies, where resources are generally perceived to be limited, manipulative behaviors are pervasive (Pandey, 1981d, 1986a). For example, such behaviors are widely present in various organizational, political, and social contexts, among others, of Indian society (Nandy, 1977; Nayar, 1977; Pandey, 1978b, 1981d). As discussed in Chap. 2, manipulative behaviors are rampant in contexts of inequality, deprivation, limited resources, and sociopolitical uncertainty. Some of these characteristics, typical economic and social–political realities of many developing countries, render the study of manipulative behavior quite relevant to modern times. 6.1 (i) Humanistic psychology perspective: The mission of manipulating and influencing others may not always succeed. Often manipulative tricks in social interactions turn out to be risky and boomerang. The manipulator may get embroiled in the web of manipulations and a loser. However, humanistic psychologists consider

128

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

a manipulator “–as a person who exploits, uses and controls himself and others as things in self-defeating ways” (Shostrom, 1967, p. xii). They argue that indulgence in manipulating others to influence may make the person lose spontaneity, the capacity to express directly and creatively, and even a sense of being. A manipulator wastes time and energy trying to recapture the past and cautiously plan the future to remain consistent and live in a mythical world. He habitually conceals or camouflages real intention, including arrogance and hostility, and expresses servile flattery to please the target to serve his wishes. The opposite of the manipulator is the actualized who appreciates and recognizes one’s own and others’ potential and believes in honest expression with no deception in interactions. The actualizing persons trust their feelings, and honestly express their needs and desires. They also offer and seek help from others and even naturally express disapproval and aggression. In today’s complex world, mostly we are partly both. No one is born a manipulator or an actualized, and both are the product of social learning. By nature, a man likes to maximize gains with minimum efforts and indulges in manipulative methods to achieve undeserved profit. Shostrom (1967) identifies manipulators such as active and passive manipulators. The active manipulator uses direct methods like using such techniques, particularly on the subordinates, by creating obligations and expectations and pushing such people like puppets. However, the passive manipulator presents himself as helpless, passive, inadequate, and stupid and plays the “underdog.” He attempts to win by submitting himself as losing. On the other hand, the competitive manipulator views life as a battle, and others are competitors and threats to achieving goals. He uses the underdog or top dog approach with convenience and situational demand. The indifferent manipulator plays helplessness and indifference and may even say, “I do not care.” His secret is that he has not given up, and he believes that his indifference may turn out to be in his favor, as it usually happens between the couple. Thus, “The basic philosophy of active manipulator is to maintain control at all costs; of the passive manipulator, never to offend; of the competitive manipulator to win at all cost; and of the indifferent manipulator, to deny caring” (Shostrom, 1967, p. 20). The modern man uses his manipulative efforts to achieve his goals and control others and situations. The manipulator puts on an act and expresses feelings to suit the occasion advantageous in his favor. The manipulator is aware of the importance of feelings and, on occasions, may use them to control others. For example, expressing anger (e.g., screaming, shouting) may intimidate others and cause fear. A manipulative person may even use “hurt” in his favor, called the “technique of basic suffering.” Similarly, the manipulator’s use of trust and love is quite common to win the target. Shostrom (1967) narrates the way past, present, and future orientations are justified in self-protection: “The manipulator may be past-oriented and using his past as excuses for failure, or he may be future-oriented and using the future for promises which never materialize. He can also be the present-oriented person who talks about everything but gets none of it done. He spends most of his time justifying and defending himself” (p. 59). The manipulator’s fundamental nature is distrust in himself and also in others. He tries to hide what he feels. Thus, he lives in a paradox.

6.1 Nature of Manipulative Social Behavior

129

“With awareness manipulation decreases, and actualization increases” (Shostrom, 1967, p. 66). As discussed earlier, parents and teachers, for example, engage in manipulation to help the children; the humanistic approach assertion to treat all manipulators negatively, opposite to self-actualization, would be hard to accept. 6.1 (ii) Manipulation in negotiations: The highly competitive contemporary world promotes social manipulations, and negotiations are crucial. World political affairs, business, education, science, technology, and collective survival issues like health and environment require exchanges of ideas, sharing, and cooperation requires possible successful negotiations. Under these circumstances, negotiations at national and international levels are the most dominant influence. The institutions and people engage in negotiations at the personal and institutional levels. Negotiations involve exchanging interests and winning the outcomes, which requires skillful manipulation. Negotiations usually do not fail because the parties involved try to work out a solution. In the negotiation process, strategy, and tactics, are critically important (Monich & Matveeva, 2012). A plan defines the purpose and guides the participants to adopt an approach to negotiate. Though the parties involved have competing interests, the parties are interdependent, and therefore they come together and negotiate as they think it would for the benefit of both. At the same time, the parties try to maximize their gains, giving rise to manipulation. Thus, manipulation is a tactical process in negotiation for implementing the chosen strategy. A negotiator adopts a suitable manipulative tactic to achieve the strategic goals. Thus, manipulation is a tactic that could be aggressive or aimed at cooperation. Examples of some features of manipulative tactics are secrecy, deception, exploitation, coercion, and contrary to the will of another party. Shostrom (1967) describes a manipulator as a person who refers to himself and others as “objects” and “things” subject to use and control. The modern manipulator is the product of a scientific and market-based approach, in which a person is a thing about which one needs to know much to be able to affect it. Thus, behind the manipulation process, a lot of background work takes place to understand the situation in totality. The manipulator establishes positive relationships with the parties concerned and uses them for gains in negotiations (Cialdini, 2009). The diplomates know the value of such relationships, and they invest a lot in such predatory activities. The chapter has just touched on manipulation in the negotiation process. 6.1 (iii) Psychopathy and manipulation: Psychopathy is a syndrome, and a person who suffers from it is called a psychopath, the most misunderstood construct. Most people think that they know, and therefore, they use these terms indiscriminately. If a boss is very dominating, intimidating frequently, and behaves superficially, his subordinates call him a psychopath. A person in habitual forgery is called a psychopath. A chronic offender in cheating and a pathological liar is like a psychopath. Skeem et al. (2016) have examined myths associated with psychopathy and have cautioned against its use as an umbrella term for all kinds of impulsive, criminal offenses, callousness, and manipulativeness. Kantor (2006) describes psychopathic manipulators as dependent on love and support. They agree when the situation is such that they should disagree and show a lack of consistency in conduct. For understanding social manipulative behavior, one must not get into the trap of using

130

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

psychopathy as an explanation. Psychopathy-related behavior deserves independent treatment. At times the manipulator may not be conscious, and he automatically keeps on doing something to manipulate others. For example, the manipulator may habitually insult the target, which lowers self-esteem and enhances conformity. In the crowding situation, individuals accept suggestions easily; the manipulator uses such conditions for mass-level manipulation. Further, Chap. 9 discusses the issue of collective mind manipulation. 6.1 (iv) How do people attribute causality to manipulative behavior? Manipulative social behaviors are rampant in most contemporary societies, especially in developing countries (e.g., India), where societal, governmental, and business institutions have yet to achieve robust operational systems. In a weak system of operations, it is common to observe that people maneuver the situation in their favor in various walks of life; you cannot miss it in family, community, and workplace. A robust system that does not allow exceptions to rules may also encourage people to adopt manipulation to tide over their difficulties. The question of how people perceive and respond to manipulative persons and their behavior has implications for tolerance and the occurrence of such behaviors in the larger society. Pandey and Singh (1986) studied how people evaluate and attribute causes to others’ manipulative behaviors. Jones et al. (1963) reported that a bystander considered a suspected ingratiator more negatively than the person targeted for manipulation. A bystander does not receive compliments, and therefore he remains cognitively more alert than the target, and consequently, he can read the intention of the manipulator. He can see what is happening and doubt the ingratiator’s purpose and a hidden goal. Normatively, manipulative behaviors are illegitimate and unfair means to success (Jones & Wortman, 1973; Pandey, 1986a). Pandey and Bohra (1986b) reported that the bystanders evaluated the ingratiating actor negatively and showed a greater liking for the noningratiator. Box 6.1 presents a detailed description of Pandey and Singh’s (1986) study on how people perceive and attribute causality to manipulative behaviors. Box No. 6.1: Perception and Causality Attribution to Manipulative Behavior Pandey and Singh (1986) studied the observers’ evaluations of manipulators and causality attribution to Machiavellianism and ingratiation under success/failure conditions and tested the prediction that the observers would perceive the manipulators and their behaviors negatively than nonmanipulators. Method and design: Sixty male undergraduates with rural, lower-middleclass backgrounds participated in the experiment of two × three factorials (Success/failure outcome) × (Ingratiation/Mach/Non-manipulation behavior). Equal numbers of participants were assigned randomly to each of the six experimental conditions. Manipulation of variables and Procedure: The participants read a transcribed actual dialogue between an assistant supervisor and the manager. The

6.1 Nature of Manipulative Social Behavior

131

story stated that four assistant supervisors were applicants for one supervisor post, and the manager had to select one of them. Each participant read the verbatim dialogue between the manager and one of the applicants. The task was to read the conversation carefully to form impressions about the applicant, the manager, and the decision and record it on the dependent measures questionnaire. The pilot studies standardized the procedure for manipulating the independent and measurement of dependent variables. Each dialogue story in Hindi for ingratiation, Mach, and non-manipulative conditions was standardized. The first part of the story was a standard description of the actor as an applicant and the target, the manager setting the context of dialogue. The second part was supposedly the real conversation representing one of the three experimental conditions. The last part of the story described the success or failure decision by the manager for the applicant. The ingratiation dialogue depicted the actor adopting ingratiation tactics. He praised and confirmed with the manager, showed his dependence, and changed his stated ideas to suit him. He also offered help to the manager. The Mach story depicted the actor as clever and cunning to make the target insecure. He volunteered to help in a crisis and implicatively suggested not to bother with rules and morality. The actor presented himself as robust and dependable, assuring his help if appointed to the superior position. The non-manipulative transcript showed the actor as a straightforward who presented himself objectively. He portrayed himself as honest, not implying any favor. The success story ended with promotion and failure without the applicant’s promotion. To validate experimental manipulations, each participant answered questions to check that they understood the dialogue story. Dependent Measures: (i) To measure attributions of causality for success/failure outcome, participants rated on a separate 7-point scale (agreement = 7 to disagreement = 1) ability, effort, task difficulty, luck, and interest of the actor as the causes to achieve the higher position. The questionnaire for success and failure conditions were suitably parallel. (ii) The participants rated the target’s responses, their liking of the actor’s behavior, self-interest, honesty, and intelligence in decision-making. (iii) The participants rated liking for the actor and willingness to work with him, as the standard measure of attraction, both highly positively correlated, and so scores were combined (range = 2– 14) (iv) The participants also rated the actor’s behavior for the frequency of its occurrence, legitimacy as per social norms, approval of the actor’s behavior, and his willingness to behave similarly in Indian society. Results and Discussion: The non-manipulative and ingratiation conditions participants significantly attributed more to ability than the Mach condition participants. The Mach condition participants significantly attributed more effort and task difficulty than other participants. Participants in success condition significantly attributed more to effort and luck than their unsuccessful

132

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

counterparts. The non-manipulative condition participants showed significantly more attraction to the applicant than their counterpart of ingratiation and Mach conditions. The participants evaluated the target, the manager, and they did not differ in ratings of liking, honesty, and intelligence, except the participants in ingratiating condition rated the manager with more self-interest than others. Success condition participants rated the manager more positively (e.g., attractive, intelligent) than the failure condition. The critical findings, like more attraction and ability, to be non-manipulative than ingratiating and Mach applicants confirm the hypothesis. The rating of Mach for making more efforts than the ingratiator and the non-manipulator confirms the theory that Mach is by nature, does everything to win. Ingratiator and Mach were, however, perceived to be more interested in their task than the non-manipulator. The participants showed more significant attraction for the successful than the unsuccessful actors. Pandey and Singh (1986) concluded that the participants “who played the role of observers probably perceived the manipulative behavior of others negatively because they were not participating in the social episode either as actor or target” (p. 743). The findings are consistent with the position of Pandey and Bohra (1886b) that bystanders, not recipients of praise and compliments, perceive the suspected ingratiator negatively. Society looks downs on social manipulators and their acts because such acts violate social and work norms. Therefore, the manipulators generally act subversively to hide their real intent by camouflaging the situation. If caught, they change the route, explore new camouflage, and find new manipulation methods. The process goes on, and we always have surprises in the world of social manipulation.

6.2 Personality Dispositions In influence research, among the personality traits, authoritarianism and Machiavellianism have received greater attention than any other traits, and therefore these two constitute a more significant part of this discussion. However, research suggests that, among other dispositions, the five-factor model of personality (Cable & Judge, 2003; John et al., 2008) and locus of control for reinforcement (Heinstrom, 2010; Phares, 1965; Rotter, 1954) are also relevant to social influence. 6.2 (i) The five-factor model of personality (FFM): In the past five decades, personality psychologists have relied heavily on the five-factor model, consisting of extraversion, neuroticism (opposite: emotional stability), openness to experience (also called intellect), agreeableness, and conscientiousness in the study of behaviors (John et al., 2008). Each trait dimension represents the way an individual conducts himself. For example, an extroverted individual asserts and is friendly rather than withdrawn and confined to himself. An agreeable person is polite, seeks cooperation,

6.2 Personality Dispositions

133

and likes to work with others. A conscientious person remains well organized and focused on working rather than diffused without any direction to move forward. A neurotic individual has negative emotions, depression, anxiety, and dislike for others rather than positivity and meaningful social relationships. An open person is broad-minded and welcomes options rather than restricted and confined. The big five adds variability to the conceptualization of human personality rather than limiting it by a small set of trait dimensions. It broadly covers various aspects of individual differences and provides a broad base for understanding influence behavior. Pieces of evidence show that Big-Five significantly determines behaviors in multiple domains, from social influences to psychopathology. For example, Cable and Judge (2003) studied theoretical linkages between the five-factor model of personality and the managers’ upward influence tactics. The study conducted on the 189 managers of 140 different organizations showed the relationship of personality traits with the choice of influencing technique. The managers scoring high on extroversion used more emotional appeal and ingratiation. But those who scored high on openness used coalitions less. The managers with high emotional stability used more rational persuasion and less passionate appeal. But the managers scoring high on agreeableness used less legitimization. The managers high on conscientiousness were inclined to use logical appeal. The results also confirmed that managers’ upward influence tactic strategies depended on their target’s (their supervisor) leadership style. Managers were more likely to use consultation and inspirational appeal tactics to transformational leaders/supervisors. To the laissez-faire supervisors, the managers used more exchange, coalition, legitimization, and pressure tactics. Based on the five-factor model construct, one may predict how big-five personality traits predict social influence behaviors. As discussed above, each of the five personality traits impacts the work environment. A person high on openness can think and find a solution. He is always willing to learn new things. Such a person would adopt innovative ways of influencing others. A person high on conscientiousness is workoriented and does hard work to get things done before the deadline. An extrovert has all potential to be a leader of the group. They thrive on interaction with others, and therefore they excel in marketing and public relations work. An individual high on agreeableness is considered at best in relating with others and providing service to them. They influence others to develop a positively oriented team and harmoniously reduce conflicts. People with low neuroticism connect with others and positively impact the work environment. The big five-factor theory enhances our knowledge of the social influence in social and work contexts. 6.2 (ii) The internal–external control: Chapter 3 has introduced the social learning approach (Bandura, 1977) to the concept of personality and has also referred to internal versus external (I-E) control beliefs as a personality disposition (Rotter, 1954). An individual high on the internal locus of control of support (i.e., ability, efforts) psychologically feels that he controls the support that determines his behavior. Individuals with external control feel that the forces determining their conduct and outcome are beyond their control (e.g., fate, chance, powerful others). So, they remain hesitant, do not act, and avoid influencing others. Internal individuals, however, feel that they effectively control reinforcements of their actions. The

134

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

internals think they maintain their destiny and are effective agents of their actions. According to social learning theory, the I-E control represents a continuum of individual differences (Phares, 1965). Phares (1965) studied the influence a person may exert upon another person in changing the latter’s attitudes. He found that internally controlled participants could significantly influence the target’s attitudes more than externally controlled participants. Gore and Rotter (1963) posit that the I-E control is valuable in predicting social action behavior. They suggest that internals who believe in maintaining their fate tend to commit themselves to social action more than externals. Strickland (1965) reported a significant relationship between black participants’ internal–external scores and social activity. In the Indian context, Pandey (1979) studied three groups of participants: (a) a group of active volunteers; (b) a group of volunteers who later dropped out; and (c) a group of those non-volunteers who had read the first announcement for registration as volunteers to give quality time for counseling purpose to those students who were feeling isolated on the campus, but chose not to register. The participants of the three groups differed significantly on the internal–external dimension, with the active volunteers showing greater internality than the non-volunteers. The volunteers who initially registered but dropped out in the middle were in the middle (i.e., internal– external scores) of the two groups. Pandey (1979) concluded that the participants volunteered and continued to make efforts for the community social intervention and continued internal control disposition. In another study, 44 applicants for setting up industrial units were the participants, and they completed the I-E scale (Rotter, 1966) and Test of Achievement Values (Mukherjee, 1965). They were also rated on a 10-point scale for their competencies as entrepreneurs (Pandey & Tiwary, 1979). The results indicated that those who were higher on achievement values were more on internal locus of control. Finally, those selected based on ratings to set up industrial units were also higher on their internality than those not chosen. Pandey and Tiwary (1979) have argued that the internal has the advantage of belief in the generalized expectation that outcomes are contingent upon one’s efforts. Thus, individuals with internal control of thoughts are successful in business and entrepreneurship. In new unpredictable situations, people with an internal locus of control trust their strength and ability and face the challenges by taking the initiative and trying their best. They do not run away. As they feel self-reliant, they act to make a difference (Heinstrom, 2010). People’s internal locus of control copes well with stressful uncertainties resulting in physical and mental well-being (Bandura, 1977). The internal locus of control persons remains problem-focused, which helps in independent decision-making and coping. By implication, the internals can cope with a social situation by effective influencing.

6.3 Authoritarianism

135

6.3 Authoritarianism Chapter 3 has briefly traced the background of authoritarian personality research. Power is the central concept in understanding social influencing and controlling others. The authoritarian personality construct is linked with power and control and explains individual differences in power-seeking and asserting. In psychology, power motivation represents gaining satisfaction from manipulating and exploiting others (Veroff & Veroff, 1972). McClelland (1969) suggests that by indulging in a social process of influencing others, the powerholders gain satisfaction and enjoyment. When the powerholders control others, they do not have feelings of weakness and loss of control (Adler, 1956; Fromm, 1942). Instead, they feel powerful and experience that they control the situation. The psychodynamic approach suggests that power needs represent irrational, neurotic, and perverted aspects of human nature. Veroff and Veroff (1972) argue that weakness is associated with high power motivations. According to them, these feelings of weakness originate from early childhood representing alienation from others. Pandey’s (1980a) analysis directly links power motivation with the psychology of “fascism” and authoritarian personality. Since the late 1930s, psychologists have tried to understand individual differences in dominance, aggression, and pathological power-seeking behavior. Authoritarianism as a personality disposition has close connections with power and control. A distinct fascist personality was first identified in the theory of fascism by Erich Fromm in his famous book “Fear of Freedom” (1942). Fromm’s view, derived from an existential interpretation of alienation, argues that though capitalism provides modern freedom, it fails to teach him how to use it. Freedom itself becomes threatening during the economic crisis, and people may try “to get rid of the burden of freedom.” In such circumstances, individuals may get inclined to abandon their freedom and surrender to the will of a leader. In response to the fulfillment of the existential longings of modern man, fascist reactions may emerge. Fromm further suggests that the lower middle class also serves as fertile soil for an “authoritarian character,” conducive to fascism. Psychologically, authoritarianism is inclusive of both sadism and masochism. Fromm explains an interesting syndrome of the masochistic element that compels the individual not to realize his total freedom and submit to the leader. Simultaneously, the loss of liberty induces personal sadistic feelings towards the weak and inferior. It implies that relationships based on masochism and sadism can never be without cost for the individual or society. At the application level, when attempting to understand the personality types of the political elite of Nazism and their followers, Billing (1978) found that Fromm’s authoritarian sadomasochist theory at best explains the mass support for fascism. Other than psychoanalysts, humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow also joined in studying authoritarianism. Maslow’s description of the typical authoritarian traits is highlighted by Krejˇcí (2004) as follows: (a) Authoritarians possess hierarchical consciousness, a tendency to see others as either in a higher or lower position

136

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

and to give importance to external attributes of power rather than internal qualities of the individual. (b) They show a tendency to generalize the characteristics of dominance and strive for external attributes of power, money, and status. (c) Their sadomasochistic character dominates hate, prejudices, and guilt, which produce animosity. To sum, the authoritarian personality syndrome indicates a rigid following of conventionalism, extreme submission to authority and power, and advocacy of severe aggression toward the violators. Like Fromm, Adorno and associates (Adorno et al., 1950) recognized a masochistic component in “authoritarian submission” and “authoritarian aggression.” In brief, the so-called authoritarian personality is submissive to people of greater power or status and dominant to those of less. He does play these alternate styles of behavior in a hierarchical setup. Authoritarians maintain a social system that promotes an ingratiating social environment (Pandey, 1986a). Due to their submissive compliance, the authoritarians develop a greater liking for ingratiating subordinates (sycophants). An authoritarian assistant submits to his boss with more ingratiating behavior on his part. Thus, with the presence of authoritarians in a social system, submission, dominance, and sycophancy become part of a vicious circle. The potential fascist is a psychological weakling who constantly compensates for his deficiencies by an exaggerated admiration of power and strength. In addition, the authoritarians exhibit an overly pessimistic view of humankind (destructiveness and cynicism). They undermine subjective feelings and accept super-natural determinants of behavior and categorical thinking (superstition and stereotypy). By nature, the authoritarians are preoccupied with power relationships and constantly exhibit power and toughness orientations. They are over-concerned with issues regarding sexuality and project their sexual and aggressive motivations toward those around them. In brief, authoritarian individuals possess strict superegos controlling a fragile ego to balance the power and toughness in influencing others. The critics of the construct of authoritarianism criticize because it reflected the liberal biases of its authors (Adorno et al., 1950). For some scholars, authoritarianism represents dictatorship (Shils, 1954). Rokeach (1960) argues that though the authoritarian personality is primarily right-wing, it can also be left-wing. Adorno and his associates (Adorno et al., 1950) and many others have tried to understand the transmission of authoritarianism from parents to their children. The strict disciplinarian socialization and upbringing cause the development of such personality syndrome. Childhood experiences of severe and harsh disciplines get suppressed, and later such impulses get expressed and projected during adulthood in hostilities to the outgroups. Childhood insecurity predisposes the authoritarian toward an excessive concern with power and status, making them submissive to the powerful and dominating those who are powerless (Stenner, 2005). Child-rearing practices correlate highly with authoritarianism. For example, Hart (1957) suggested that the non-love-oriented punishment of the mother and restrictive attitudes toward child-rearing on the part of the father strongly influenced authoritarian personality development, which leads to poor psychosocial development that orients them to interact with others manipulatively. Byrne (1965) reports the transmission of rigid

6.3 Authoritarianism

137

ideologies across generations and a strong relationship between autocratic family attitudes and authoritarianism. Byrne (1965) further adds positive correlations between the son’s authoritarianism with both parents, but the daughter correlations were only with the mother’s scores. In the Indian social context, Nandy and Kakar (1980) have explored the roots of authoritarianism in the socialization process. They argue that the mother is “powerful, threatening and omnipresent.” They say that a child’s over-emotional attachment to a mother and weak link with a father who happens to be a distant entity in the socialization process help develop authoritarianism. Some others have tried to trace the base of dictatorship in India through its political, and socioeconomic history. For several centuries, maybe the alien rulers attempted to maintain a distance from the people yet with absolute power over them. Distrust, suspicion, and insecurity are some of the costs which emerged from such a situation. Gradually, this type of culture is fertile soil for authoritarianism, which finds deep roots in the feudal and hierarchical society. Western and Indian scholars have argued that authoritarianism is a pervasive personality type in Indian society. Western scholars like Taylor (1948), Murphy (1953), Winter (1969) have observed that Indians, by and large, are authoritarian. Among Indian social scientists, for example, Nandy and Kakar (1980), Pareek (1968), and Sinha (1980) contend that Indians possess such needs and value patterns that are manifestations of authoritarianism. Different criteria are used while labeling Indian culture as authoritarian. For example, sociologists and anthropologists (Lewis, 1962) argue that Indian culture is authoritarian like any other traditional culture, manifested in rigid caste structure, social norms, and status orientation. Carstairs (1971) and Spratt (1966) of psychoanalytic tradition favor the psychodynamic explanations for authoritarianism in Indian culture. Indian social scientists differ from the original conceptualization of the authoritarian-type personality (Adorno et al., 1950) regarding its nature, manifestations, and antecedents. In the Indian context, J.B.P. Sinha (1980) identifies two components of authoritarianism: Behavioral representation (rigid, structured interpersonal discipline-oriented behaviors); psychodynamics dispositions (anxiety, insecurity, cynicism, and paranoid tendency). Sinha’s (1980) nurturance-task master leadership theory, discussed in Chap. 3, explains how authoritarianism blends into Indian culture to result in a unique leadership style. Some scholars have questioned the generalization of the Western authoritarianism concept to the Indian societal context. Nandy (1967) has argued that the Indian fascist handles his sadomasochistic loneliness differently and uses “the dominant Brahminic worldview” to idealize his loneliness and isolation. Nandy (1967) argues that the authoritarian Indians in a group are pretty comfortable with others propagating human brotherhood, democratic socialism, Gandhian politics, and equality of men. The psychoanalytic-oriented, authoritarian personality theory has proved far less valuable than initially claimed, and its status has gradually declined like other Freudian explanations due to the rise of empirical social science research. Most research reports are on correlational relationships of authoritarianism with social variables, attitudes, and behaviors. The overall findings related to the origins and consequences of authoritarianism are elusive (Altemeyer, 1981; Duckitt, 1989). Despite

138

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

these limitations, authoritarianism enjoys special status to understand negative ways of influencing and controlling others and continues to be a valuable concept for understanding societal and individual issues like democracies, prejudices, discrimination, hostility, and aggression. In a survey study, Altemeyer (2004) administered both the Social Dominance Orientation Scale (SDO) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWAs) to 4000 Canadian university students and 2600 of their parents. Out of this large sample, he drew a small group who were high on both. He found that the dominating authoritarians were among the most prejudiced persons in Canadian society. They seemed to combine “… the worst kind of personality, being power-hungry, unsupportive of equality, manipulative, and amoral” Altemeyer (2004, p. 421). In general, like right-wing authoritarians, they tended to be religiously ethnocentric and dogmatic. Although the dominating authoritarians may be small in society, they may considerably impact society due to their position in the community. They have the strength and qualities to lead the right-wing socio-political movements (Altemeyer, 2004). Although religious fundamentalism, self-righteousness, conformity, and obedience constitute the core characteristics of the authoritarian personality, these dispositions remain dormant and expressed only when the conductive situation arises. An authoritarian person may spend most of his time thinking and behaving like other non-authoritarians and may get provoked for action only when an appropriate right problem with a normative threat arises (Stenner, 2005). Opposite to authoritarians, the liberals who value individuality, freedom, tolerance, autonomy, and respect for diversity may express themselves appropriately when their beliefs are in peril. Intolerance of racial, ethnic, political, and ideological differences is primarily caused by the psychological disposition of authoritarianism interacting with some real or imagined threat in society. Stenner (2005) explains that people assert their positions when the actual world conditions demand the restoration of the status quo. The threatening situations trigger a personality disposition to action. Thus, interactions of personality dispositions with social context determine influencing agent actions to impact others. The synoptic discussion on the vast topic leads us to conclude that authoritarians possess attitudes that predispose them to highly hierarchy-oriented, power-seeking behaviors. They also suffer from suspicions regarding society’s current behavior, particularly toward violations of sexuality-related social norms. They have a fascist mindset, so they show strength to the weak and grab power in the larger context when they have a chance. In politics, they may remain dormant till the right opportunity arrives for their strict action and power-grabbing.

6.4 Machiavellianism Machiavellianism, conceptualized as a personality disposition, represents the skillful behavioral orientation of manipulation, exploitation, and deception in social interactions to achieve self-interest. Machiavellians (i.e., Mach) do not mind disdaining conventional morality, lack empathy and sincerity to effectively accomplish the

6.4 Machiavellianism

139

targeted goal under varied socioeconomic and political circumstances (Christie & Geis, 1970a; Jones & Paulhus, 2009; Rathmann, 2012). More than five decades ago, motivated to find answers to questions related to people’s situationally intelligent social behaviors, Christie and Geis (1970a, 1970b) launched a research program that identified a cluster of intelligent social behaviors in people with a varying degree. They labeled such a behavioral cluster as “Machiavellianism” because they thought it was similar to social tactics preached to the Prince, a medieval Italian ruler by Machiavelli, politician–diplomat–philosopher of the sixteenth century renaissance period. They also developed a measurement scale, popularly called Mach IV, which facilitated research on its various dimensions and linkages with interpersonal and manipulative behaviors. A high Mach, empowered with social and behavioral skills, efficiently functions under challenging circumstances (Christie & Geis, 1970a, 1970b). Machiavellianism has been a fascinating topic of research. Other than the Western (e.g., United States, Germany, Poland, Spain, and Yugoslavia) part of the world, it has also been studied in Asia and Africa (e.g., China, Hong-Kong, India, Japan, Nigeria) by several researchers (e.g., Dien & Fujisawa, 1979; Pandey, 1986a, Geis, 1979; Jones & Paulhus, 2009; Oksenberg, 1971; Tripathi, 1981). Historically, as a psychological concept, Machiavellianism has roots in Western culture. However, there are examples of origins of equally significant similar traditions in other sociohistorical contexts in different periods (Pandey, 1986a). The ideas and social action similar to Machiavellianism have also existed in the political philosophies of the East (see Box 6.2). For example, Arthasastra by Kautilya in India and The Book of Lord Shang in China (both about 300 B.C.) elaboratively narrated the state of the art to run the affairs of the state. Much later, Niccolo Machiavelli, a sixteenth-century Italian scholar, advocated manipulating others in his book, The Prince, which narrated social tactics to manage state affairs efficiently. Christie and Geis (1970a) describe sixteenth-century Italy’s disturbing social, economic, and political conditions as fertile soil for developing Machiavellian philosophy and strategic plans of action for the ruler. Thus, the span of the relevance of Machiavellianism is both transhistorical and cross-cultural.

Box No. 6.2: Examples of Statecraft as Social Influence in History There are examples of the art of conducting state affairs showcasing an understanding of social influence processes. 1.

Chanakya (also known as Kautilya or Vishnugupta), Guru of the emperor Chandragupta Maurya compiled Arthasastra, an ancient Indian treatise on pragmatic Hindu philosophy. The Arthasastra represents the statecraft of economics (e.g., market, trade, agriculture), governance (e.g., law, ethics, war, peace), duties, and the king’s obligation. Chanakya’s knowledge is of the second–third-century BCE period, and it continued to be influential until the twelfth century. R. Shamasastry (1915) rediscovered Chanakya’s work by presenting an authentic translation. The

140

2.

3.

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

Arthashastra mixes compassion with pragmatic realities for the welfare of the poor, slaves, and women and favors autocracy to manage an effective economy. Chanakya advocated the king’s adherence to collective ethics, duties, and obligations under the legal and bureaucratic framework for governance that holds society together. An ancient Chinese philosopher (390–338 BC), Shang Yang (also known as Wei Yang), a political and legal scholar, statesman, and reformer, served and laid the administrative, political, and economic foundations of the state of Qin. Under his directions, the Qin State gained strength to conquer the other six rival states leading to the unification of China into a centralized rule for the first time in history of the Qin dynasty. He and his followers compiled the Book of Lod Shang, a classical political– philosophical work of the Chinese Legalism and a statecraft’s guidebook. Yang devised policies to increase the workforce of Qin by encouraging the migration of peasants from other states and the weakened force of the rival States. The Qin nobility despised Yang, and ultimately, he and his family were executed on the ground of inciting rebellion. An Italian political theorist, Niccolo Machiavelli, wrote (1532) treatise, The Prince, as a guide for new princes, to achieve glory and survive, justifying even immoral means to achieve these goals. The Prince, written in vernacular Italian rather than Latin, details politics and ethics, popularly called “Machiavellian tactics”. At times it carries a pejorative meaning. Machiavelli’s ideas to have honor and power have been influential on the modern West’s Catholic and Protestant political leaders.

Though unrelated to the historical figure, Niccolo Machiavelli or his work, Christie and Geis (1970a) conceptualized Machiavellianism’s personality trait and named it after Machiavelli’s philosophy. As a personality trait construct, Machiavellianism represents manipulativeness, callousness, and little concern for morality, measured by the standard self-assessment Likert Scale with high Machs showing a high level of deceitful behavior and lack of empathy towards others. 6.4 (i) Machiavellianism as an acquired trait: It has always been an interesting question for researchers: How do individuals acquire Machiavellianism? In her review of research on Machiavellianism in young children, measured by Kiddie Mach Scale, Mach IV children version (Christie & Geis, 1970a), Mcllwain (2003) characterized young Mach by mistrust, cynicism, and lack of empathy. Based on factor analysis of Kiddie Mach Scale scores, Sutton and Keogh (2001) found a lack of faith in human nature, dishonesty, and distrust as confirmatory dimensions of Machiavellianism in young children. They found that lack of trust in human nature positively correlated with age, implying that cynicism develops as individuals get exposed to more social experiences with growing age. Younger children fail to distinguish between social manipulation and prosocial behavior. With age, they gain

6.4 Machiavellianism

141

knowledge of ethical norms and understand the distinction between manipulation and prosocial behavior while responding to others. Dien (1974) distinguished two types of social learning, called transmission, and competition, to explain individual differences in Machiavellianism. Children learn from their parents through modeling and teaching. However, Dien’s (1974) finding of a negative correlation between parent–child Machiavellianism in a Japanese sample is fascinating because it implies that learning through competition may override the process of transmission across generations. Braginsky (1966) used social development processes to explain inverse relationships between children and parents’ Mach responses. Some researchers (e.g., Braginsky, 1970; Kraut & Price, 1976) have reported that individual differences in Machiavellian beliefs and behavior become apparent within about ten years. Kraut and Price (1976) said the puzzling correlations between the Mach responses of parents and children based on positive correlations in beliefs, but a negative one in terms of their behavior, suggesting that belief similarity does not imply that it would result in behavioral similarity. In developing Machiavellianism, Jones and Paulhus (2009) have drawn attention to possible genetic and environmental causes. Jones and Paulhus (2009) state, “In addition to a genetic component in common with narcissism and psychopathy, Machiavellianism shows a substantial shared-environmental component (Vernon et al., 2008). The latter implicates socialization mechanisms, such as parental modeling or an overreaction to harsh or unpredictable family environments” (p. 103). There are examples of possible genetic-environment interactive effects. Ojha (2007) found that late adolescent sons’ Mach scores positively correlated with parents’ Mach scores. Ojha’s findings support the parental modeling hypothesis. Barbar (1998) reported that daughters showed a higher level of Machiavellian behaviors than nonfamily members but not family members in a father-absent family. The findings of the cited studies related to the parental modeling hypothesis are hard to be compared due to methodological variations. It is critically significant to recognize that Machiavellianism develops from experiences an individual goes through in social encounters in day-to-day life. People compete for environmental resources or power, and they acquire and accumulate the skills that effectively resolve real problems and result in a behavioral style. People compete more intensely when resources are limited, particularly when they perceive shortages, providing more learning opportunities for manipulative and deceptive social skills required for success. As discussed in Chap. 2, the scarcity and shortages are opportunities to manage the grabbing of resources and, for that one, acquire manipulative skills conducive to developing Machiavellianism. A quote from Tripathi and Sinha (1981) explains it further: “The “noncompetitive” encounters between persons who have complete trust in each other, do not contribute towards the development of Machiavellianism” (p. 59). The best examples of such trusting interactions are between parents and children. Thus, Tripathi and Sinha (1981) explain poor and inconsistent support for the parental modeling hypothesis in acquiring Machiavellianism (Christie, 1970; Dien, 1974). Generally, the parents and their children enjoy trusting cooperative relationships, not given opportunities to experience social intrigues and deception, required as facilitators

142

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

for developing Machiavellianism. Though opportunities for exposure to manipulation in social encounters are critically crucial for developing Machiavellianism, Tripathi and Sinha (1981) also add a caveat that such meetings must end up with positive results. Prevailing socioeconomic and cultural conditions play a crucial role in developing and practicing Machiavellianism. Christie (1970) argued that a complex social learning process is involved in developing Machiavellianism. Diverse life experiences of social encounters involving manipulation and deception help an individual acquire Machiavellianism. Under political uncertainties, urbanization, industrialization, economic depression, and scarcity, manipulation increases in interpersonal interactions. People have relatively more exposure to social manipulation, intrigues, and deception during a transformation from rural–agricultural to the urban–industrial economy. Guterman (1967) found that a rural population scored lower on Machiavellianism than urban people. An urban/industrial setting gives more opportunities to an individual to engage in encounters involving manipulation, which may lead to higher Machiavellianism in the urban/industrial sample. Positive correlations between Machiavellianism and industrialization are apparent. Sinha et al. (1982) reported no gender effect in tribals on Mach IV scale scores of tribals and non-tribals male and female college students of the Jharkhand State (India). Still, rural and urban non-tribals males were higher than their female counterparts. They interpreted the lack of gender difference among tribals due to less gender role differentiation and equal status in tribal groups (Vidyarthi & Rai, 1976). By comparison, the nontribals of the same region have a more significant gender role differentiation with the male’s dominant role. Though the comparison may not be methodologically sound, Sinha et al. (1982) reported that the mean scores of India’s rural and urban males and females were similar to U.S. findings, with males higher on Machiavellianism than females (Christie, 1970). In the Indian rural society, individuals are closely embedded in the family and caste systems. Tripathi and Sinha (1981) studied rural Hindu students’ ordinal position among their siblings and brothers, their economic condition, influence on his family, the caste group, and the caste’s influence in the village. Machiavellianism was not significantly correlated with economic prosperity, suggesting no direct relationship between Machiavellianism and social variables such as caste and financial condition. The ordinal position among the siblings did not correlate with Machiavellianism. But the ordinal position among brothers significantly correlated negatively with Machiavellianism, indicating that elder male siblings had a higher Machiavellianism score. Sinha, Tripathi, and Pandey (1982) concludes, “… consistent with the Hindu family structure and the influence pattern inherent in it where males have more ‘say’ and the oldest male has the most ‘say’ (p. 305).” Traditionally, the eldest male sibling acquires both status and power from the father and has therefore more “say” in the family. The evolutionary perspective suggests that like prosocial traits (e.g., altruism, cooperation), Machiavellianism is advantageous, as conceived by the notion of “selfish gene’ (Dawkins, 1989). Krueger et al. (2001) include pro and antisocial tendencies as part of the human behavioral repertoire. Selfishness as part of the

6.4 Machiavellianism

143

natural selection process nurtures Machiavellian disposition. In evolutionary history, those who cheated and manipulated others successfully achieved their goals and flourished in the survival rate for the fittest than those who did not. Byrne and Whiten (1988) called such adaptation “Machiavellian (i.e., social) intelligence.” Other synonymous, interchangeably used terms as suggested by Jones and Paulhus (2009) are: “social astuteness, political intelligence, practical intelligence, emotional intelligence, and interpersonal intelligence, all of which allude cognitive abilities involving skill adapting to social complexities” (p. 101). In sum, skillful manipulation of others puts a Machiavellian to an evolutionary advantage. In the more extensive evolutionary process, if everyone is high Mach, one may expect a disastrous situation. So parallel to high Mach, low Mach also survives and flourishes by building cooperative relationships, which helps when resources are scarce. High Mach has a severe disadvantage because it cannot create a collective culture of trust and sharing when supplies are short and few means. In the situation of scarcity, high Mach may unsuccessfully try to cheat each other with disadvantages to all (Mealey, 1995). 6.4 (ii) Characteristics of machiavellianism: As an individual difference variable, Machiavellianism, a personality trait, consists of a behavioral orientation empowering individuals to act smartly in a situation to win at any cost (Christie & Geis, 1970a, 1970b). Geis (1979) suggests that high Mach believe that people, in general, are manipulatable, and therefore, they try to manipulate others for their benefit. In addition, they possess ability and skill, so they succeed in interpersonal manipulation. Christie and Geis (1970a) elaborated on how Machiavellians use their interpersonal manipulation talents (Geis, 1968). In one experiment, Christie and Geis (1970b) found that high Mach manipulated members of their group for personal financial gain. In another study, Geis (1968) reported that high Mach conducted their group members to benefit all team members. Thus, depending on the contexts, high Mach may be high on personal selfishness and may work for the group (e.g., political party, nation, corporation, or business). High Mach may quickly change their responses that determine reward distribution. High Mach does not get emotionally involved and distracted. They concentrate their efforts on the goal. In sum, high Mach does not indulge emotionally in interpersonal relationships, concerned with conventional morality and ideological commitment. They have an instrumental view of others (Christie & Geis, 1970a). 6.4 (iii) Do high Maach ingratiate more than low Mach? Although Machiavellianism is a universal human trait, till the early 1980s, there was hardly a few non-western research reported on the subject. Tripathi and his colleagues Y. Sinha and K. Thapa (Tripathi, 1981) set excellent examples of Machiavellian studies in India, introducing experimental manipulation of independent variables in actual social settings. In a series of studies, they studied high and low Mach undergraduate students, competing with similarly needy others like them for financial aid (tuition-fee waiver) by presenting their case before a faculty committee. In the first study (Note 2, Tripathi, 1981), the committee of two psychology faculty rated the participants’ ingratiation tactics. The committee members agreed on a standardized rating (with high inter judge’s reliability) to assess ingratiation

144

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

tactics. The participants were actual applicants for financial aids, and the experimental setup was a real-interview situation. The committee members learned and practiced asking intended questions to the participants and conversing among themselves during the interview in the participants’ presence, providing opportunities for a range of behaviors and options, including ingratiation tactics. High inter-judges’ ingratiation rating reliability was the basis for pooling two ratings to generate a total score for each participant of the experiment, conducted on two consecutive days, with the first day as the control condition. On the second day, the confederate introduced experimental manipulation related to ingratiation. The junior investigator requested the participants complete the Mach IV scale while waiting in a hall, and then each participant appeared before the committee individually. Two trained committee members rated each participant’s explicit ingratiating behaviors, namely opinion conformity, self-depreciation, and other enhancement. As per schedule, another group of applicants reported and completed the Mach IV following the same procedure on the second day. For the experimental manipulation, when they were about to complete the scale, a confederate entered, waited till all had finished, and got in conversation by introducing herself as a psychology research scholar and her familiarity with the committee members. At this stage, she suggested some helpful tips to ensure success for the participants by “agreeing with the interviewers” views, praising them, and telling them how badly they need help to continue education. She wished them well and withdrew from the room. The confederate encouragement to the participants to ingratiate was an experimental manipulation. The interview continued like the first day, and the committee members rated the behaviors of each participant. Incidentally, the participants belonging to either control or experimental condition and did not differ in Machiavellianism scores. Machiavellianism and ingratiation scores of both groups were highly positively correlated. The mean ingratiation scores of the experimental group were higher irrespective of high and low Mach and than the control group. The experimental group participants showed more opinion conformity and self-depreciation than the control group. Other enhancement tactics frequency was low in both groups. The results showed a positive correlation between Machiavellianism and ingratiation. However, Tripathi and Thapa cautioned against any generalization that high Machs always ingratiate more. Probably, they ingratiated more because they were less powerful, and their objective was to extract helpful decisions for financial aid from the committee. In the context, it was wise for the high Machs to ingratiate and please the committee members for reward. 6.4 (iv) Do high Mach lie more than low Mach? Tripathi and Sinha (Note 3, Tripathi, 1981) studied this question, using the experimental paradigm meticulously developed by Tripathi and Thapa, whether high Mach will lie more than low Mach to influence the committee for financial aids. They introduced some variations in the procedure for the experimental manipulation. An assistant to the committee welcomed the applicant participants in the waiting hall, announced some delays in the interview, and asked them if they desired to help a research scholar by completing a questionnaire on attitude and beliefs. There was no refusal, and all completed Mach IV Scale. The committee of three faculty worked as judges to rate the lying

6.4 Machiavellianism

145

of the participants. Approximately six months before each applicant had completed an application form requiring several personal and financial information. As routine during the interview, each applicant was again asked most of the similar questions they had recorded in the application form by the committee chairman. Probing was done mainly in any discrepancy between recorded and stated information before the committee. The committee members rated lying on a three-point scale (0 = not lying; 1 = somewhat lying; 2 = downright lying). At least two judges agreed-in ratings of 68 participants, were included in data analysis, and two cases with complete disagreement were excluded. The results revealed high correlations (0.57, p < 0.01) between the pooled ratings of lying and Mach scores. A separate analysis of each judge’s ratings with Mach score resulted in a similar correlation trend between the two variables. Other observational data also supported that high Mach was more engaged in behaviors like peeping into recoding of evaluation. Thus, Tripathi and Sinha demonstrated that high Mach used tactics like lying to influence the decision in their favor. 6.4 (v) Does moral appeal influence Mach? Using the same paradigm, Tripathi and Sinha (Note 4, Tripathi, 1981) conducted another study to answer two questions: (i) What would happen if threat risks increase for lying? (ii) How high and low Machs would respond to a moral appeal that their lying may deprive a deserving poor student? Eighty-two students who had completed the application form nearly six months ago for financial aids and reported a personal interview with the faculty committee were the participants. Three experimental conditions were control, moral appeal, and punitive risk threat. On two consecutive days, experiments were conducted with a plan of control group participants spread over 50% each day, moral appeal condition on the first day, and punitive threat condition on the second day. As per the same procedure, all participants completed the Mach IV scale. For each condition, separate instructions were used for experimental manipulation. The chairman entered the room with the completed forms of the participants waiting and handed them over the completed form to each person. He announced that the interview would begin soon and before that, they had a chance to look at the information they had entered. He requested the control group participants, waiting in a separate room, to check the data they had entered and make corrections, if any, before resubmission. Similarly, to the moral appeal experimental condition group, in addition to general instructions, he added, “… students try to get tuition fee waived by providing false information, morally wrong. By doing so, you may get a fee waiver, but you may be depriving a more deserving student.” They also appealed to correct the wrong information. On the second day, everything remained the same for the control condition. In addition, for the punitive threat condition, the chairman stated, “…the university has sent instructions (In fact, there was a notice of this kind from the Dean.) to report such cases which have submitted false information to the proctor for punitive action like fine or even expulsion from the university”. The chairman asked the participants to make corrections to false information. There were two control groups, each with 12 participants for each day. The moral appeal group had 26, and the punitive threat group had 32 participants. Since the two control groups did not differ, both data were pooled together and treated as one

146

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

control group. The crucial dependent measure was changes made in the form by the participants before resubmitting it. Three groups were comparable in terms of Mach scores. The median value of the total sample was used to split as high and low Mach for each condition. Out of 82 participants, 33 (40%) changed information to raise or reduce the value. Forty-four percent of the control group participants changed the initial data, followed by 38% by the moral appeal group and 40% by the punitive threat group. Machiavellianism did not influence change in information irrespective of control and experimental conditions, except that high Mach under the punitive threat condition changed more. Tripathi and Sinha further reported that most participants changed the data for financial gain in the control condition. Changes were almost equal for profit and loss in the moral appeal condition. But in the threat condition, more participants made changes in loss direction and lesser in profit direction. Most high Mach in the control direction changed information in the loss direction, and one for profit. In the moral appeal condition, more low-Mach changed in loss direction than the high Mach. High Mach opted more for financial loss than gains in the threat risk condition. Higher Mach opted for financial loss in punitive than in moral appeal condition. Tripathi and Sinha concluded that the participants who changed entered data for monetary gains had higher Mach scores. The ethical appeal was more effective on the low Mach who opted for financial loss than the high Mach. The reported findings were in the predicted direction. The lengthy descriptions of three studies (Tripathi, 1981) conducted in a routine, real-life, spontaneous setting present authenticity in experimental behavioral research. The experimental paradigm developed and used by Tripathi and associates involved face-to-face interactions between the actual participants and the targets (interviewers) and provided opportunities to Machiavellians for operations. Tripathi (1981) comments, “This variable (face-to-face interaction) appears to be crucial because manipulations cannot be expected to operate in a vacuum” (p. 153). These studies may lack the rigor of hard-core social experiments, but the validity of these findings for understanding the real world of human operations is undoubtedly high. The paradigm developed by Tripathi and his colleagues is a model example worth imitating. Based on their review of research, Fehr and associates (Fehr et al., 1992) concluded that Machiavellians have selfish motives with an instrumental behavioral approach. Stewart and Stewart (2006) found that high Machs prioritized money, power, and competition over low Machs. In another study, McHoskey (1999) found that high Machs showed low priority to community work and family concerns. High Machs are purely instrumental, money-seeking, and power-oriented people, and they always look out to maximize their gains, particularly in the long run. Generally, high Machs are superior in their social intelligence. They are good at judging others in various situations, which empowers them to succeed in interpersonal manipulation (Davies & Stone, 2003). However, correlations between Mach scores and intelligence have not been consistent (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Machs are good at unique abilities like mind-reading (i.e., judging others’ thinking) and emotional intelligence (Wilson et al., 1996; Mcllwain, 2003), but further research would help arrive at a credible conclusion. Based on the current status of research,

6.4 Machiavellianism

147

Jones and Paulhus (2009) also conclude that Machs’ superiority in social intelligence, mind reading, and emotional maturity. They argue for additional scientific research to untangle the puzzle of connections among these variables. Jones and Paulhus (2009) conclude with a hypothesis that “…any manipulative abilities that Machiavellians possess derive from superior impulse regulator rather than any special cognitive ability” (p. 94) for future research. Machiavellians are high in the use of strategic behaviors. Schyns et al. (2019) identify a set of negative strategic behaviors that Machs use: (i) A Machiavellian is a pragmatic person with a goal not to be the center of attention but to act more like a string’s puller to control the situation in his favor. (ii) A Mach likes to remain robust and to achieve that, he curtails the influence of others and withholds critical information from himself. (iii) He uses scheming for his selfish interest and manipulates the situation to achieve the set objectives. (iv) A Machiavellian prefers competing rather than cooperating. (v) A Machiavellian entices his co-workers and supervisors with risk-taking behavior and seduces them into such relationships, which may help him achieve the objectives. Some focused research on the working of Machiavellians has led to identifying some other characteristics. For example, Grover and Enz (2005) report that Machiavellians are comfortable and efficiently productive in ambiguous work environments. They do not perform so well in rule-based organizations, and they prefer to ignore rules and procedures to achieve their goals. They may wait, remain dormant, lie low for unfolding adverse events, and thrive in confusion and chaos. The uncertain conditions are opportunities for Machs to fish in water for selfish ends. Machiavellians may begin with a friendly act and use a range of influence tactics. They may use a soft skill like self-disclosure and, if necessary, move to use hard skills like making someone feel guilty, which may make co-workers start doubting their authenticity (Jonason et al., 2012). Although Machiavellians do not show their feelings and try to remain detached from situations, they, both men and women, use emotional manipulation with friends (Brewer et al., 2014) as part of the larger plan objective. Though high Machiavellians tend to influence others to make the situations favorable for themselves, they resist and hard to others’ attempts to control them (Sinha et al., 1982). 6.4 (vi) Machiavellianism: A dark triad (DT): Pauhus and Williams (2002) introduced the “dark triad” (D.T.), which includes three “socially aversive” constructs: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. The dark triad traits are of a malevolent kind. People with a higher degree of these traits may cause social distress and make others suffer in a leadership role. They are less compassionate, empathetic, and trusting of others (Kaufman et al., 2019). Opposite to DT, Kaufman, and associates (Kaufman et al., 2019) have proposed the “Light Triad” cluster of personality traits consisting of humanism, Kantianism, and faith in humanity. People high on humanism value others’ dignity and self-worth. People tall on Kantianism view others as people and not as an instrument to get something done. People high on humanity view others are good human beings. Kaufman and associates report that light triad individuals accept others enthusiastically and show compassion and

148

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

empathy. High on delicate triad virtues, individuals are also intellectually alert and tolerant of others’ perspectives. Several scholars have examined the ways three personality constructs overlap and diverge. Three constructs of D.T. have different origins. Psychopathy has a long history (Cleckley, 1941) with egocentricity. Currently, psychopathy is associated with lying, lack of empathy, and impulsivity. These psychopathy characteristics are linked with antisocial behaviors. Narcissism under modern psychoanalytic tradition (Kernberg, 1975) relates to grandiosity, pride, egotism, and domineering interpersonal style. Machiavellianism is a disposition of strategic social manipulation to control self-interest. Recent meta-analytic correlations (Vize et al., 2018) suggest that three D.T. constructs are moderate to strongly correlated. Three constructs, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, share a lack of community concern, dishonesty, and self-interest in interpersonal interactions (e.g., Moshagen et al., 2018). Pauhus and Williams’s (2002) publications received the attention of scholars and media, leading to many publications critically examining and questioning the idea of D.T. The D.T. has not considered the multidimensional nature of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. There are also methodological issues related to the measurement and validity of three constructs. Thus, methodological problems of D.T. require resolution before its acceptance on a robust ground. 6.4 (vii) Machiavellianism and competition: Machiavellians perform well in competitive environments. High Machs are not simply competitive, but they are also highly exploitative of whatever resources the situation provides (Geis, 1968). The personality construct of Machiavellianism suggests that relative to low, high Machiavellians apply with greater zeal, originality in deception and manipulation to win their goal in a social situation (Christie & Geis, 1970a). High Machs are more likely to compete as they have little concern for morality and social ethics. They use manipulative influence strategies without any qualm to win at any cost. They want success and that too fast. High Machs are low on empathy (Wastell & Booth, 2003), with little interest in following norms of close intimate friendship (Lyon & Aiken, 2010). Therefore, they exploit others (Wilson et al., 1998) and use manipulative ways to win in a competition. For high Mach’s intimate, close friendship is of little importance (Lyon & Aiken, 2010). Competition does not support fellowship (Sapadin, 1988) and may determine the selection of friends (Bleske & Buss, 2000). Machiavellianism is related to social motivation that enhances competitiveness (McHoskey, 1999) and is negatively related to cooperation (Paal & Bereczkei, 2007) and reciprocity (Gunnthorsdottir et al., 2002). High Mach individuals and those in competitive friendships are less honest in sharing self-disclosure, a robust measure of a dyadic company (Brewer et al., 2014). High Machiavellians are motivated to do their best to achieve the goal in a competitive condition. Pandey and Rastogi’s (1979) study on high and low Machivallians use of ingratiation tactics (e.g., other enhancement and opinion conformity) to influence the target, in competitive and noncompetitive conditions elaborated in Chap. 5 may be referred. The participants were the graduating students of a reputed engineering institution in India, with either high (scores range = 87 to 109, M = 96.50)

6.4 Machiavellianism

149

or low (scores range = 55 to 79, M = 66.94) Mach IV scale scores, differing significantly. The graduating students were highly motivated to prepare for a job interview scheduled by the Campus Placement office. They were randomly assigned to one of the two competitive or noncompetitive experimental conditions. The experimenter introduced and requested the participants to rate how they would behave with the interview board chairman and members in the hypothetical job interview. Instructions motivated the participants of both groups to believe that any interview expects a candidate to act smartly. As candidates usually mentally rehearse their acts in the forthcoming interview, they were asked to rate four statements related to their behavioral approach. Each participant rated four statements related to conformity, other-enhancement, and self-presentation on a seven-point scale to measure the use of ingratiation tactics during the actual interview. The findings suggested that high Mach desired to adopt more ingratiating behaviors than the low Machs in the interview situation (Pandey & Rastogi, 1979). Compared to low, high Machs showed significantly greater preference for praising and conforming with the targets, and interview board members. In addition, high Mach participants also desired to create more opportunities for honoring the targets. Participants in competitive conditions did show more willingness to demonstrate opinions and values, similar to the interview board chairman and members. The findings implicate that high Machiavellians use ingratiating behaviors as a strategy to be successful. The study has a limitation of being based on a hypothetical simulated condition. The participants also knew that they were competing with other fellow students. Still, the high Machs felt relatively more motivated and chose ingratiation strategies to succeed. Thus, personal success is more critical than social friendship and morality for high Mach individuals. 6.4 (viii) Do Machiavellianism engage in lobbying (Pairavi)? Chapter 2 has discussed how in socioeconomic contexts of shortages and lesser opportunities and where perceptions are also of scarcity, people engage in those behaviors unrelated to efficiency and productivity to influence the decision in their favor. One common practice is reaching out to influential persons and requesting them to write letters of recommendation or make telephone calls to the decision-makers to bless the person concerned. In the Indian context, this process is called Pairavee, widely prevalent in all walks of life. It is hard to translate Pairavee; generally, the English equivalent “lobbying” is used. Pairavee requires a suitable influential person to plan and persuade the decision-making authority adequately. So, one has to be the right and influential person to engage in the act of Pairavee skillfully. In many contexts, people compete to prove their worth in terms of qualification and experience and arrange effective Pairavee in their support. Sinha, Tripathi, and Pandey (1982) reported that while appearing before the committee to interview students for financial aids, high Mach participants presented more letters of recommendation than low Mach to influence the committee. The role of Machiavellianism in the functioning of the larger society requires further research. 6.4 (ix) Machiavellian leadership: The medieval-time scholar Niccolò Machiavelli in his classic “The Prince,” prescribed the characteristics of a successful Machiavelli leader as he must: be feared or loved (but not hated), have the support of people,

150

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

be able to show virtues, possess own arms, and should be intelligent. Chanakya (1500 years before Machiavelli) articulated that a good leader takes up a task and works till it gets done. He does not fear failure, does his best, and rests only after completing the task. These characteristics of a successful leader identified by the ancient and medieval sages of two different civilizations may partly be valid for today but have also been transformed with the evolution of societies and governance systems. For example, in well-established democracies, the Machiavellian leader would not like to be feared but would like to do everything to win the support of the people and, for that, may do his best to display virtues. A dictator of today may have most of the medieval period Machiavellian leader’s approach, including a firm control on arm forces. Any leader, be a Machiavellian or otherwise of the past or present, must be intelligent. The essential quality of a leader is to lead, which requires skills for influencing others. Tripathi and Sinha (1981a, 1981b) studied the relationship between Machiavellianism and family, caste group, and caste group influence in the village community. The Hindu student participants of rural areas completed the Mach IV scale and rated their perceived impacts on their family, caste group, and caste’s influence in the village (Tripathi & Sinha, 1981a, 1981b). All influence measures correlated positively and significantly with Machiavellianism. Correlations of the participants’ Machiavellianism scores and influence within the family, in the caste group, and their caste group’s influence in the village were 0.38, 0.59, 0.32, respectively. In addition, by adding three influence scores, a total of influence scores were arrived at and was correlated with Machs scores resulting in a high positive correlation (r = 0.58). The findings showing significant positive covariations between influencing and Machiavellianism disposition implicate that both variables impact each other. These correlations imply that an individual with more influence in his family is likely to significantly affect the caste group and his caste influence in the village. A person with more influence in his community will likely have a higher Machiavellian score. In short, the findings support the contention that the influence process, which ensures manipulation in social encounters, contributes more to the development or learning of a Machiavellian behavioral style. However, the findings are based on perceived influence measures and Machiavellianism. One may argue that high Machiavellians perceived themselves as having more influence. Neither the study’s design answered this competing hypothesis, nor does the literature support the contention that a person high on Machiavellianism perceives himself as more influential or powerful. Machs are power and influence-oriented, managing symmetrical and asymmetrical relationships (Tripathi, 1981). Tripathi (1981) explains, “A Machiaveli seeks to manipulate individuals higher up in authority or to possess more power, or individuals who are lower down in authority or are less powerful” (p. 136). Thus, Machiavelli is a pragmatic leader because he can work with people without hesitation at a higher or lower social or organizational structure hierarchy. A Machiavellian person in a leadership role is politically oriented and attempts to control his followers (McHoskey, 1999). Machiavellian leaders use impression management tactics and take less interest in organizational development and more in pursuing their agenda (Becker & O’Hair, 2007). Mach leaders have no qualm in

6.4 Machiavellianism

151

pursuing their agenda and ignore institutional priorities. They also misuse formal authority for personal benefits with no concern for traditional ethical and moral values. The Mach leaders are strategic in thinking about achieving their rather than institutional goals. They do well-navigating power dynamics in organizations (Judge et al., 2009). They also remain flexible in handling complex problems in structured and unstructured groups. Therefore, they create an impression of charismatic leaders (Deluga, 2001). As expected from a leader, Machiavellian has a natural flair for influencing others. Machiavellianism has been studied in the context of contemporary leadership (Judge et al., 2009). The high Mach leaders tend to be cunning, manipulative and use all means to gain more power. Machiavellian leaders lie, manipulate, and use coercive persuasion to achieve their goals. They are skillful in impression management and maximize opportunities for enlarging and strengthening their power. Machiavellians have little regard for moral and ethical norms, and they do not care to adhere to wellaccepted social standards. Machiavellians’ focus is on money, power, and winning a competition at any cost. Machiavellians at work engage in flattery, deceit, coercion, and abusive interpersonal methods to win (Calhoon, 1969). A Machiavelli leader with his all-manipulative qualities remains vulnerable and may feel insecure, suspecting to be caught for his deception. He may appear confident, but he may be afraid of losing face. There is always a limit to secrecy for the social maneuverability of a Mach leader. Therefore, such leadership may succeed for some time and inherently cannot provide stable leadership for a more extended period. A few research attempts to answer how others perceive and judge Machs. Other adults disapprove of Machs’ behaviors and perceive them negatively (Falbo, 1977). Machs are considered less desirable for most forms of social interactions, like a confidant, good friend, and business partner (Wilson et al., 1998). However, research reports young Machiavellians as well-adjusted, liked, and acceptable leaders (Hawley, 2003; Cole et al., 1990). Analysis of archival data suggests that the head of state, Presidents are perceived high Machiavellians, and also rated high on leadership charisma and effectiveness (Deluga, 2001). On the other hand, high Mach resists social influence (Tripathi, 1981), negatively affecting power and authority positions (Keenam & Clarkson, 1977). Simple persuasion fails to change high Mach as they resist; facts with logical justification may shift their position. High Mach fights any social pressure and wins any face-to-face encounters if implicated in social affairs. High Mach also prefers short-term strategies over the long term (Jones & Paulhus, 2009). In a significant way, Machiavellianism has been the focus of study in the organizational behavior and management contexts, discussed in Chap. 8.

152

6 Manipulative Social Behavior and Personality Disposition

6.5 Authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, and Manipulative Behavior The preceding discussion signifies authoritarianism and Machiavellianism in influencing and controlling others regarding manipulative behaviors. As stable dispositions, both traits motivate and orient individuals to operate in a social environment and establish their advantages. Manipulative social behavior is a strategy that tunes with authoritarian and Machiavellian traits of controlling others, ignoring ethical and normative considerations. Thus, the nature of authoritarians and Machiavellians is in coherence with manipulative social behaviors (Pandey, 1980a, 1986a; Tripathi, 1981). A Machiavellian empowered with behavioral skills manipulates others to act as directed. Manipulation is the behavioral skill of controlling others. Bohra and Pandey (1984) reported positive correlations in the participants’ ingratiating responses toward various target persons (i.e., friend, boss, stranger), showing stability in the behavioral style. Personality dispositions like Machiavellianism may probably work as a facilitating source for stable strategic behaviors. Manipulative (e.g., ingratiation) social behavior and Machiavellianism also differ in terms of the nature of interpersonal power relationships. For example, an asymmetrical power relationship generally exists between the actor and the target of ingratiation. Typically, an individual (i. e., actor) ingratiates the higher authority (boss) more than a lower status target (a stranger or a peer) (Bohra & Pandey, 1984). But a high Mach may manipulate another person irrespective of higher or lower status. Ingratiation, therefore, may occur more when the situation is structured and formalized in the hierarchy (Tripathi, 1981). Christie and Geis (1970a) suggested that a high Mach, on the other hand, would be more successful when the situation is unstructured, vague, and lacks formalization. Although both types of manipulation aim to control and influence others, psychologists have made some efforts to demonstrate linkages between the two (Pandey, 1981d; Pandey & Rastogi, 1978; Tripathi, 1981). Personality traits like authoritarianism and Machiavellianism alone cannot explain strategic influencing. An individual’s personality is responsive to his social reality and the system. Chapter 3, therefore, discusses an individual’s behavior as the outcome of interactions of the situation, overall socioeconomic and political conditions, and personality traits. Thus, an authoritarian leader with anti-democratic ideologies would not act dictatorially unless a conducive social reality exists. However, an authoritarian may constantly try to create conducive situations and find some scapegoat to legitimize his operation. To understand fascist, power-oriented, and manipulative behaviors, the concepts of authoritarianism and Machiavellianism are pretty helpful, particularly the components of authoritarian aggression and submission and social maneuvering of Machiavellians.

Chapter 7

Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

A heart can no more be forced to love than a stomach can be forced to digest food by persuasion. Alfred Nobel

Persuasion is a process of influencing others. Persuasion, a component of social influence, is commonly used to seek the compliance of others. Persuasion methods are varied and involve rational, logical consultation, soft techniques like supplication, ingratiation, and impression management. To seek compliance beyond gentle persuasion, one may use complex, hard, and challenging strategies like direction, coercion, and brute force for compliance. As the influence techniques vary in approaches from soft to hard, the influencer has to choose one or more methods suited to the context. The selection of a strategy may change with variations in the social, organizational, and business world (Fern et al., 1986; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Wheelness et al., 1983). The influencer (i.e., actor) appropriately decides on persuasion methods and uses them in his attempt to change the target’s attitude and action toward some issue. The influence success is contingent on the effectiveness of various persuasion strategies, which the influencer strategically uses to achieve desired compliance in the target. Persuasion is a process to convince others to change their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in an atmosphere of free will. However, if a situation requires authority, coercion and force are used. Social influence causes changes in people (i.e., individuals or groups) to think, feel, believe, and act in a particular way. The influencer may be present physically, imagined, expected, or implied. If persuaded and influenced, the target person ignoring his choice complies behaviorally, even if not necessarily agreeing to it. Thus, compliance is the outcome of social influence. Breckler et al. (2006) posit compliance as a change in behavior at another person’s or group’s behest. Although the individual chooses to act as he likes, he does comply because others require him. In other words, an individual agrees, but at the behest of others, a decision is at best a compliance without enthusiasm. It implies that the target has approved unconvincingly, and such agreement has the vulnerability to revert or take some other course with the change of direction of the wind. The failure to persuade may result in conflict, opposite to what one has thought to achieve. The undeclared competition between the influencer and the target may © Indian Council of Social Science Research 2022 J. Pandey, Nature and Dynamics of Social Influence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4598-4_7

153

154

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

cause differences and fights. So, the real issue is what tactics one should use that does not result in conflict and works amicably. In this context, the choice of tactics has to be cautious. Sometimes, the influencer may begin by probing the target to determine appropriate tactics that do not backfire. Which tactics one selects depends, on the influencer’s ingenuity and position, the target’s strength and capabilities, and the situation. But all the time, it may not be always well thought out, planned, and executed. It may happen that the target is abruptly forced or coerced in varied ways to obey. The present discourse treats persuasion as a process to impact and control others’ (individual or group) beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors toward some entity like events, objects, ideology, social issues, and organizations. Persuasion could be for personal gains like promoting specific products or advocating for a general welfare issue like the importance of practicing human rights; and campaigning for a political ideology to influence citizens. Persuasion is mainly dependent upon effective communication to influence others for attitudinal and behavioral changes. Chapter 3 deals with the attitude change approaches and implications for controlling others’ attitudes and acts. To a large extent, the contents of attitude change and the persuasion process overlap, which this chapter avoids. The question is: What makes persuasion succeed? The subject is vast and complex for psychology and other related disciplines. The chapter discusses principles and critical aspects of influence, persuasion, and compliance, followed by brief descriptions of evidence-based popularly used influence techniques. The last section presents the indigenously and empirically derived influence dimensions and construction of the Social Influence Scale (SIS) in the Indian context.

7.1 Principles of Social Influence Influence principles are philosophical foundations for explaining power and control mechanisms in human society. Influence principles with postulates and assumptions essentially explain the social influence phenomenon. For example, the justice system of an organization, based on certain accepted principles of human rights and obligations, serves as a guide to further work on developing the justice system and practice. Similarly, principles of influence serve as guides to understanding the way social influence works and accordingly plan its execution to achieve the objectives of influencing in various human social domains. In the recent edition of his famous book “Influence: The psychology of persuasion” Robert Cialdini (2021) has added one more principle to six universal principles of influence, postulated earlier by him. The seven principles represent the gist of diverse research, well tested in real-world applications (Cialdini, 2021). A summary of Cialdini’s seven influence principles provides a base for discussion on the practice of persuasion and compliance techniques which have evolved over the years. 7.1 (i) Reciprocation: Reciprocation is one of the most widespread basic norms that guide people’s behavior. A person likes to pay back what another person has

7.1 Principles of Social Influence

155

provided to him. This social norm assures the person that what is given will not be lost, it will be returned somehow. The standard commonly prevails that it will get back as a return. The reciprocal exchange rule ensures continuity of relationships in society. The process of socialization teaches this norm to the children, and as they grow also learn that if not followed, they will face social disapproval. So, to get compliance, the best way is to do some favor to the target before asking for something. Sometimes uninvited first favor to others puts him under obligation to return. The door-in-the-face technique of influence (see next section) heavily relies on the pressure of reciprocation. 7.1 (ii) Commitment to consistency: By nature, humans like to be consistent with their words, beliefs, attitudes, relationships, and behaviors. Interpersonal consistency, consistent conduct, and decisions are highly valued. People want to be compatible with previous commitments. An influencer uses the consistency principle and may remind a prior responsibility of the target for compliance. If made public, as internally motivated (not imposed), a promise is compelling for compliance. Once a stand is taken, an individual behaves stubbornly to remain consistent because it drives him to appear consistent. It is a powerful tool of social influence, and so even erroneously committed decisions are long-lasting and defended by adding new reasons if old are obsoletes, and commitment continues. It is not rare to hear a statement related to the value of loyalty to promises made. Box No. 7.1: “Life May Go, but Not Promise” (Pran Jahi Par Vachan Na Jahi!) One of the best examples comes from the Ramayana, the epic narrating Lord Ram’s life and work, for keeping the promise, popularly quoted even today. King Dashrath was reminded by the queen Kaikai of the two boons he had made. She insisted on fulfilling promises made by the king, asking his eldest son Ram (senior queen’s son) to go on exile in the forest for fourteen years and appoint his younger son Bharat (her son) as the king of Ayodhya. It was devastating for King Dashrath. King Dashrath maintained the tradition to keep the promise at all costs by fulfilling the promise made. Later, the king died of the shock. The Ramayana couplet states it well as the heading title of Box 7.1. 7.1 (iii) Social proof: People like to check whether their position is correct or not. They look around to find what others think and do in a similar case. The social proof is referred to the target as an example of others’ positioning the similar circumstances. The target is reminded that all others can’t be wrong, and therefore, he should do it too. Appropriate role models are quoted to convince the target. Social proof is like a shortcut to seeking the compliance of others. Social proof works better when the situation is uncertain and people hurry to have a position. People also like to follow the lead of a similar one as an accessible model for this purpose. An influencing agent may use the stand of the caste, community, or professional leaders as social proof

156

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

and win compliance. The best way to reduce the effect of social proof in compliance is to communicate that what others are up to must not be the sole basis for deciding action. 7.1 (iv) Liking: People comply with the requests of those whom they like. So simple rule is liking facilitates influence and compliance. The professionals use popular and famous sports and film heroes for endorsing messages because they enjoy mass appreciation. Among many, factors such as physical attractiveness, ethnicity, attitudinal, ideological, and other similarities, and complimenting and praising determine interpersonal liking and play a role in compliance. Familiarity and repeated contacts with positive experiences also choose to like, and therefore, a specific person of such communication may have a more significant influence on a particular target. A caution that one should pay attention to the facts and merit of the case may save people from the trap of compliance due to the liking factor. 7.1 (v) Authority: The authority figure in society may put pressure on compliance. People are socialized to obey legitimate authority. Obedience to authority is an honest approach to conduct. Generally, people attend to the legitimate authority because they judge them highly on knowledge, expertise, wisdom, and power. The famous experiment of Milgram (1963) showed the power of authority (see Chaps. 2 and 3). Authority has titles and also clothing/ uniform to symbolize them. For example, a police officer has rank and befitting dress, and he uses especially identifiable automobiles with a siren to get compliance. People also resist authority, mainly when it is in ordering form. People fight against authoritarian oppression. If the power source is some expertise, people’s knowledge judgment is essential. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, we are more influenced by the advice of the credible expert authority. 7.1 (vi) Scarcity: The principle of scarcity relies on “difficult to get are more valuable,” which applies everywhere. If availability is scarce, people assign more value, such as food, jobs, clothing, a seat in a show, and a train ticket. In practice, a popularly used sales offer strategy is: “limited number,” and the “deadline” draws a crowd. Scarcity curtails the freedom to have excess for the scarce object and may cause inadequacy, deprivation, and psychological reactance. As the reactance theory explains, the loss of freedom due to the nonavailability of something may cause reactance to have it more and lead to hoarding of the scarcity item (Brehm & Brehm 1981). Scarcity implies not having excess to some objects, positions, or opportunities, leading to an experience of psychological reactance. This motivational state drives freedom restoration (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2018), like the recent widespread hoarding of medicines, oxygen cylinders, and reserving hospital beds during the second Wave of COVID-19 in April–June 2021 in India. One may observe teenagers showing more psychological reactance than individuals of other ages. The teenagers experience an emerging sense of individuality, and when questioned by parents who still consider them kids, issues like control, individual rights, and freedoms come up. People of younger age are more sensitive to restrictions caused by scarcity. If scarcity information is limited and not made public by credible sources, people’s responses may be exaggerate, causing panic. A newly scared item gets a higher value than those which have been scared all

7.1 Principles of Social Influence

157

along. People are more attracted to those scarce items for which others are also competing. Scarcity situation is challenging to manage because it arouses people emotionally. Perhaps, awareness of emotional reactions may help bring sanity and evolve transparent practices to restrain people. 7.1 (vii) Unity: Recently, Cialdini (2021) has uncovered the seventh principle of unity, some elements of which, as he states were hidden under each of the six principles. For Cialdini (2021), the experience of shared identity is an example unity principle. If persons share an identity, they trust, cooperate, and influence mutually. They are bounded by psychological unity, which is not simply reciprocity, similarities, liking, social proof, consistency, or competing in scarcity, but it has some value elements that exist in all and binds them. The shared identity represents constellations of assumptions, ideas, and values. They have a sense of belonging and act together. In his recent book, J.B.P. Sinha (2021) critically reviews the mixed results of India’s nation builders’ initiatives like Gandhian Gram-Swarajaya, and Nehruvian socialism approaches after independence in 1947 to truly establish democracy and pull out the country from mass poverty and inequality. He recommends an integrated view to deal with the distractors of development. Though Sinha’s “integrated” approach is independently conceived, it finds a conceptual alliance with Cialdini’s (2021) “unity” principle. Chapter 9 discusses Sinha’s “integrated” approach and Cialdini’s “unity” principle to elaborate social influence processes in societal change and development for the well-being of all. The seven social influence principles competently explain the way of operation in various domains of life. These principles have also led to the developing of specific influence techniques. The following section discusses the way these principles are translated into persuasion techniques. A principle may be too evident within a particular situation and used as a technique; for example, the reciprocity principle as a standard method of influencing. 7.1 (viii) The social impact theory: The social impact theory identifies three factors determining the target’s likelihood of responding to social influence attempts (Latane’, 1981). Social impact is the function of strength (S), immediacy (I), and the number of persons (N). The first strength is the importance of the influencing agent for the target person or group. The strength of influence power is contingent on factors like age, social class, quality of the previous relationship if it existed, and expectation of future relationships. The second is the immediacy, physical, temporal, and psychological proximity of the target with the influencing agent. Immediacy also includes recency of the event and whether or not some intervening factors in between have taken place. The third is the number of people in the group, and the number of sources impacting the target. In a group setting, influence depends on the target’s perception of influencing persons and their status. The theory is essential for the study of group influence. The theory suggests that multiple sources have more power over the target than a single source. So, if many persons communicate a message more than a single person, it is more effective. But multiple sources are effective only under some conditions. The message must be strong because weakly argued arguments, even if delivered by numerous persons, do not cause attitude change. The second condition is the target must perceive

158

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

the multiple sources as independent rather than managed kind. In other words, the numerous source message must not be seen as the product of the “same brain.” The third condition is, adding sources of the message that may not work after a level. It implies that multiple and independent sources work as an effective weapon of influence, but adding more does not have an additional effect if sources grow large. Although strength and immediacy are essential additions to the theory, the operationalization of these variables is less clear. In some studies, sources of strength vary either with age or profession. For example, an adult with a prestigious job has more strength than a young college student. Immediacy has been chiefly used as the physical distance between the source and the target. The size of event images shown on media has an implication, and the size of media coverage may determine the immediacy factor. Latane’ has linked social impact theory with his earlier explanation of the diffusion of responsibility (Latane’ & Darley, 1968) by adding variations in the number of target factors. More strength and immediacy combined with a more significant number of targets in a situation may lead the social impact to be shared among all targets. This sharing of influence is like dividing the effect, similar to the diffusion of responsibility phenomenon (Latane’ & Darley, 1968, 1970). Individuals feel less accountable with the increase in the number of persons in the situation, and the impact of an emergency on individuals declines when more people are present. The reciprocal relationships impact attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions at the group level. Daily interactions with others have features of strength, immediacy, and many social influence sources, leading to attitude and behavior change (Harkins & Latane’, 1998). Social impact theory has applied importance in persuasion related to many aspects of our daily life like shopping, consumer behaviors, and political processes, including voting behavior.

7.2 What Makes Persuasion Effective? Persuasion and influence are multifaceted, dynamic, culturally conditioned, and socially contextualized. Therefore, what works in one situation may not be efficient in another. Chapter 2 deliberates how the Indian society and culture and its various aspects like authority, power, leadership, and values impact social influence. Chapter 3 on psychological perspectives of influence discusses perceived credibility, expertise, trustworthiness, attractiveness, and liking of the communicator as essential elements to getting attention and acceptance of the message by the audience. This chapter adds to previously covered content on attitude change and conformity. Social psychology research has aimed to answer what one could do to make one’s message persuasive and effective (Albarracin & Vargas, 2010; Petty & Wegener, 1998). 7.2 (i) Central and peripheral routes of persuasion: The recipient of the message is the essential person in any episode of influence because he is the one who receives, mentally analyses, and decides to accept or reject the message, and accordingly may or may not act. A message recipient opts for one of the two alternate

7.2 What Makes Persuasion Effective?

159

routes, central or peripheral, to process the message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty & Wegener, 1998; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, 1998). When the recipient is motivated and is ready to apply his thoughts on the issue, he may take the central route to persuasion. Subsequently, he may focus on the arguments made in the message contents, and if views are strong, he may most likely accept the message as communicated. However, the critically minded people may argue back and not take the message, particularly if the message has weak arguments. But for some other people, the message arguments do not mean much. One may not be motivated to think critically and may be preoccupied with other work. In such a condition, the person may not like to scrutinize the message contents and take the peripheral route to persuasion and accept the message. Thus, when people are not motivated to think, they tend to receive a familiar message quickly, but they may reject any similar meaning novel statement, requiring some thinking. Generally, television commercials and billboards use peripheral cues like endorsement and images of the movie (i.e., Bollywood in the case of Indian audience) and sports stars to rouse feelings than the logic of the recipients and succeed in influencing. One may observe that soft drinks advertisements use happy, youthful images to communicate that the product is “the real thing.” On the other hand, the features are logically and convincingly presented to promote high-tech products like smartphones or computers. Even a naïve buyer tries to understand the message-contents about the product logically and even may consult an expert. The message is delivered logically and thoughtfully to the recipients, who can examine each information before deciding. The ultimate goal of persuasion is behavior change. The central route uses logic and arguments to persuade the recipients, resulting in more enduring change (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). It is natural that when people think deeply, their attitude changes are well thought out and stable. They also face counter-attacks and translate their attitude into action. The peripheral route may lead to short-lived attitude changes. So, if we want someone to stop smoking, it would be more effective to provide robust and compelling arguments against smoking and motivate the person to think about those arguments. 7.2 (ii) Recipients’ characteristics and message contents: Message contents may primarily focus on reason or emotion or both reason and emotion. Several issues related to the message content are significant subjects of studies. For example, educated, enlightened, and socially alert people are analytical and conscious about the subject under consideration. Therefore, they respond more to rational appeals than less aware and less educated people with a low analytical ability (Cacioppo & others, 1983). Thoughtful people take the central route, and the reasoned arguments influence them more. However, uninvolved and less concerned people take the peripheral route, and their liking of the communicator affects them more (Chaiken, 1980). Let us try to construct an example. With both reasoned circumstances and emotional appeals, the story is prepared to persuade people for a donation to fight hunger and malnutrition. The report may begin with the cause of the perennial shortage of food, mainly for the landless agricultural laborers and their families in a backward district of a state in India. The story may narrate the statistics of shrinking workdays due to either flood or drought for several years. The laborers are helpless as they have limited

160

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

livelihood, and they cannot migrate to other places with opportunities for jobs due to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Images of starvation and children crying for food could be written and shown visually to add an emotional tone to the message. The example combines both reasoned arguments and ideas of the severe crisis faced by the people. The social psychological research would predict that the well-educated and analytical people will take the central route to process the rational, well-argued information and show more excellent positive responsiveness to the appeal. On the other hand, the less educated and less analytical people will pay greater attention to the images of misery and starvation. They will take the peripheral route and positively respond to the appeals (Cacioppo & others, 1983). Generally, both reasoned and emotional contents are combined in persuasive messages to cover both kinds of people. 7.2 (iii) One-sided versus two-sided presentation: A persuasive message lets the receivers think and act in a particular way. The persuasion process deals with the delicate issue of handling opposite arguments. A message may or may not acknowledge opposing viewpoints. A two-sided message can also be non-refutational and may leave no scope for counter-arguments. The message, inclusive of opposite arguments, makes it appear fairer to the audience. The more equitable message gains the audience’s confidence, and that, in turn, makes the persuasion effective. However, the messages with both-sided opposing arguments increase the effectiveness and durability of influence (e.g., Jones & Brehm, 1970). For example, the social–psychological research findings would advise an election candidate that while addressing a politically conscious group, he would be more effective by referring to the arguments of his opponents while emphasizing the strength of his position. 7.2 (iv) Facts and evidence: In addition to presenting opposing viewpoints, including favorable supporting evidence in the message further strengthens persuasion. The persuasive message gets strong if some supportive data and evidence back it. Factual information and reasoned arguments legitimize the message in impressing the receivers. The strength and the type of evidence determine the persuasive effectiveness of the message (Reynolds & Reynolds, 2002). Among the many kinds of evidence, the four most important and commonly used are 1. Statistical (e.g., frequencies, percentages); 2. Testimonial (e.g., eye-witness account, expert testimony); 3. Anecdotal evidence (e.g., personal opinion or interpretation); and 4. Analogical (e.g., comparing one situation to another). The statistical and the testimonial evidence are widely used and considered strong evidence compared to the other two (Shen & Bigsby, 2013). 7.2 (v) Order of arguments (last or first): The relative effect of what is said “first” and “last” in the message, also called the primacy and the recency effect has varied results. The proverbial commonsense states, “The one who first states a case seems right until the other comes and cross-examines.” The first information may create a perspective for interpreting any new information, and in that case, the primacy effect gains a more significant influence. However, the new and recent information may outweigh the past information and become relatively more persuasive than the first information. Sometimes, the first weak arguments get wiped out by the second solid arguments (Miller & Campbell, 1959). The strength of the idea is an important

7.3 Techniques of Persuasion and Compliance

161

consideration, irrespective of the order. Haugtvedt and Wegener (1994) studied the issue of two messages presented back-to-back or after a time gap. The findings, in general, support the advantageous position of the primacy effect in the “back-toback” case and the recency effect in the case of “after a time gap.” Haugtvedt and Wegener (1994) also examined high and low levels of message elaboration effect. They report that a situation requiring a high level of message elaboration may cause a higher impact of the first message on the final response, a primary effect. A problem requiring a low level of relevant magnification may cause the second message more significant impact on the reaction recency effect. 7.2 (vi) Subliminal presentation of stimulus: Since the 1950s, the effectiveness of the subliminal presentation of stimulus on persuasion has been a subject of study. The messages “Eat popcorn” and “Drink Coca-Cola” were shown just for 1/3, 3000 of a second to the innocent moviegoers who were not aware of it during the screening of the film (McConnell et al., 1958). The subliminal presentation of messages was well below the conscious of visual perception. As claimed, the early effort of subliminal persuasion resulted in increased popcorn sales by 58% and cola sales by 18%. Although, subliminally presented stimulation on behavior (Bergh et al., 1996) has shown inconsistent effects, the accumulated scientific research findings do not support the powerful effect of such stimuli on persuasion as initially claimed (Alberici & Vargas, 2010). Similarly, mere repetitive exposure makes perceiving and processing the stimulus easier. Probably, such findings have encouraged the commonly followed practice of repetitive persuasion. 7.2 (vii) Use of heuristics: It is also commonly observed that occasionally people do not contribute thoughtful solutions to the concerned subject. They use heuristics and mental shortcuts to have ready-made good-enough solutions. The heuristics serve the purpose of a quick decision, particularly in an ambiguous situation. For example, the undecided voters may get influenced by an appeal (like a heuristic) of a highly credible expert or social figure rather than evaluating each candidate’s in-depth policy and programs, background, and political affiliation. Chaiken and Maheswaran’s (1994) research findings suggest that thoughtful people also use the peripheral route to persuasion and use the rule of the thumb heuristic like “trust the experts.” Often, names of credible experts are associated with persuasion to convince and influence the target audience. This section has discussed some bare essentials in the persuasion process to make it effective. One must not conclude that this is all-inclusive.

7.3 Techniques of Persuasion and Compliance The people are hardly alone; others’ implied or imagined presence influences them in physically alone conditions. Mostly we are in some roles in situations with others whom we try to control in the best possible ways to achieve individual or collective goals. For example, parents, friends, social activists, politicians, media persons, managers in organizations, marketing, and sales always try to use tested techniques

162

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

and keep inventing new ones for influencing others. The process of social learning facilitates people to acquire tested skills and strategies for influencing others. They also keep trying and creating new ways to influence others in their domains. Social psychologists have empirically studied many such techniques, which are standardized methods in controlling to achieve compliance. As such new approaches keep evolving to meet new challenges, and therefore, no list of influencing technology will ever be complete. Though partially, to achieve a sense of completion of the story on influence processes, empirically tested and commonly used selective methods to impress and control others are illustratively summarized. 7.3 (i) The rule of reciprocation: The theory of reciprocity finds its expression in the following popular way: “you scratch my back, and I’ll do yours.” Sociologist Gouldner (1960) argues that people follow the norm of reciprocity accompanied by a sense of obligation and return what they receive from others in due course. Although this norm is universal across cultures, some variations may be in the way of its practice. For example, in Indian society, people are so particular that they record in writing or mentally what they received on which occasions from whom and return it on similar events adding some more, making reciprocation a spiral phenomenon. Cialdini (2009) considers reciprocation a weapon of influence that people learn from childhood to abide by this norm. The reciprocity norm helps maintain social relationships, transactions, exchanges, and stability in society. The reciprocity rules may impact compliance decisions. To secure compliance or favor from someone, one may adopt a strategy to give something to the target before asking. A skilled manipulator may even make a long-term plan of hurling gifts and favors to the target as a long-term investment, hoping that someday in the future, his investment will be paid back. In a society where resources are unequally distributed, those with fewer resources hang around and engage in odd jobs for those who control resources. This way, the less powerful accumulate obligations on the powerful with the expectation of favors on the right occasions. The skilled manipulator may make long-term planning and engage in uninvited first favors. This kind of long-term investment often has an overwhelming influence on desired compliance. Cialdini (2009) suggests that the target may get into “uncomfortable indebtedness” and thus may reciprocate with an enormous favor than what he had received. 7.3 (ii) Foot-in-the-door phenomenon: Foot-in-the-door is a common tendency in people to agree to fulfill a large request after agreeing first to a small request (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). According to this method, the persuader puts a small demand first to the target person, and the target agrees because the request is small. As soon as the target concedes, the persuader adds more to his demand. Finally, as the target has already decided to favor, he consents to the more extensive request. It is easier to comply with a more significant request if the target has committed a “yes” for a small request. For example, it is more likely that other persons would comply to volunteer for four hours a week if they have already shown compliance to volunteer two hours a week for social work. The foot-in-the-door compliance tactic is contingent on the assumption that consenting to a small request raises the probability of agreeing to a more significant request. People like to be consistent, so

7.3 Techniques of Persuasion and Compliance

163

once they have decided to meet the first small request, to maintain consistency, they agree to the second request too, even if it is enlarged (Petrova et al., 2007). 7.3 (iii) Low-ball technique: The low-ball technique is a compliance technique popular among salespeople. The salesman wisely presents an attractive product offer to the target without revealing the actual cost. Once the target shows his interest in buying the product, the salesman tells the exact price, higher than expected. The offer presented to the target is attractive, but the salesman changes the deal, generally increasing the offer rate while finalizing the deal. As the target person had agreed to buy, he feels obligated and extends his compliance for the raised cost. In an exciting experiment, Cialdini and his colleagues (Cialdini et al., 1978) asked control group students to volunteer to participate in a psychology experiment at 7 AM. As 7 AM is an inconvenient time, most of the students declined. The experimental group participants were asked to volunteer for a psychology experiment, and they did not receive instruction for time. Nevertheless, most of the participants agreed. Later, they received instructions that the experiment timing was 7 AM. They had a chance to drop out if they wanted to. Surprisingly, 95% of the volunteers showed up for the experiment. The low-ball technique was operative to get overwhelming compliance from the students. 7.3 (iv) Door-in-the-face: In the door-in-the-face method, the persuader first makes a large request, knowing that the target would not comply. As expected, the target refuses, and then the persuader reduces the request size to which the target most likely complies. This method uses commonsense psychology of people that initial refusal of an enormous demand increases the likelihood of agreeing to a second more minor request. For example, a volunteer who collects donations for charity work begins a request with a large sum, say the contribution of one month’s income, which the target may decline. The volunteer may reduce the second request’s size, say the donation of one-day income, to which the target agrees to comply. The target feels obligated to agree to the second request because he did not agree to the first request. For example, while negotiating annual salary raises, employees first make a 20% raise, but when refused by management, they reduce it by 10%, which gets accepted. A salesperson also quotes a higher price and then reduces it to make it acceptable. Cialdini and his colleagues (Cialdini et al., 1975) explain that the door-in-the-face technique works due to the well-accepted norm of reciprocity. Not agreeing to a large request makes the target feel obligated to decide in favor of a small request. The door-in-the-face method effectively produces compliance only if both proposals are similar and by the same person. 7.3 (v) Foot-in-the-mouth: In the foot-in-the-mouth method of compliance, the persuader makes the target person feel great and comfortable. He takes an interest in the target by asking questions to prove his interest and liking for him. Questions like: How are you today? Trust you are feeling well and comfortable. In the continuity of the initial conversation, the persuader states, “Could I ask you for one thing as your kind help.” Thus, persuasion catches the person personally and makes him feel positively inclined. Sometimes the persuader may politely influence the target to wait rather than thrust something on him abruptly. Communication with a stranger is necessary for influence. A possible general social effect requires the persuader to

164

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

engage in either dialogue or monologue. Dolinski and his colleagues (Dolinski et al., 2001) suggest that a conversational communication method with anyone connects the persuader with the target, which helps the persuader establish a bond and possibly share identities. The persuader builds trust with the target person and prepares the ground for engagement in reciprocal exchange. In brief, conversational talking helps the persuader connect with the target and achieve influence goals (Howard, 1990). 7.3 (vi) That’s-not-all: The salesperson uses the “that’s not all” technique to persuade a potential undecided buyer to buy the product (Burger, 1986). First, the persuader requests, followed by an additional advantage if the target concedes. For example, if you purchase a car, you are still unsure to finally make up your mind. Before you say, “no,” the salesperson states, “that’s not all”; another advantage is that there will be free maintenance service for three years if you buy. The persuasive argument becomes strong, and the deal materializes. Even though the added benefit is not one that the person would pay for separately, it makes a more persuasive argument when added to the original offer. 7.3 (vii) Because: It is a well-known principle that compliance increases if reasons are given when we ask someone for a favor. Cialdini (2009) has explained it well: “People simply like to have reasons for what they do.” “Because” is a powerful word in the world of persuasion to achieve compliance. Ellen Langer (1989), a Harvard social psychologist, demonstrated how “because” works as a weapon to achieve compliance. If the persuader gives a reason for asking someone to do something, he most likely obtains others’ submission. It is human nature to know the reasons for our actions. So, when someone is asked to comply and provided explanations for it, compliance is astonishingly higher because it fits human nature. In an experiment, Langer (1989) demonstrated that when the persuader asked for a small favor from others waiting in line to use a copying machine in a library by stating, “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I am in a rush.” Compliance with the request was nearly total; ninety-four percent of people allowed the persuader to use the machine out of turn. Compared to it, is another condition when the persuader requested by stating, “Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?” Only sixty percent of those asked complied. First, Langer thought the difference between the two conditions was additional information “because I am in a rush.” To explain it, Langer added the third condition by changing the request to “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use a Xerox machine because I have to make some copies”. Ninety-three percent of those approached complied, though no reason and new information were given for any justification. The findings implied that the word “because” made the difference. To effectively manage the organization or increase the sale performance of products, we make strategies. Still, generally, we forget the most important part to convey concerning others: Why? For efficient persuasion, to increase compliance and correct ethically, the findings suggest that “because” factor should be added. People have greater compliance if they receive a reason for doing something as the persuader asks. 7.3 (viii) Hard-to-get: Hard-to-get something means a shortage of supply of something in question. Scarcity is a well-known principle of Cialdini (2021) for

7.3 Techniques of Persuasion and Compliance

165

increasing sell of a product. As soon as people perceive that something is available in lesser quantity, people rush for it. Cialdini (Cialdini & Trost, 1998) states that scarcity attracts. People like to have excess for the objects they need. So, if something goes scarce and may not be available when needed, people feel motivated to procure such things and even hoard them. People like to restore their freedom by procuring short-supply items. In a way, scarcity curtails freedom, and people react and try to regain independence by having scarce objects (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Brehm and Brehm (1981) argue that “psychological reactance” motivates freedom when scarcity curtails freedom and puts restrictions. Hard-to-get represents a situation of lack which serves as a powerful, persuasive tactic. The absence of something that leads to a hard-to-get phenomenon becomes a powerful weapon for compliance, commonly used to increase sales. Due to scarcity perception, some people even buy those things they do not need. 7.3 (ix) Deadline and limited number technique: The “deadline technique” is a popular compliance strategy to impact the target individual or group in a wide variety of contexts. For example, an advertiser may announce a particular product with a deal, available for a limited period to promote sales instantly. The product’s availability for a limited period creates a perception of scarcity that plays a crucial role in motivating people to buy it. Cialdini (2009) argues that the strategy of the deadline creates intense pressure on the target to comply. Scarcity means less availability of something. When people perceive that a particular object in the market is in short supply or slots to be filled by recruits are less available, the value of such things increases, motivating people to try for it. The scarcity tactic also increases the attraction of target people toward the product. So, compliance strategists use the scarcity technique to manipulate the target’s compliance, called the “limited number technique.” The ‘hard to get and the “deadline” techniques are related because both indicate scarcity. A time limit of availability of a product or some other opportunity like concessional travel or discount to buy insurance also has an element of scarcity. The limited time with the deadline also includes shortages, and both factors affect the target people’s emotions and motivate them to think they need it. Consequently, they comply to buy it. Sometimes, they get into the trap of the deadline technique and even buy those products they rarely use. 7.3 (x) Fear-then-relief: “Fear-then-relief” consists of causing stress before a relief as a preparatory step for a later request that results in higher compliance. The “fear-then-relief” is an empirically demonstrated persuasion and compliance technique (Dolinski, 2016). It is expected that when people experience fear from a source that soon disappears, then soon after, they show greater compliance to a request. Dolinski (1998) demonstrated that by creating a fear-then-relief, a kind of emotional-see-saw condition induced more compliance in people. For example, in some experiments, the participants wrongfully believed they were fined for parking, which turned out to be a false alarm after factual checking. They found that the sticker on their vehicle was an advertisement. First, they experienced fear of paying a fine but soon discovered that it was false, and they felt relief. People who go through such an experience of “fear-then-relief” comply more with requests. Based

166

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

on a series of experiments, Dolinski and colleagues (Dolinski et al., 2007) concluded that the participants who experienced “fear-then-relief” showed more compliance to requests made soon after such experience than the control groups. They explained that “… these differences disappeared if after being relieved of fear they were induced to function mindfully” (p. 433). It implies that “fear-then-relief” causes a state of mindlessness that increases compliance. The cognitive functioning declines under the “fear-then-relief” condition, and its victims show cognitive dysfunction causing greater compliance (Dolinski et al., 2007). 7.3 (xi) But-you-are-free-of: “The but-you-are-free-of” (BYAF) technique is a compliance-seeking tactic that tells the target person “you are free to…” after making the request. In their experiment, Gueguen and Pascual (2000) asked people in the street to give them some money. The proposal included “but you are free to accept or refuse in the experimental condition.” The control condition, however, did not conclude with it. Among the solicited participants, only 10% in the control condition, whereas 45.5% in the experimental condition responded positively. A feeling of freedom of choice increased the compliance rate dramatically. Based on a meta-analysis of 42 studies, Carpenter (2013) concluded that “but-you-are-free-of” (BYAF) was an effective means of increasing compliance. After making a request, a polite statement to the target that he should feel free not to comply worked as a powerful weapon to ensure greater compliance. Several theoretical explanations attempt to explain the BYAF effect on compliance. According to politeness theory, the polite communication method minimizes facing threats and reduces any possible pressure to do something. BYAF also lessens any likely imposition and allows freedom of choice and threat to the target. To some extent, Gouldner’s (1960) reciprocity is in operation. The target may feel that the persuader is humble, does not demand, and gives freedom to decide. On the other hand, the target may feel obligated and reciprocate by yielding to the request. Both politeness and reciprocity explanations imply that the target complies because of his positive perception of the solicitor. 7.3 (xii) A little is better than nothing: An individual may set a goal that requires many long-drawn efforts. The individual knows that he will have to work hard for many days. Finally, he makes progress but finds the plan is still too far. But he takes some action each day and keeps his motivation intact; he may say some action is better than nothing. For example, as a volunteer, you collect donations for a welfare program for deprived children. You approach a limited resource-poor target, hesitant to make a small contribution to such a great cause. At this stage, you help the target to understand that even a tiny donation is better than nothing, and you succeed in your mission of compliance with some assistance. In a recent study, Wilson and his associates (Wilson et al., 2014) found that most participants would like to do something, even at the cost of hurting themselves, than doing nothing. 7.3 (xiii) Touch technique: The effect of touching the target person on compliance with a request has been empirically studied (Dolinski, 2016). The findings of several studies have shown that people are inclined to comply more to fulfill a stranger’s request if the request is with a delicate touch of the arm or shoulder. However, the word “delicate” and “light” touch are vague. Gentle touching behavior brings

7.4 Taxonomy and Measurement of Social Influence in the Indian Context

167

physical closeness accompanied by a psychological feeling of intimacy and liking of the person making requests, enhancing compliance (Dolinski, 2016). However, metaanalysis studies on the link between touch and compliance by Segrin (1993) conclude that there is no clear criterion across studies for determining the strength of contact enhancing compliance making it challenging to arrive at a scientific consensus on the issue. Furthermore, the relationship between touching and compliance has other cultural, gender, and status variations. Therefore, any generalization of the findings has to be cautious. 7.3 (xiv) Perceptual contrast: Human perception is guided by certain principles, and perceptual contrast is one of them. Perceptual contrast enhances the difference between two objects presented in a sequence. For example, suppose two objects are presented one after another, and those objects are not alike; due to contrast, the difference between the two becomes sharper than if shown independently. Cialdini (2009) considers the perceptual contrast principle a weapon of influence, popularly used in marketing. Let us take a modified version of Cialdini’s example. If a clothing store salesperson sells an expensive suit to a customer, he may succeed in selling costly shirts and other accessories. But if the salesperson follows the reverse order of the above example and sells a cheap suit first, he will not sell expensive shirts and accessories. The perceptual contrast technique is challenging to detect by the target and, therefore, effective (Tormala & Petty, 2007). The techniques described briefly do not represent an all-time inclusive list, and it is a dynamic phenomenon that keeps on adding new and refining the earlier ones.

7.4 Taxonomy and Measurement of Social Influence in the Indian Context The social influence processes are socio-culturally conditioned and dynamic but are not confined to time and space (i.e., Culture). Persuasion and influence tactics to secure others’ compliance are contingent on multiple sociocultural factors. As discussed in Chap. 2, social and cultural variations add innovative ways to persuasion and influence. Gergen (1973) has argued that psychological knowledge is the source of changing itself, and therefore, people keep innovating new ways of influencing, abandoning the earlier on. Thus, once people know how others impact them, they try to self-inoculate to safeguard themselves from the external sources trying to control them. The persuader has no other choice but to invent new methods to influence, enlarging the list of influence dimensions. Therefore, any claim to develop an all-inclusive taxonomy of social influence dimensions and a stable objective measurement scale is a challenging task. The critical mission one must face is to grapple with cultural and temporal variations and must not aspire to have a stable solution for such a strategic and dynamic social phenomenon. With these limitations, social psychologists have studied persuasion and influence to enhance effectiveness in the social world. The addition of new social influencing tactics increases social effectiveness,

168

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

improving the quality of decision-making (Pfeffer, 1981) and policy implementation (Bass, 1985). The influence processes are functional because they work together and accomplish personal, group, or organizational goals. Like any other category of behavior, individuals differ in the choice of influence behavior. Individual resources, the nature of the situation, and the target’s characteristics impact the social influence process. Nevertheless, individuals decide and use appropriate and effective influence strategies. For example, relevant interpersonal influence for family members makes family life happy and pleasant. Successful influencing may increase managerial effectiveness in an organization and motivate subordinates to commit more to work, putting extra effort for higher productivity (Bass, 1985). The choice of influence tactics varies with the situational demand. For example, Guerin (1995) reports that the number of target individuals determines tactics; people use different tactics in one-to-one and group situations. An individual’s influence tactic depends on the individual’s relationship with the target. For example, influence tactics used by teenagers on parents may differ from those used on friends. Palan and Wilkes (1997) found that parents used different influence tactics in response to their children’s influence attempts. Thus, the choice of influence tactics is affected by seemingly diverse factors that guide predictions about tactics. A survey of influence research identifies strategies in practice and measurement scales used in social and organizational contexts. For example, in a systematic study, Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980) content analyzed lower level managers’ selfreported incidences of influencing their authorities, co-workers, and juniors and identified fourteen categories of influence tactics. Their first study developed a 58-item questionnaire that was administered to new participants. They asked them to rate each item representing a related tactic and the extent to which they use it to influence authority, colleagues, and subordinates. They arrived at eight categories of influence behavior: assertiveness, rationality, ingratiation, exchange, upward appeals, coalitions, sanctions, and blocking. They found that the frequency with which tactics were used depended on the participants’ relative power and status and the target’s resistance. The self-report scale of Kipnis and associates (Kipnis et al., 1980) has also been in extensive use (e.g., Kipnis & Schmide, 1988; Yukl & Falbe, 1990). Several researchers classify the influence strategies into two broad categories: strong/hard and weak/soft. Examples of strong and soft skills are “assertiveness” and “ingratiation,” respectively. The soft skills consist of face-to-face negotiation to make requests for compliance, ingratiation, personal appeals, and logical reasoning. Falbe and Yukl (1992) studied the target’s perspective with subordinates attempting to influence and found that emotional appeals and consultation were most effective. The least effective were pressure, legitimating, and coalition tactics. The middle-level effectiveness was rational persuasion, ingratiation, personal requests, and exchange tactics. In general, hard tactics were less effective than soft tactics. Chapter 2 discusses the significance of salient characteristics of Indian society in social influence processes. In a social situation, different people have their respective roles, and accordingly, they entail a set of expectations regarding behavior. Persons are expected to act according to the societal norm for each social position. Thus,

7.4 Taxonomy and Measurement of Social Influence in the Indian Context

169

norms serve as accepted standards in the community, provide a general idea of how to behave, make a predictable order in society, and serve as a key to understanding social influence. None of these, like social positions, roles, and norms, are stable because of the constant impact of internal forces of the immediate group and external pressures of the community. As the taxonomy of influence continues to be dynamic in the real world, any classification of influence processes has to be relative to a cultural context. So, our present attempt is to understand the taxonomy of influence in the Indian context for the contemporary period. Research findings on leadership and power in Indian society provide new insights into influence processes. The principal objective of leadership research has always been to explain how leaders continue influencing people in the system effectively, leading to the best performance. Yukl’s (2008) flexible leadership theory suggests that the best performance requires the cooperative efforts of people in the organization, for that matter, in a society. As per the changes in the situation, flexible and adaptive leadership uses flexible influencing tactics. The leadership research tradition in India has been vital in providing insights into understanding social influence. There is a history of research on the importance of supervisory style on productivity in the Indian context. For example, Bose (1955) reported two essential prerequisites of happy industrial relations, mutual trust between workers and management and authentic leadership. Employees-centered supervision was positively related to the workers’ pride and productivity. Another comparative study by Kamla Chowdhary (cited by D. Sinha, 1972) on cotton mills with and without social tensions revealed that low social tension mills had “understanding”-type supervisors who used the soft persuasive communication method. The supervisors of socially tense mills adopted threatening and punishing strategies to control. Ganguly (1961) studied supervision effectiveness and reported that employees’ centric management resulted in increased satisfaction, morale, and productivity. By the mid-1970s, work on dependency (J.B.P. Sinha, 1970), affection as a cultural value (Kakar, 1971), personalized relationship needs (De, 1971), weak work ethics (Sinha, 1980), accumulated and impacted the new way of leadership style. The wind of change favored democratic functioning and influencing was worldwide, including in India. The authoritarian leadership was considered neither conducive to productivity nor satisfaction. However, as it was hard to shift smoothly to democratic functioning, J.B.P. Sinha formulated the authoritative leadership, best suited to the Indian authoritarian society (see Chap. 2) (J.B.P. Sinha, 1980). Sinha (1980) elaborately explained how the authoritative style functions like a nurturant leadership by combining task-orientated supervision with a parenting style of influencing and support. Thus, keeping intact primary objectives of quality and quantity of the task, with parental support and control, proved to be the best style of supervision suited for Indian culture. J.B.P. Sinha and his associates (Singh, 1985; Sinha, 1994; Sinha & Singh-Sengupta, 1991) highlight power dynamics between superior and subordinate and influence tactics. Singh-Sengupta (1990) identified strategies like blocking, dependency, upward appeal, and ingratiation, generally used by a subordinate to influence the manager.

170

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

Ansari (1990) argued that a leader influencing followers is bidirectional, involving the leader and followers’ mutual influence. The leader uses various influencing tactics to control the followers effectively, and the followers use tactics to extract from the leader, the reward of their choice. Ansari and his associates’ (Ansari, 1990; Ansari & Kapoor, 1987, Tandon et al., 1991) research findings identify several influence strategies: assertiveness, coalition and alliance with others, exchange of benefits, ingratiation, reasoning and arguments, rational persuasion, upward appeals, and blocking for upward, downward or lateral influencing. Ansari and Kapoor (1987) reported that blocking, upward requests, and ingratiation tactics are more effective on authoritarians. Nurturant-participative managers, however, responded positively more to rational and persuasive tactics. The social influence processes are inclusive of the intricacies of interpersonal interactions in our day-to-day social life. Pandey (Pandey 1981d, 1986a, 1988a) elaborately summarizes the unique features of ingratiation and its’ practice to influence others. Pandey (1986a) adds interpersonal attraction, impression management, manipulative social behavior, and reciprocal helping behaviors as aspects of social influence. Pandey (1986a, 1988a) reports a wide range of influence tactics from selfdeprecating to threatening styles to control others. Pandey and his associates studied multiple aspects of ingratiation, mainly to understand influence strategies adopted by the powerless in social (see Chaps. 4 and 5) and organizational (see Chap. 8) contexts. Pandey and associates’ (Pandey, 1986a, 1988a) research program on social influence includes experiments and questionnaire surveys inclusive of various personality, social, and organizational variables (Pandey, 1980c, 1981d, 1986a, 1986b, 1988a), highlighting unique features of the Indian society. The research results inspired us to work on a comprehensive list of influence dimensions and construction of the Social Influence Scale (SIS) (Srivastava, 1998; Srivastava & Pandey, 1998). The objective was to identify an inclusive list of social influence dimensions and construct a Social Influence Scale (SIS) appropriate for the Indian context. It was challenging to conceptualize, identify, and operationalize influence dimensions and develop a measurement scale. Chapters 1–6 present the unique Indian sociocultural characteristics, social influence tactics, and evolution of psychological knowledge and approaches for scientific explanations and measurement of social influence. Our efforts led us to arrive at a tentative taxonomy of dimensions and social tactics representing features and complexities of social persuasion and influence. 7.4 (i) Social influence dimensions: For the construction of a Social Influence Scale (SIS), the first task was to identify and conceptualize dimensions of influence behavior. Several efforts like the results of many studies of the research program on social influence, literature review, newspapers and magazines clippings, observations of going on in the society, and countless hours of deliberations with the colleagues facilitated the identification of 12 dimensions of influence tactics (Pandey, 1981d, 1986b, 1988a). Three broad over-arching categories of influence were conceptualized: hard influence, rational influence, and soft influence with specific tactics under each.

7.4 Taxonomy and Measurement of Social Influence in the Indian Context

171

A. Hard Influence The hard influence is a direct assertive demand for compliance. The hard influence includes intimidation, disparagement, authority, assertiveness, and coalition formation. These tactics are more forceful and straight and push the target to comply. Hard tactics threaten the autonomy of the target. Hard tactics direct the target to do what is asked to do. (a) Intimidation: The intimidation tactic attempts to induce fear in the target person to make him comply. The power agent shows that he has the resources to inflict pain and stress, and the action depends on if the target does not obey. If the target realizes that the threat is real, he complies to avoid negative consequences. Intimidation most commonly occurs in a relationship that has a nonvoluntary status like in family, marriage, student–teacher, employees–employer, and military service. The influencer tries to project his capacity to inflict adverse outcomes through verbal threats, pressures, coercion, etc. Intimidation is a form of bullying. (b) Disparagement: The disparagement tactic expresses negative attitudes toward the target person to downgrade, criticize, disrespect, and demoralize him (Fodor, 1974). Disparagement consists of behaviors toward the target to make him feel small and degraded. Several ways used are like talking slightingly, depreciating, belittling, dishonoring, making a comparison with others to inflict inferiority, passing aspersion, and so on. Disparaging ethnic jokes inflict a discriminatory and hostile image on the target. The influencer attempts to convince the target that he deserves the negative attitudes of others. In recent years, disparagement has been widely present in cyberbullying. There is also the use of disparagement in competitive advertising of products. There are also, in India and other countries, anti-defamatory laws to regulate social order. (c) Authority: Authority is legitimate means to influence others and make them comply. Authority is attached to a particular position in both social and organizational contexts. Authority is used to benefit or constrain others. Etzioni (1961) viewed authority as a superior’s means of influencing another person, especially subordinates. In the organizational context, this tactic is practiced when a person can write a confidential report and give rewards and punishments. (d) Assertiveness: A person may insist upon the target to must do something. He keeps on insisting and demanding something. The persuader, with excessive zeal, thrusts oneself on the target. Assertiveness involves pressing, telling a person to comply, expressing anger verbally, pointing out rules, and becoming a nuisance to achieve compliance. The powerful tactic in influencing others is at all levels (i.e., superiors, co-workers, and subordinates) in organizations (Kipnis, 1976). Assertiveness may include an element of emotional tone due to confrontation. Assertiveness is a push tactic that aims to pressure the target to comply. (e) Coalition formation: Coalition formation refers to attempts to build alliances with others to gain greater strength and show it to make the target comply

172

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

(Kipnis et al., 1980). A person seeks the aid of others to persuade the target to do something or uses the support of others as a strategy to increase pressure on the target to agree (Yukl & Falbe, 1990). When formal power or personal resources are low, the players in coalition formation combine resources to achieve greater control over the target. This technique, using group support, is more often used to influence the superiors than the subordinates or colleagues. The coalition is like allying with others and using them to influence others. B. Rational influence: Rationale influence involves actions related to reasonable requests, making the target realize that agreeing to request is beneficial. It consists of communicating rationality for persuading the target. The category consists of the exchange of benefit, logical reasoning, and consultation tactic. The rational influence tactics are considered thoughtful, constructive, logical and based on factual evidence. (f) Exchange benefits: Exchange entails offers by the influence agent of positive benefits possibility of one kind or another, but not necessarily, involving a personal sacrifice on the agent’s part (Kipnis et al., 1980). The strategy views targets as rational. The targets weigh the expected values of alternative outcomes to maximize gains and minimize losses (Barry & Shapiro, 1992). The target’s decision to comply depends on a cognitive cost–benefit analysis. A manager may offer rewards or benefits to those employees who comply with his directive and succeed in influencing. Exchange refers to gaining influence by reciprocation of materials or friendship. (g) Logical reasoning: An agent uses logical arguments and factual evidence to persuade a target that a proposal or request is worthwhile. It involves using ideas and information to control the target. The tactic consists of using reason, logic, and compromise to influence others. Writing detailed plans, explaining the reason for the request, writing memos, and giving facts and data are rational behaviors (Ansari, 1990). Although logical reasoning exists at every level, it is relatively more frequent among the subordinates (Kipnis et al., 1980; Mechanic, 1962). The actor uses logical arguments and factual evidence to persuade the target that a proposal or request is viable and likely to achieve task objectives. (h) Consultation tactic: The agents of influence can sometimes influence people to accept a decision by involving them in the process of making it or planning how to implement it (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). When invited for such consultation to decide “to do or not to do,” the invited people are likely to identify with the decision and try to make it successful (Yukl & Falbe, 1990). Consultation facilitates obtaining a commitment to accept and comply; for example, participation in developing, planning, and implementing a proposal. Consultation is a widely used tactic for influencing commitment to a decision. Consultation is a democratic and collaborative effective way of enlarging the base for policy implementation.

7.4 Taxonomy and Measurement of Social Influence in the Indian Context

173

C. Soft influence: It consists of polite requests and attraction-seeking to convince and win the target. Soft influence involves persuasion, efforts to gain sympathy, and personal appeal without imposition. It includes tactics like exemplification, ethnic identity, ingratiation, and supplication. (i) Exemplification: According to Leary (1989), exemplification involves selfpresentation of integrity and moral worthiness. In addition to morality, the actor may also foster the impression of being dedicated, selfless, and disciplined. Exemplification can be effective in eliciting imitation in others. The influence agent sets examples of desired positive qualities that may determine the target’s judgment in favor of deservingness. (j) Ethnic identity: If there is some ethnic similarity with the target, the persuading actor may use common ethnic and social identities (e.g., racial, regional, religious, linguistic, and caste) to seduce the target. The identity creates a feeling of belongingness and may persuade the target to comply. In addition, ethnic similarity with the target facilitates sharing identities that make the target feel attracted to the persuader and comply. In a multiethnic society like India, ethnicity plays an essential role in social interactions and enhances social and political influences on others. (k) Ingratiation: Ingratiation is one of the most ubiquitous social influence strategies (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Pandey, 1986a, 1988a). Ingratiation generally refers to individuals’ behaviors to elevate their attractiveness to others (Jones, 1964, Pandey, 1986a). Ingratiation boosts the target’s affective appraisal of the ingratiator (Pandey, 1986a). Ingratiation is undeniably pervasive throughout social (Pandey, 1986a) and organizational life (Kipnis et al., 1980). (Refer to Chap. 4). (l) Supplication: The persuading agent attempts to win the target by acting weak and showing his dependence on him. The persuader makes the target person feel resourceful and responsible for assisting. On the one hand, the persuader stresses his helplessness and inability to cope with his complicated condition, and on the other hand, emphasizes his reliance on the target. The persuader intends to make the target experience arousal of the salience of obligation and heightened sense of social responsibility norm (Berkowitz & Daniels, 1963) that binds the target person to provide significant help. Supplication may work best when there appears to be an arbitrary or accidental component in the power differential. The list of influence dimensions will always remain evolving due to the dynamic nature of influence processes. Several round discussions refined operational descriptions of influence dimensions for our purpose. 7.4 (ii) Social influence scale (SIS): Social influence measurement has multiple purposes. Some important ones are: knowing individual differences in preference and practice of influence tactics, understanding the relative effectiveness of influence tactics on different target persons and situations, knowing organizational rules

174

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

of influence, corporate social culture, and nature of interpersonal relationships. Measuring and quantifying influence behaviors is a challenging and complex task, and the measurement of dynamic behavior involving intention and deception complicates the assessment task. The actor may hide real intent and respond in a way that they do not mean. The actor may not allow his “illicit design” to surface (Jones & Wortman, 1973). Rather than showing their actual behaviors, individuals respond in a socially desirable manner. In other words, people, in general, answer according to the norms and values of society rather than in a way that may reveal their actual intent. Measurement based on the rating of verbal statements is more vulnerable due to the social desirability factor. Thus, relying on the rating of oral statements may create hindrances in assessment. One way to overcome such difficulties is by motivating the respondent that there is neither a right nor wrong answer. The correct answer is the truthful responses as they are. Assurances to maintain unanimity and use ratings as group data only for scientific purposes also help motivate the respondents to respond truthfully. The instructions for SIS asked the respondents to respond to how people behave rather than their conduct. These measures were inbuilt into instructions and emphasized during face-to-face rapport before administering the scale. A psychological measurement must be an objective and standardized measure of sample behavior. The present objective was to develop a measure of questionnaire scale for social influence behaviors (Srivastava & Pandey, 1998). We followed the standard test construction procedure to develop a standard, reliable, and valid scale. The researchers tried their best to minimize subjective elements in the writing of items, scoring, and interpretation of responses. The practical approach was to keep the size not too lengthy, response recording, and scoring system simple. Although the task was complex, sustained efforts to understand the social influence in the Indian culture and literature overview provided perspective and academic ground to develop a culturally appropriate social influence measurement scale. a. Items-writing: The operational descriptions of dimensions, presented in the previous section, guided identifying various behavioral attributes for each dimension and writing statements depicting appropriate behaviors. Writing ideas representing specified thoughts and behaviors to describe a particular dimension is a critically significant creative item writing task for test construction. It requires an in-depth understanding of operational definitions of specified dimensions presented earlier and discussion with experts to clarify any doubts. Efforts were to minimize social desirability, biases, and scope of guesswork in responses. Each statement represented people’s general influence behavior rather than the respondents. The statements were clear in meaning, avoiding non-functional and stereotyped words. The items included were suitable for different levels of respondents. Items providing irrelevant clues which can be answered by referring to other things were excluded. Each statement was discussed and revised for clarity. The Social Influence Scale (SIS) was developed in Hindi (the English version is available for non-Hindi scholars and scientific communication) to make it suitable for Northern India. b. The pilot study, items’ face-validity, and items-analysis: After preliminary construction of the SIS, five reviewers rated each item for clarity, suitability, and

7.4 Taxonomy and Measurement of Social Influence in the Indian Context

175

face validity. The reviewers were senior doctoral program scholars and were familiar with each dimension of SIS’s project and operational descriptions. The five reviewers examined each item for clarity, appropriateness, and face validity. The reviewers’ critical suggestions were deliberated to develop a consensus for each item for inclusion in the pool of items. The objective of the pilot study was to check the suitability and applicability of the SIS to the larger group. For this purpose, the pilot study was conducted on eleven senior students of B.A. psychology majors. The Social Influence Scale (SIS), consisting of 84 items, was administered in a classroom. The descriptive statistics (i.e., Means and S. Ds) of the participants’ responses and feedback helped improve the suitability of contents and language of items. Item analysis determined each item’s mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis to select items for SIS. Itemdimension total correlations were computed for the internal consistency, and items having item-total correlation less than 0.50 were excluded from the final version of SIS. For each dimension’s reliability and internal consistency, Cronbach alpha was computed. The pilot study data served as the basis to drop and rewrite items, keeping the draft SIS length to 84 items. c. Final administration of SIS: A hundred participants of different organizations (e.g., railways, banks, insurance), private and public sectors engaged in either service or production, and MBA students (thirty-six) represented a wide variation, all belonging to the upper-middle class. The participants working in organizations were middle-level managers with a boss and some subordinates. Their age ranged from 22 to 55 years (mean 42 years), with an average education of graduation and more than ten years of work experience. The students had four or more years of a college education. The Social Influence Scale’ (SIS) consisted of 84 items, each with a five-point scale of “never” (1) to “frequently (5) for the response. The participants responded on a five-point scale for each statement. The first part of SIS included a background information section. The participants recorded the organization’s name, age, gender, nature of work, position, number of subordinates, experience in the organization, educational qualifications, and annual income. The SIS entitled “A Study of Social Influences” (Samajik Prabhav Ka Adhyayan) was administered during the working hour or in the classroom. Introduction with the consented participants facilitated establishing rapport and explaining the purpose of the study. They read the instructions carefully before responding to the scale. The participants were requested for their cooperation and assured of anonymity to ensure truthful responses only for research purposes. Samajik Prabhav Ka Adhyayan included detailed instructions directing the respondents to fill the SIS. The average time to complete SIS was forty-five minutes. If the respondents had any doubts, asked questions that were explained. To avoid bias related to the order of presentation of items, the items used in the SIS were randomly arranged. d. Results and discussion: The rigorous test construction process and the statistical criteria led to the selection of sixty out of eighty-four items for the final version of SIS (Appendix). The SIS includes a diverse array of items representing the taxonomy of influence. Items that met four psychometric criteria (mean, standard deviation,

176

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

skewness, and kurtosis) were retained. The thorough process to develop a culturally suitable influence measurement scale provides the groundwork, and that would undoubtedly be helpful in further improvement in social influence measurement (Appendix).

Appendix: English Version of Social Influence Scale (SIS)

Dimensions and items

Cronbach α

Intimidation

0.81

1

People threaten and challenge others: “I will see you”

2

People say nasty things to others

3

To intimidate, one brings antisocial elements

4

Threaten to stall promotion

5

Threaten to evaluate work negatively

Disparagement 6

Call the person to be influenced as “useless for everything”

7

Express doubt on a person’s ability

8

Rate a person’s work as of poor quality

9

Use caste, religion, and place-related identity to discriminate and humiliate a person

10

Uncalled for the showing of mistakes in an individual’s works

Use of authority 11

Use his high authority position to influence

12

Reduce the institutional facilities

13

Provide additional benefits

14

Threaten to stall future promotion

Assertiveness 15

Get after to get work done

16

Keep reiterating his position

17

Fix the deadline for a task

18

Constantly monitor the work

19

State his position firmly

Coalition formation 20

Form a coalition path by bringing some people together

21

Use union to influence people

22

Show strength by aligning with a powerful group

23

To influence, they come along with co-workers

0.80

0.56

0.30

0.79

(continued)

Appendix: English Version of Social Influence Scale (SIS)

177

(continued) Dimensions and items 24

Place demand with the endorsement of the employees’ general meeting

Exchange of benefit 25

Use give-and-take to influence

26

Use future benefits to impact

27

To create impact, show his knowledge on significant issues

28

To influence, remind his help rendered in the past

29

Show possible additional gains

Logical reasoning 30

Present all aspects in a planned way

31

Present his position with facts and data

32

Get his position accepted as need of the hour

33

Present his idea as crucially significant

34

Convince that the suggested method is the best

35

Present the problem as it is

Consultational tactic 36

To impact, he encourages participation in management

37

Involve others in the goal-setting to achieve the goal

38

Try to impress that we all belong to one family

39

Influence by emphasizing the significance of institutional objectives

40

Try to convince that fulfilment of individual’s goal to rely on institutional achievement

Exemplification 41

To influence by presenting oneself as an ideal example

42

Present examples of personal ideals

43

Mention unique personal examples

44

Others do not reject matter if the ongoing discussion is on high ideals

45

Others do not deny something if high values accompany the discussion

Ethnic identity 46

Establish an affinity by showing similarity in caste/religion/region

47

Attempt to influence by emotional relationship showing caste similarity

48

Attempt to influence by showing religious similarity

49

Attempt to influence by showing belongingness to the same state or region

50

To influence by impacting other’s feelings related to caste and religious similarity

Ingratiation 51

Cronbach α 0.78

0.24

0.53

0.63

0.89

0.78

To agree despite disagreeing with the views (continued)

178

7 Persuasion and Compliance: Dimensions and Measurement

(continued) Dimensions and items 52

Discuss the good things about themselves

53

Mention personal contacts with influential people

54

Show dependence on the person to whom influencing

55

Molding oneself like others’ wishes to win him

56

Refer admirers of the person to influence

Supplication 57

Present himself as helpless

58

Show dedication towards work in the presence of higher officials

59

Obtain the recommendation of authorities before requesting

60

Try for support from higher officials

Cronbach α

0.40

Appendix presents the Cronbach α reliability of each influence dimension. The table shows high internal consistency (α 0.89 to α 0.78) for six dimensions: in the following order, ethnic identity (0.89), intimidation (0.81) disparagement (0.80), coalition formation (0.79), exchange benefit (0.78), and ingratiation (0.78) tactics. The three dimensions with moderate internal consistency (α 0.63 to α 0.53) were in the following order: exemplification (0.63), authority (0.56), consultation tactics (0.53). Three dimensions with low Cronbach alpha (α 0.40 to α.24) were in the following order: supplication (0.40), assertiveness (0.30), and logical reasoning (0.24) tactics. The results explain the taxonomy of social influence tactics, put under three clusters of dimensions. Table 7.1 presents the inter-correlations among the 12 influence dimensions that support the categorization of twelve tactics and broad groups of hard, rational, and soft influence tactics. Table 7.1 shows that the five dimensions of the hard influence category (i.e., intimidation, disparagement, authority, assertiveness, and coalition formation) are significantly higher and positively correlated. But assertiveness dimension correlations with intimidation, disparagement, and coalition formation are lower. The rational influence category dimensions (i.e., exchange benefit, logical reasoning, and consultation) are not uniformly correlated. Though exchange benefit significantly correlated (0.66) with coalition formation, but not with logical reasoning and consultation. Logical reasoning is correlated substantially (0.47) with exchange benefit but not with consultation. Consultation correlated (0.44) with logical reasoning but not with exchange benefits. With some exceptions, the soft influence category dimensions (i.e., exemplification, ethnic identity, ingratiation, and supplication) are significantly positively correlated. Exemplification is significantly positively correlated with ethnic identity (0.57), ingratiation (0.67), and supplication (0.32). Ethnic identity is correlated substantially with ingratiation (0.69) but not with supplication. Ingratiation and supplication are also significantly correlated (0.34). The ethnic identity dimension is not correlated with consultation and supplication.

0.16

-0.13

0.33*

7. Logical reasoning

0.74**

0.65**

0.16

0.55**

0.29*

11. Ingratiation

12. Supplication

**