Course: Social Psychology, NYU | Source: Final Exam Word List Difficulty: Introductory to Intermediate | Prerequisites: Familiarity with basic psychology terms (attitudes, cognition, behaviour)
Tags: persuasion, social influence, central route, peripheral route, halo effect, compliance techniques, foot-in-the-door, lowballing, door-in-the-face, primacy effect, recency effect, two-step flow, inoculation theory, fear appeals, social facilitation, Zajonc, evaluation apprehension, social loafing, deindividuation, group polarization, groupthink
Persuasion and group influence sit at the heart of social psychology: they explain how other people change what you think and what you do, whether one-on-one or in a crowd. Persuasion covers the routes through which messages shift attitudes, the tricks that secure compliance, and the conditions that make audiences resistant. Group influence picks up where dyadic persuasion leaves off, asking what happens when the mere presence of others, or membership in a group, alters performance, self-awareness, and decision-making. If you have covered attitudes and social cognition earlier in the course, this material builds directly on those foundations.
Persuasion works through two routes: a thoughtful central path and a shortcut-laden peripheral path. Compliance techniques (foot-in-the-door, lowballing, door-in-the-face) exploit commitment and reciprocity. Groups amplify individual tendencies, for better or worse, through facilitation, loafing, polarization, and groupthink.
Central route to persuasion
Attitude change driven by careful, effortful evaluation of the message's arguments and evidence. Requires motivation and ability to think deeply.
Think of it as: the listener weighs the actual logic. Persuasion lasts longer when it takes this path.
Peripheral route to persuasion
Attitude change driven by surface cues rather than argument quality: speaker attractiveness, number of arguments, mood, or celebrity endorsement.
In simple terms, the listener takes a mental shortcut instead of evaluating the evidence.
Halo effect
The tendency for an overall positive impression of a person (often based on physical attractiveness) to colour judgements of their other traits, such as intelligence, competence, or trustworthiness.
Think of it as: "attractive = good" bias.
Imitation effect
The tendency for people to adopt the behaviours, styles, or attitudes of those they find attractive or admire. Attractive communicators gain persuasive power partly because audiences want to be like them.
Foot-in-the-door phenomenon
A compliance technique in which a small initial request is made first; once agreed to, a larger request follows. People comply with the bigger ask because they wish to remain consistent with their earlier commitment.
Think of it as: get a "yes" to something small, then escalate.
Lowballing
A compliance technique in which an attractive deal is offered first; after the person commits, the terms are made less favourable (hidden costs revealed, extras removed). The person tends to stick with the commitment anyway.
In simple terms, you agree to a good deal, then discover it was too good to be true, but you stay committed.
Door-in-the-face technique
A compliance technique in which an unreasonably large request is made first (expected to be refused), followed by a smaller, more reasonable request. The contrast and the norm of reciprocity make the second request harder to refuse.
Think of it as: ask for a mile so they will give you an inch.
Primacy effect
Information presented first carries more weight in shaping impressions or attitudes. Early arguments set the frame through which later information is interpreted.
Recency effect
Information presented last carries more weight, particularly when there is a delay between the two messages and a short gap before the decision.
In simple terms, primacy wins when messages are back-to-back; recency wins when there is a break between them and the decision comes soon after the second.
Two-step flow of communication
The idea that media messages reach the mass public not directly but through opinion leaders who consume, interpret, and pass on the information to their social networks.
Think of it as: media influences opinion leaders, who then influence everyone else.
Life cycle explanation (of attitude change)
Attitudes shift as people age because their circumstances, roles, and needs change over the lifespan (e.g., becoming more conservative with financial responsibility).
Generational explanation (of attitude change)
Attitudes differ across age groups not because people change as they age, but because each generation was socialised under different historical conditions.
In simple terms, life cycle says you change as you grow older; generational says your cohort was shaped by its era.
Inoculation theory (attitude inoculation)
Exposing people to a weakened form of a counter-argument, paired with refutation, makes them more resistant to later, stronger persuasion attempts, much as a vaccine works against a virus.
Think of it as: a psychological vaccine against propaganda.
Positive vs. negative/fear emotions in persuasion
Positive moods tend to promote peripheral processing (people in a good mood rely on cues rather than scrutinising arguments). Fear appeals can be highly persuasive when they include a clear, actionable recommendation for avoiding the threat. Without that actionable step, fear can backfire and trigger defensive avoidance.
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo) is the framework behind this distinction.
Central route: triggered when the audience is motivated and able to process. Results in durable, resistant attitude change.
Peripheral route: triggered when motivation or ability is low. Attitude change is more superficial and easier to reverse.
A strong argument persuades through the central route; an attractive or credible source persuades through the peripheral route.
Physical attractiveness is a powerful peripheral cue. Attractive communicators are rated as more persuasive, trustworthy, and competent, even when their arguments are weak.
The halo effect generalises one positive trait to unrelated traits.
The imitation effect means people model the behaviour of those they admire, which is why celebrity endorsements work.
Foot-in-the-door: small request then large request. Relies on self-perception and consistency ("I'm the kind of person who helps").
Lowballing: agree to a good deal, then the deal worsens. Relies on the commitment already made.
Door-in-the-face: large request (refused) then small request. Relies on the reciprocity norm (the requester "conceded," so you should too).
All three exploit the gap between a person's initial commitment and the final ask. The mechanism differs: consistency for foot-in-the-door, sunk commitment for lowballing, reciprocal concession for door-in-the-face.
When two opposing messages are presented back-to-back and the audience decides immediately, the first message tends to win (primacy).
When there is a gap between the two messages and the decision comes shortly after the second, the second message tends to win (recency).
Exam tip: the timing of the messages relative to each other and to the decision is what determines which effect dominates.
Proposed by Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet.
Media does not inject ideas into a passive public. Instead, opinion leaders filter and interpret media content, then pass it through personal influence.
Relevant today: think of social-media influencers as modern opinion leaders.
These are competing accounts of why older people tend to hold different attitudes from younger people.
Life cycle: people change as they age (more responsibilities, more to lose).
Generational: people carry the attitudes shaped during their formative years (roughly ages 18 to 25).
Both can operate simultaneously.
William McGuire's key contribution.
Works by giving a weak counter-argument and then refuting it. This builds "mental antibodies."
Used in health campaigns, media literacy programmes, and political communication.
Real-world application: public health messaging that pre-emptively addresses anti-vaccination arguments has been shown to reduce susceptibility to misinformation.
Positive mood promotes peripheral processing: people who feel good are less critical of weak arguments.
Fear appeals follow a curvilinear pattern: moderate fear with a clear, doable protective action is most persuasive.
High fear without an actionable step produces avoidance or denial rather than persuasion.
Real-world application: anti-smoking campaigns pair graphic warnings with a specific quit-line number, combining fear with an actionable step.
Social facilitation
The tendency for people to perform better on simple or well-learned tasks, and worse on complex or novel tasks, when others are present. Robert Zajonc explained this through drive/social arousal theory: the presence of others increases physiological arousal, which strengthens the dominant response.
Think of it as: an audience helps you do what you already do well, and hurts you on things you are still learning.
Evaluation apprehension
The concern about being judged by others who are watching. This is an alternative or supplementary explanation for social facilitation: it is not just the presence of others that causes arousal, but the awareness that those others may be evaluating your performance.
Social loafing
The tendency for individuals to exert less effort when working in a group than when working alone, especially when individual contributions are not identifiable.
In simple terms, people slack off in groups because their personal effort is hidden in the collective output.
Deindividuation
A loss of self-awareness and individual accountability that can occur in group situations, particularly when anonymity is high (uniforms, crowds, online settings). People become more responsive to situational cues and group norms, sometimes resulting in impulsive or antisocial behaviour.
Think of it as: when you feel anonymous in a group, you are more likely to act on impulse.
Group polarization
The tendency for group discussion to strengthen the average pre-existing inclination of group members. If individuals lean slightly toward risk before discussion, the group decision will be even riskier. If they lean toward caution, the group becomes more cautious.
In simple terms, groups push individual tendencies to extremes.
Groupthink
A mode of thinking that occurs when a cohesive group's desire for unanimity overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives. Symptoms include an illusion of invulnerability, collective rationalisation, stereotyping of out-groups, self-censorship, and direct pressure on dissenters.
Think of it as: the group agrees because nobody wants to be the one who disagrees, and the result is a terrible decision.
Zajonc's core claim: the mere presence of others produces arousal, and arousal enhances the dominant response.
On a simple/well-practised task, the dominant response is correct, so performance improves.
On a complex/novel task, the dominant response is often incorrect, so performance worsens.
Crowding intensifies social arousal because it increases the sense of others being close and attentive. This is why performing in a packed room feels different from performing in a half-empty one.
Zajonc argued mere presence alone is enough to produce arousal.
Cottrell's evaluation apprehension model adds that arousal comes specifically from knowing you might be judged.
Evidence supports both: some facilitation effects occur even with blindfolded or inattentive audiences (supporting mere presence), but the effects are stronger when the audience is clearly evaluating (supporting apprehension).
First demonstrated in rope-pulling experiments (Ringelmann effect): as group size increased, individual effort decreased.
Loafing is reduced when individual contributions are identifiable, when the task is meaningful, or when the group is small and cohesive.
Cultural note: social loafing is less pronounced in collectivist cultures.
Real-world application: this is why many workplaces use individual performance metrics even for team projects.
Conditions that promote deindividuation: anonymity, group size, arousal, reduced self-awareness.
Classic demonstration: Zimbardo's experiment showing that anonymous participants (wearing hoods) delivered more intense shocks.
Deindividuation does not always lead to aggression. It makes people more responsive to immediate situational norms. If those norms are prosocial (e.g., a religious gathering), deindividuated behaviour can be positive.
Two mechanisms explain polarization:
Informational influence: during discussion, members hear novel arguments favouring the side most already lean toward, strengthening that lean.
Normative influence: people discover the group norm and shift further in that direction to gain approval.
Group polarization applies to jury deliberations, political discussions, and online echo chambers.
Irving Janis coined the term after analysing policy disasters (Bay of Pigs, Challenger).
Antecedent conditions: a cohesive group, insulation from outside opinions, a directive leader, high stress, lack of systematic decision procedures.
Symptoms: illusion of invulnerability, collective rationalisation, belief in the group's moral superiority, stereotyped views of the out-group, pressure on dissenters, self-censorship, illusion of unanimity, self-appointed "mindguards."
Prevention: assign a devil's advocate, invite outside experts, have the leader speak last, encourage anonymous input.
Real-world application: post-mortems in engineering and aviation deliberately structure dissent into the review process to prevent groupthink.
Students often think the central route is always "better" than the peripheral route. It produces more durable attitude change, but neither route is inherently superior; the peripheral route is simply faster and serves a useful cognitive-economy function.
Students confuse foot-in-the-door with lowballing. Foot-in-the-door involves two genuinely different requests (small then large). Lowballing starts and stays as the same request whose terms shift after commitment.
Students sometimes believe social facilitation always improves performance. It only improves performance on tasks you already know well. On new or difficult tasks, the presence of others makes performance worse.
Students assume groupthink is simply "the group agreeing." Healthy consensus and groupthink are different. Groupthink specifically involves the suppression of dissent, not the natural convergence of well-informed opinions.
⚠️ Be able to distinguish the three compliance techniques by name, mechanism, and example. This is a favourite exam question.
⚠️ Know the conditions under which primacy beats recency and vice versa. The timing logic is specific and testable.
⚠️ Social facilitation questions will likely ask you to predict performance on a simple vs. complex task with vs. without an audience. Apply Zajonc's arousal-dominant response chain.
⚠️ Groupthink questions often present a scenario and ask you to identify symptoms. Memorise at least four symptoms and the antecedent conditions.
⚠️ Understand the difference between social loafing and social facilitation: loafing occurs when individual effort is pooled and unidentifiable; facilitation occurs when individual performance is visible.
True or False: The peripheral route to persuasion produces longer-lasting attitude change than the central route.
Fill in the blank: The compliance technique in which an unreasonably large request is followed by a smaller request is called the __________ technique.
True or False: Social facilitation always improves task performance.
Fill in the blank: According to Zajonc, the presence of others increases arousal, which strengthens the __________ response.
True or False: Groupthink is more likely when a group has a non-directive leader who encourages open debate.
Answers: 1. False (central route is more durable). 2. Door-in-the-face. 3. False (only on simple/well-learned tasks). 4. Dominant. 5. False (a directive leader is an antecedent of groupthink).
Q: A charity caller asks you to donate one hour of your time this weekend. You agree. The following week, they ask you to volunteer every Saturday for a month. Which compliance technique is being used, and what psychological principle does it rely on?
A: Foot-in-the-door phenomenon. It relies on consistency: once you have agreed to a small commitment, you are more likely to agree to a larger one that is consistent with your self-image as a helpful person.
Q: A political candidate gives a speech full of emotional appeals, celebrity endorsements, and catchy slogans, but provides very little policy detail. According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, which route to persuasion is the candidate relying on, and under what audience conditions will this strategy be most effective?
A: The peripheral route. This strategy is most effective when the audience has low motivation or low ability to process the message carefully (e.g., they are distracted, disinterested, or lack background knowledge).
Q: A student practises a piano piece until it is automatic, then performs it flawlessly at a recital with a large audience. Another student, who barely knows the piece, makes more errors at the recital than during practice. Explain both outcomes using Zajonc's theory.
A: The audience increases arousal, which strengthens the dominant response. For the well-practised student, the dominant response is correct notes, so performance improves (social facilitation). For the under-prepared student, the dominant response is errors, so performance worsens.
Q: A corporate board is considering a risky expansion. The CEO is highly directive, the board members are close-knit, and no outside advisers are consulted. After a brief discussion, the board unanimously approves the plan. Name the phenomenon and identify at least three symptoms visible in this scenario.
A: Groupthink. Symptoms present: directive leadership, insulation from outside opinions, cohesive group (antecedent conditions); illusion of unanimity (unanimous vote after brief discussion); likely self-censorship (no dissent voiced).
Q: Explain why fear-based anti-drug campaigns sometimes fail to reduce drug use.
A: Fear appeals are most persuasive when they pair a vivid threat with a clear, actionable protective step. Campaigns that induce high fear without providing a concrete, achievable action (e.g., a specific helpline, a coping strategy) can trigger defensive avoidance, where the audience dismisses the message to reduce their anxiety.
Persuasion connects directly to the Prejudice unit: inoculation theory is a tool for resisting prejudiced messaging, and the halo effect feeds into stereotyping. Group influence links to Conflict & Peacemaking: groupthink explains failed negotiations, while group polarization helps explain how intergroup hostility escalates. Social loafing and deindividuation also resurface in discussions of Altruism & Helping, particularly in the bystander effect, where diffusion of responsibility mirrors the anonymity of social loafing.
Elaboration Likelihood Model, ELM, Petty and Cacioppo, central processing, peripheral processing, halo effect, what-is-beautiful-is-good, imitation, modelling, foot-in-the-door, FITD, lowball technique, door-in-the-face, DITF, reciprocal concessions, primacy, recency, serial position, two-step flow, Lazarsfeld, opinion leaders, influencers, life cycle hypothesis, generational cohort, cohort effects, McGuire inoculation, attitude resistance, fear appeals, drive theory, Zajonc, mere presence, dominant response, Cottrell evaluation apprehension, Ringelmann effect, free riding, social loafing, deindividuation, Zimbardo, group polarization, risky shift, cautious shift, Janis groupthink, Bay of Pigs, devil's advocate