8. Ethics Notes 07

Elaborate Notes

Social Influence

• Concept

  • Social influence is a fundamental concept in social psychology that describes the process by which an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, or behaviors are modified by the presence or actions of others. This influence can be real, imagined, or implied. It can be exerted directly, through requests and commands, or indirectly, through social norms and modeling.
  • Herbert Kelman (1958), a prominent social psychologist, identified three distinct processes of social influence:
    1. Compliance: Publicly changing behavior to fit in with the group while privately disagreeing. This change is often temporary and superficial.
    2. Identification: Conforming to the behavior of a person or group because the individual identifies with them and wants to maintain a relationship. The change persists as long as the relationship is valued.
    3. Internalization: Accepting a belief or behavior both publicly and privately. This is the most profound level of influence, where the group’s belief becomes part of the individual’s own value system.
  • Examples of Social Influence in Action:
    • COVID Caller Tunes: A government-led initiative using legitimate and expert power to disseminate crucial health information and encourage compliant behavior (mask-wearing, vaccination).
    • Political Slogans (‘Ab ki baar Modi sarkar’): These act as a form of social validation, creating a perception that a particular viewpoint is widely held, thereby encouraging others to conform.
    • Billboards (‘Speed thrills but kills’): This is a form of persuasion that uses a fear appeal, a common technique to influence behavior by highlighting negative consequences.
    • Influence through Conduct: A senior civil servant demonstrating probity and integrity in their work influences their subordinates to adopt similar ethical standards, a process known as modeling or referent power.
    • Social Media Influencers: These individuals leverage referent power and the principle of ‘liking’ to influence consumption patterns, lifestyle choices, and even opinions of their followers.

• Background

  • While the study of social dynamics is ancient, the systematic, empirical investigation of social influence gained significant momentum in the aftermath of World War II (1939-1945). The war presented profound questions about propaganda, morale, conformity, and obedience to authority.
  • The work of Carl Hovland, a social psychologist at Yale University, is a cornerstone in this field. During the war, he was recruited by the U.S. Army’s Information and Education Division. His task was to study the effectiveness of training and propaganda films, such as the “Why We Fight” series, in boosting the morale of American soldiers and their commitment to the war effort against Japan and Germany.
  • Hovland and his colleagues’ research led to the development of the Yale Attitude Change Approach, which systematically analyzed the factors of persuasion: “Who (source of communication) says what (nature of communication) to whom (nature of the audience) with what effect?“. This research established that factors like the credibility of the source, the nature of the message, and audience characteristics are crucial in changing attitudes, laying the groundwork for modern studies on persuasion and social influence.

• Theoretical Perspective: The Bases of Social Power

  • In their seminal work, “The Bases of Social Power” (1959), social psychologists John R. P. French Jr. and Bertram Raven proposed that an agent’s ability to influence a target is rooted in one or more of five distinct bases of power.
  • Reward Power: This power stems from the target’s perception that the influencing agent has the ability to provide positive rewards (e.g., promotions, bonuses, recognition). In governance, schemes like Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN), which provides income support to farmers, are based on reward power to encourage agricultural best practices and ensure farmer welfare. The example of Rs. 12,000 for toilet construction under the Swachh Bharat Mission is a direct application of this principle.
  • Coercive Power: This is the opposite of reward power and is based on the target’s belief that the agent can inflict punishment or negative consequences. This includes monetary fines for traffic violations under the Motor Vehicles Act, penalties for tax evasion, or legal action against open defecation. Its effectiveness depends on the perceived certainty and severity of the punishment.
  • Expert Power: This influence derives from the target’s belief that the agent possesses superior knowledge, skills, or expertise in a specific domain. For instance, the recommendations of the NITI Aayog on policy matters or the advice of a doctor on health issues (e.g., linking open defecation to stunting and wasting due to worm infections) carry weight because of their perceived expertise.
  • Referent Power: This power is based on the target’s identification with, admiration for, or desire to be like the influencing agent. The agent’s charisma and appeal are central. The use of celebrities like Amitabh Bachchan for polio eradication or Vidya Balan for the Swachh Bharat Mission leverages their referent power to influence public behavior. Similarly, a charismatic political leader can inspire widespread change.
  • Legitimate Power: This power emanates from the target’s belief that the agent has a legitimate right to make demands and expect compliance. It is based on social structures, roles, and norms. For instance, a District Magistrate has the legitimate authority to issue orders under the law. The ‘Nanhe Kadam’ campaign in Khargone district (M.P.) is an innovative use of this, where the administration (legitimate power) empowered children (new agents) to influence their parents’ behavior regarding sanitation.

Mechanisms of Social Influence

Conformity

• Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in belief or behavior in order to fit in with a group. This change is in response to real (involving the physical presence of others) or imagined (involving the pressure of social norms/expectations) group pressure. The classic experiment by Solomon Asch (1951), where participants knowingly gave incorrect answers about the length of a line to conform with the unanimous but wrong majority, starkly demonstrated the power of group pressure.
• Why Do People Conform?
  • Normative Social Influence: This is conformity based on the desire to fulfill others’ expectations and gain acceptance. The motivation is to be liked and to avoid social punishment like ridicule or ostracism. This explains adherence to social customs like child marriage in certain communities or the radicalization of youth who fear rejection from their peer group if they do not adopt its extreme ideology. As formulated by Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard (1955), it is about “going along with the crowd” to avoid disapproval.
  • Informational Social Influence: This occurs when individuals look to others as a source of information to guide their behavior, especially in ambiguous or crisis situations. The motivation is the desire to be correct. During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread vaccine hesitancy was fueled by informational influence within social circles and online groups, where individuals, uncertain about the science, relied on the opinions of others they trusted.
  • Self-Categorization / In-group Tendency: Based on Social Identity Theory (Henri Tajfel & John Turner, 1979), people derive a part of their identity from the groups they belong to (‘in-groups’). To maintain a positive self-concept, they conform to the norms and behaviors of their in-group. This is particularly strong when an individual’s sense of self-efficacy is low, leading to greater dependence on the group for identity and validation.
• Factors Affecting Conformity
  • Numerical Strength of the Group (Group Size): Asch’s studies found that conformity increases with group size, but only up to a point. The effect was minimal with one or two confederates but peaked with a majority of three or four, after which it leveled off.
  • Unanimity among the Group Members: Conformity is strongest when the group is unanimous. In Asch’s experiments, if even one other person (a “dissenter”) broke the unanimity, the rate of conformity dropped by nearly 75%, as it provided social support for the participant’s own correct judgment.
  • Ideological Proximity (Group Cohesion): The more cohesive and important a group is to an individual, the greater the pressure to conform to its norms. People are more likely to conform to the views of friends or people they admire than to strangers.

Compliance

• Compliance refers to a form of social influence where an individual acquiesces to a direct request from another person. Crucially, it involves a change in outward behavior, but not necessarily a change in the underlying private attitude. The individual complies because of the satisfaction derived from the act or to gain a reward/avoid punishment.
• Principles of Compliance (Robert Cialdini)
  • In his influential book “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” (1984), Robert Cialdini outlined six universal principles that underlie compliance.
  • Liking and Friendship: People are more likely to comply with requests from those they know and like. This is why brands use well-liked celebrities (e.g., Sachin Tendulkar, Amitabh Bachchan) for endorsements.
  • Commitment and Consistency: Once people make a public commitment, they feel a strong internal and external pressure to behave consistently with that commitment. This can be used in governance to hold public officials accountable for their manifesto promises.
  • Reciprocity: This principle is based on the social norm of returning a favor. We feel obligated to give back to those who have given to us. Pre-election promises of jobs or welfare schemes by political parties often tap into this principle, creating an expectation of reciprocal support in the form of votes.
  • Social Validation (or Consensus): People often decide what is appropriate behavior by looking at what others are doing. If an action is perceived as being popular or common, people are more likely to comply. This drives consumerism (“everyone has the latest smartphone”) and can influence voting behavior, as people may vote for the party they perceive as likely to win.
  • Scarcity: Opportunities seem more valuable when they are less available. “Limited edition” products, “flash sales” on e-commerce sites, and “last chance” offers all use the scarcity principle to drive immediate compliance.
  • Authority: People are highly likely to follow the suggestions of someone they perceive as a legitimate authority figure. This is why advertisements for products like toothpaste often feature actors dressed as doctors, and why directives from government officials (people in uniform, judiciary) are generally followed.
• Techniques of Compliance
  • Foot-in-the-door: This technique involves starting with a small, easy-to-grant request. Once the person complies, they are more likely to agree to a subsequent, larger request. The gradual escalation of the Swachh Bharat Mission from Open Defecation Free (ODF) to ODF+, ODF++, and Garbage-Free Cities is a policy-level example.
  • Door-in-the-face: This technique begins with a large, often unreasonable request that is expected to be rejected. The requester then retreats to a smaller, more reasonable request (the one they wanted all along). The target often feels a sense of obligation (reciprocity) to accept the smaller request because the requester made a “concession.” This is commonly used in salary negotiations or by ministries asking for larger-than-needed grants during budget allocations.
  • That’s-not-all: This involves presenting a deal and then, before the target can respond, “sweetening” it with an additional offer or a discount. A persuasive argument for increasing Female Labor Force Participation (FLFP) could be framed this way: “Ensuring financial independence for women is a primary goal… but that’s not all. It also improves family living standards, challenges patriarchy, and boosts the national GDP by realizing the demographic dividend.”
  • Deadline: This technique creates a sense of urgency by imposing a time limit on an opportunity. Public discourse about India’s demographic dividend often uses a deadline (“the window of opportunity is closing as the working-age population will peak around 2041”) to spur policy action on education and skill development.
  • Playing it hard to get: This is a variant of the scarcity principle, where an object or person is made to seem scarce and difficult to obtain, thereby increasing its perceived value. This technique can be used persuasively to convince talented youth that roles in active politics or public service are highly selective and valuable, encouraging their participation.

Obedience

• Obedience is a form of social influence where a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure. It is distinct from conformity (pressure from a group of peers) and compliance (response to a request).
• Why Do People Obey?
  • Visible Badges of Authority: Uniforms, titles, official cars, and other symbols of authority trigger a learned response of obedience.
  • Socialization: From a young age, society conditions individuals to obey authority figures such as parents, teachers, and law enforcement officials. This is seen as necessary for social order.
  • Proximity to Authority: Obedience is higher when the authority figure is physically present and close. Ideological proximity—believing in the legitimacy and goals of the authority—also strengthens obedience.
  • Transfer of Responsibility (The Agentic State): This is a critical psychological mechanism proposed by Stanley Milgram. Individuals may enter an ‘agentic state’ where they see themselves as an instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes. In this state, they no longer feel personally responsible for their actions. This can explain how ordinary people participate in atrocities like mob violence or communal riots, as they shift responsibility to the leader or the group.
• Destructive Obedience: The Milgram Experiment
  • In a series of experiments beginning in 1963 at Yale University, Stanley Milgram investigated the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.
  • The Experiment: Participants (“teachers”) were instructed by an experimenter (an authority figure in a lab coat) to deliver increasingly powerful electric shocks to a “learner” (a confederate) for every incorrect answer. The shocks were fake, but the participant believed they were real.
  • The Findings: Despite the learner’s feigned cries of pain, a shocking 65% of participants administered the highest level of shock (450 volts), labeled “XXX”. Nearly all participants went up to at least 300 volts.
  • The Conclusion: Milgram concluded that ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. The power of the situation and factors like the agentic state (transfer of responsibility) and the gradual commitment (foot-in-the-door effect of increasing shocks) often override personal ethics. This experiment provides a powerful and disturbing insight into the psychology behind atrocities like the Holocaust.

---

Prelims Pointers

• Social Influence: The process where an individual’s thoughts, feelings, or actions are affected by other people.
• Carl Hovland: A social psychologist known for his work on attitude change and persuasion for the U.S. Army during WWII. He developed the Yale Attitude Change Approach.
• French and Raven’s Five Bases of Social Power (1959):
  1. Reward Power
  2. Coercive Power
  3. Expert Power
  4. Referent Power
  5. Legitimate Power
• Conformity: Changing one’s behavior or beliefs to align with a group.
• Solomon Asch: Conducted the famous “line judgment” experiment (1951) demonstrating conformity to group pressure.
• Normative Social Influence: Conforming to be liked or accepted by a group.
• Informational Social Influence: Conforming because of a desire to be correct, especially in ambiguous situations.
• Social Identity Theory: Developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner; states that a person’s sense of self is based on their group memberships.
• Compliance: Agreeing to a direct request from another person.
• Robert Cialdini: Author of “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” and identified six principles of compliance: Liking, Commitment/Consistency, Reciprocity, Social Validation, Scarcity, and Authority.
• Compliance Techniques:
  • Foot-in-the-door: Small request followed by a larger one.
  • Door-in-the-face: Large request (rejected) followed by a smaller one.
• Obedience: Complying with a direct order from an authority figure.
• Stanley Milgram: Conducted the famous obedience experiments (1963) involving “electric shocks” to study obedience to authority.
• Agentic State: A mental state where an individual sees themself as an agent for carrying out another person’s wishes, leading to a diminished sense of personal responsibility.
• Longevity Dividend: Economic benefits derived from an increase in the population’s life expectancy and healthspan.

---

Mains Insights

GS Paper I: Indian Society

• Social Influence as a Double-Edged Sword: Social influence, particularly conformity (normative influence), is a primary mechanism through which deeply entrenched social evils like the caste system, dowry, child marriage, and khap panchayat dictates are perpetuated. The fear of social ostracism compels individuals to conform even when they privately disagree.
• Harnessing Social Influence for Social Reform: Conversely, understanding these mechanisms is crucial for social reform. Campaigns like ‘Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao’ use referent power (political leaders, celebrities) and aim to change social norms (social validation) around the value of the girl child. The Swachh Bharat Mission successfully transformed sanitation from a personal issue to a matter of national pride and social responsibility.

GS Paper II: Governance and Public Policy

• Application in Policy Implementation: The government extensively uses principles of social influence for effective policy implementation. Reward power (subsidies, incentives) and coercive power (fines, penalties) are standard tools. Increasingly, ‘nudge’ policies are being used, which leverage principles like social validation (e.g., publishing lists of honest taxpayers) to encourage desired behaviors without coercion.
• Ethical Governance and Power Dynamics: An administrator must be conscious of the type of power they are wielding (French & Raven’s model). Over-reliance on coercive power can create resentment and distrust, while effective use of expert and referent power can foster voluntary compliance and build social capital. For example, a District Collector who is seen as knowledgeable (expert) and charismatic/relatable (referent) can more easily mobilize community participation for development projects.

GS Paper IV: Ethics, Integrity, and Aptitude

• Obedience to Authority vs. Conscience: The Milgram experiment is a stark reminder of the ethical dilemma of “destructive obedience.” For a civil servant, this translates to the conflict between following orders from a superior and adhering to one’s own conscience and the rule of law. The ‘Nuremberg Defense’ (“I was just following orders”) is not considered a valid ethical or legal justification for immoral acts. The ethical duty of a public servant is to show ‘obedience to conscience’ and, if necessary, engage in ‘whistleblowing’ against illegal or unethical orders.
• Persuasion vs. Manipulation: A civil servant must use social influence and persuasion ethically to achieve public good (e.g., convincing a community to adopt sustainable agricultural practices). The key difference lies in intent and transparency.
  • Ethical Persuasion: Aims for a win-win outcome, is truthful, and respects the autonomy of the individual.
  • Unethical Manipulation: Is deceptive, self-serving (for the persuader), and coerces the individual, often by exploiting their psychological vulnerabilities.
• Conformity and Groupthink in Bureaucracy: Strong hierarchical structures and a culture of conformity in administration can lead to ‘groupthink’—a phenomenon described by Irving Janis (1972) where the desire for harmony or conformity in a group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. This can stifle innovation, discourage dissent, and lead to policy failures. An ethical administrator must cultivate an environment where objective analysis and constructive criticism are valued over blind conformity.
• Social Influence and Foundational Values: Succumbing to social influence can directly compromise foundational values for civil servants.
  • Objectivity: Can be clouded by informational influence from biased sources or group consensus.
  • Impartiality: Can be eroded by pressure to favor one’s in-group (caste, community, or political affiliation).
  • Integrity: Is tested when an official is pressured to conform to a corrupt system or obey an unethical order. Maintaining integrity often requires resisting powerful social pressures.