Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:02:45.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 14 - Why Would Anyone Do or Believe Such a Thing?

A Social Influence Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

By
Anthony R. Pratkanis
Edited by
Robert J. Sternberg  and
Diane F. Halpern
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Diane F. Halpern
Affiliation:
Claremont McKenna College, California
Get access

Summary

Why do we do and believe crazy things? Two common but mostly wrong answers to this question are: (a) you have to be crazy to do crazy things and (b) people who do crazy things must be infected by crazy influence. A social-influence analysis addresses this question by identifying and describing the social-influence tactics that are common to situations producing crazy beliefs and behavior. Identification of these tactics and their typical effects is essential for understanding the power of the situation and for developing our own critical skills at appraising situations. The chapter concludes with six steps to take for reducing susceptibility to undue influence.

Keywords

comparison point or setdoor-in-the-faceexpert snarefear appealsstorytellingvivid appeal
Type
Chapter
Information
Critical Thinking in Psychology , pp. 328 - 353
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AARP. (2003). Off the hook: Reducing participation in telemarketing fraud. Washington, DC: AARP.Google Scholar
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity, and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97–119.Google Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon modification and distortion of judgment. In Guetzkow, H. (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.Google Scholar
Baker, R. A., & Nickell, J. (1992). Missing pieces. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Barrett, S., & Jarvis, W. T, (1993). The health robbers. Amherst, NY: Prometheus .Google Scholar
Bickman, L. (1974). The social power of a uniform. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 47–61.Google Scholar
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 69–83.Google Scholar
Carreyrou, J. (2018). Bad blood: Secrets and lies in a Silicon Valley startup. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Anticipatory opinion effects. In Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.), Cognitive response in persuasion (pp. 217–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1–15.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of the normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.Google Scholar
Farquhar, P. H., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1993). Decision structuring with phantom alternatives. Management Science, 39, 1214–1226.Google Scholar
Feynman, R. P. (1985). Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman!. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Fitzkee, D. (1945). Magic by misdirection. Pomeroy, OH: Lee Jacobs Productions.Google Scholar
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986). Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review, 93, 216–229.Google Scholar
Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the paranormal. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Horvitz, T., & Pratkanis, A. R. (2002). A laboratory demonstration of the fraudulent telemarketers’ 1-in-5 prize tactic. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 310–317.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I., & Janis, I. L. (Eds.). (1959). Personality and persuasibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, R. (1977). “Cold reading:” How to convince strangers that you know all about them. The Zetetic, Spring/Summer, 18–37. Online. http://www.skepdic.com/Hyman_cold_reading.htmGoogle Scholar
Kirmani, A., & Campbell, M. C. (2009). Taking the target’s perspective: The persuasion knowledge model. In Wänke, M. (Ed.). Social psychology of consumer behavior (pp. 297–316). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Leff, A. A. (1976). Swindling and selling. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. In Newcomb, T. M. & Hartley, E. L. (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 330–344). New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., & Lohr, J. M. (Eds.). (2003). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.Google Scholar
Lund, F. H. (1925). The psychology of belief. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 20, 174–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241–270.Google Scholar
Marion County C.C. (2001). Oregon v. Publishers Clearinghouse. Preliminary Injunction Proceedings, No. 00C-10706.Google Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In Borgatta, E. F. & Lambert, W. W. (Eds)., Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 1130–1187). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, L. (1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 79–82.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R. (1989). The cognitive representation of attitudes. In Pratkanis, A. R., Breckler, S. J., & Greenwald, A. G. (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 71–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R. (1992). The cargo-cult science of subliminal persuasion. Skeptical Inquirer, 16, 260–272.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R. (2000). Altercasting as an influence tactic. In Terry, D. J. & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context (pp. 201–226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R. (2007a). Social influence analysis: An index of tactics. In Pratkanis, A. R. (Ed.), The science of social influence: Advances and future progress (pp. 17–82). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R. (2007b). Why would anyone do or believe such a thing? A social influence analysis. In Sternberg, R. J., Roediger, III H. L., & Halpern, D. F. (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (pp. 232–250). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R. (2017). The (partial but) real crisis in social psychology: A social influence analysis of the causes and solutions. In Lilienfeld, S. O. & Waldman, I. D. (Eds.), Psychological science under scrutiny: Recent challenges and proposed solutions (pp. 141–163). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R., & Aronson, E. (2001). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion (Revised ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman/Holt.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R., Eskenazi, J., & Greenwald, A. G. (1994). What you expect is what you believe (but not necessarily what you get): A test of the effectiveness of subliminal self-help audiotapes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 251–276.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R., & Farquhar, P. H. (1992). A brief history of research on phantom alternatives: Evidence for seven empirical generalizations about phantoms. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 103–122.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R., & Gliner, M. D. (2004). And when shall a little child lead them? Evidence for an altercasting theory of source credibility. Current Psychology, 23(4), 279–304. DOI:10.1007/s12144-004-1002-5Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1989). A socio-cognitive model of attitude structure and function. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 22 (pp. 245–285). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R., & Shadel, D. (2005). Weapons of fraud: A source book for fraud fighters. Seattle, WA: AARP.Google Scholar
Pratkanis, A. R., & Uriel, Y. (2011). The expert snare as an influence tactic: Surf, turf, and ballroom demonstrations of the compliance consequences of being altercast as an expert. Current Psychology, 30, 335–344.Google Scholar
Randi, J. (1987). Flim-flam. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Rayner, R. (2002). Drake’s Fortune. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Rucker, D. D., & Pratkanis, A. R. (2001). Projection as an interpersonal influence tactic: The effects of the pot calling the kettle black. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1494–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagan, C. (1995). The demon-haunted world. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Sagarin, B. J., Cialdini, R. B., Rice, W. E., & Serna, S. B. (2002). Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: The motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 526–541.Google Scholar
Sagarin, B. J., & Wood, S. W. (2007). Resistance to influence. In Pratkanis, A. R. (Ed.), The science of social influence: Advances and future progress (pp. 321–340). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H. (1961). Coercive persuasion. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Segal, J. (1957). Correlates of collaboration and resistance behavior among U.S. Army POWs in Korea. Journal of Social Issues, 13, 31–40.Google Scholar
Singer, M. T., & Lalich, J. (1995). Cults in our midst. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Singer, M. T., & Lalich, J. (1996). Crazy therapies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Spanos, N. P., & Chaves, J. F. (1989). Hypnosis. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thistlethwaite, D. (1950). Attitude and structure as factors in the distortion of reasoning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45, 442–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toris, C., & DePaulo, B. M. (1984). Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of deception on interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1063–1073.Google Scholar
Tupper, S. (2017, March 19, 20, & 21). Laser Man, Parts 1–3. Rapid City Journal.Google Scholar
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). A social identity maintenance theory of groupthink. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 210–235.Google Scholar
Urbany, J. E., Bearden, W. O., & Weilbaker, D. C. (1988). The effect of plausible and exaggerated reference prices on consumer perceptions and price search. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 95–110.Google Scholar
Wang, T. H., & Katsev, R. D. (1990). Group commitment and resource conservation: Two field experiments on promoting recycling. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 265–275.Google Scholar
Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analysis syntheses of forewarning of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 119–138.Google Scholar
Wright, L. (1994). Remembering Satan. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×