Social influence

Social influence occurs when a person's emotions, opinions, or behaviors are affected by others.[1] Social influence takes many forms and can be seen in conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, and marketing. In 1958, Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman identified three broad varieties of social influence.[2]

  1. Compliance is when people appear to agree with others but actually keep their dissenting opinions private.
  2. Identification is when people are influenced by someone who is liked and respected, such as a famous celebrity.
  3. Internalization is when people accept a belief or behavior and agree both publicly and privately.

Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard described two psychological needs that lead humans to conform to the expectations of others. These include our need to be right (informational social influence) and our need to be liked (normative social influence).[3] Informational influence (or social proof) is an influence to accept information from another as evidence about reality. Informational influence comes into play when people are uncertain, either because stimuli are intrinsically ambiguous or because there is social disagreement. Normative influence is an influence to conform to the positive expectations of others. In terms of Kelman's typology, normative influence leads to public compliance, whereas informational influence leads to private acceptance.[2]

Types

Social Influence is a broad term that relates to many different phenomena. Listed below are some major types of social influence that are being researched in the field of social psychology. For more information, follow the main article links provided.

Kelman's varieties

There are three processes of attitude change as defined by Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman in a 1958 paper published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution.[2] The purpose of defining these processes was to help determine the effects of social influence: for example, to separate public conformity (behavior) from private acceptance (personal belief).

1) Compliance

Compliance is the act of responding favorably to an explicit or implicit request offered by others. Technically, compliance is a change in behavior but not necessarily in attitude; one can comply due to mere obedience or by otherwise opting to withhold private thoughts due to social pressures.[4] According to Kelman's 1958 paper, the satisfaction derived from compliance is due to the social effect of the accepting influence (i.e., people comply for an expected reward or punishment-aversion).[2]

2) Identification

Identification is the changing of attitudes or behaviors due to the influence of someone who is admired. Advertisements that rely upon celebrity endorsements to market their products are taking advantage of this phenomenon. According to Kelman, the desired relationship that the identifier relates to the behavior or attitude change.[2]

3) Internalization

Internalization is the process of acceptance of a set of norms established by people or groups that are influential to the individual. The individual accepts the influence because the content of the influence accepted is intrinsically rewarding. It is congruent with the individual's value system, and according to Kelman the "reward" of internalization is "the content of the new behavior".[2]

Conformity

Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in behavior, belief, or thinking to align with those of others or with normative standards. It is the most common and pervasive form of social influence. Social psychology research in conformity tends to distinguish between two varieties: informational conformity (also called social proof, or "internalization" in Kelman's terms ) and normative conformity ("compliance" in Kelman's terms).[4]

In the case of peer pressure, a person is convinced to do something that they might not want to do (such as taking illegal drugs) but which they perceive as "necessary" to keep a positive relationship with other people (such as their friends). Conformity from peer pressure generally results from identification with the group members or from compliance of some members to appease others.

Conformity can be in appearance, or may be more complete in nature; impacting an individual both publicly and privately.

Compliance (also referred to as acquiescence) demonstrates a public conformity to a group majority or norm, while the individual continues to privately disagree or dissent, holding on to their original beliefs or to an alternative set of beliefs differing from the majority. Compliance appears as conformity, but there is a division between the public and the private self.

Conversion includes the private acceptance that is absent in compliance. The individual's original behaviour, beliefs, or thinking changes to align with that of others (the influencers), both publicly and privately. The individual has accepted the behavior, belief, or thinking, and has internalized it, making it his own. Conversion may also refer to individual members of a group changing from their initial (and varied) opinions to adopt the opinions of others, which may differ from their original opinions. The resulting group position may be a hybrid of various aspects of individual initial opinions, or it may be an alternative independent of the initial positions reached through consensus.

What appears to be conformity may in fact be congruence. Congruence occurs when an individual's behavior, belief, or thinking is already aligned with that of the others, and no change occurs.

In situations where conformity (including compliance, conversion, and congruence) is absent, there are non-conformity processes such as independence and anti-conformity. Independence, also referred to as dissent, involves an individual (either through their actions or lack of action, or through the public expression of their beliefs or thinking) being aligned with their personal standards but inconsistent with those of other members of the group (either all of the group or a majority). Anti-conformity, also referred to as counter-conformity, may appear as independence, but it lacks alignment with personal standards and is for the purpose of challenging the group. Actions as well as stated opinions and beliefs are often diametrically opposed to that of the group norm or majority. The underlying reasons for this type of behavior may be rebelliousness/obstinacy or it may be to ensure that all alternatives and view points are given due consideration.[5]

Minority influence

Minority influence takes place when a majority is influenced to accept the beliefs or behaviors of a minority. Minority influence can be affected by the sizes of majority and minority groups, the level of consistency of the minority group, and situational factors (such as the affluence or social importance of the minority).[6] Minority influence most often operates through informational social influence (as opposed to normative social influence) because the majority may be indifferent to the liking of the minority.[7]

Self-fulfilling prophecy

A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true due to positive feedback between belief and behavior. A prophecy declared as truth (when it is actually false) may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy. This term is credited to sociologist Robert K. Merton from an article he published in 1948.[8]

Reactance

Reactance is the adoption of a view contrary to the view that a person is being pressured to accept, perhaps due to a perceived threat to behavioral freedoms. This phenomenon has also been called anticonformity. While the results are the opposite of what the influencer intended, the reactive behavior is a result of social pressure.[9] It is notable that anticonformity does not necessarily mean independence. In many studies, reactance manifests itself in a deliberate rejection of an influence, even if the influence is clearly correct.[10]

Obedience

Obedience is a form of social influence that derives from an authority figure. The Milgram experiment, Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment, and the Hofling hospital experiment are three particularly well-known experiments on obedience, and they all conclude that humans are surprisingly obedient in the presence of perceived legitimate authority figures.

Persuasion

Persuasion is the process of guiding oneself or another toward the adoption of an attitude by rational or symbolic means. Robert Cialdini defined six "weapons of influence": reciprocity, commitment, social proof, authority, liking, and scarcity. These "weapons of influence" attempt to bring about conformity by directed means. Persuasion can occur through appeals to reason or appeals to emotion.[11]

Antecedents

Many factors can affect the impact of social influence.

Social impact theory

Social impact theory was developed by Bibb Latané in 1981. This theory asserts that there are three factors which increase a person's likelihood to respond to social influence:[12]

Cialdini's "Weapons of Influence"

Robert Cialdini defines six "Weapons of Influence" that can contribute to an individual's propensity to be influenced by a persuader:[11]

Unanimity

Social Influence is strongest when the group perpetrating it is consistent and committed. Even a single instance of dissent can greatly wane the strength of an influence. For example, in Milgram's first set of obedience experiments, 65% of participants complied with fake authority figures to administer "maximum shocks" to a confederate. In iterations of the Milgram experiment where three people administered shocks (two of whom were confederates), once one confederate disobeyed, only ten percent of subjects administered the maximum shocks.[14]

Status

Those perceived as experts may exert social influence as a result of their perceived expertise. This involves credibility, a tool of social influence from which one draws upon the notion of trust. People believe an individual to be credible for a variety of reasons, such as perceived experience, attractiveness, knowledge, etc. Additionally, pressure to maintain one's reputation and not be viewed as fringe may increase the tendency to agree with the group. This phenomenon is known as groupthink.[15] Appeals to authority may especially affect norms of obedience. The compliance of normal humans to authority in the famous Milgram experiment demonstrate the power of perceived authority.

Those with access to the media may use this access in an attempt to influence the public. For example, a politician may use speeches to persuade the public to support issues that he or she does not have the power to impose on the public. This is often referred to as using the "bully pulpit." Likewise, celebrities don't usually possess any political power, but they are familiar to many of the world's citizens and, therefore, possess social status.

Power is one of the biggest reasons an individual feels the need to follow through with the suggestions of another. A person who possesses more authority (or is perceived as being more powerful) than others in a group is an icon or is most "popular" within a group. This person has the most influence over others. For example, in a child's school life, people who seem to control the perceptions of the students at school are most powerful in having a social influence over other children.[16]

Culture

Culture appears to play a role in the willingness of an individual to conform to the standards of a group. Stanley Milgram found that conformity was higher in Norway than in France.[17] This has been attributed to Norway's longstanding tradition of social responsibility, compared to France's cultural focus on individualism. Japan likewise has a collectivist culture and thus a higher propensity to conformity. However, a 1970 Asch-style study found that when alienated, Japanese students were more susceptible to anticonformity (giving answers that were incorrect even when the group had collaborated on correct answers) one third of the time, significantly higher than has been seen in Asch studies in the past.[10]

While gender does not significantly affect a person's likelihood to conform, under certain conditions gender roles do affect such a likelihood. Studies from the 1950s and 1960s concluded that women were more likely to conform than men. But a 1971 study found that experimenter bias was involved; all of the researchers were male, while all of the research participants were female. Studies thereafter found that the likelihood to conform almost equal between the genders. Furthermore, men conformed more often when faced with traditionally feminine topics, and women conformed more often when presented with masculine topics. In other words, ignorance about a subject can lead a person to defer to "social proof".[18]

Emotions

Emotion and disposition may affect an individual's likelihood of conformity or anticonformity.[9] In 2009, a study concluded that fear increases the chance of agreeing with a group, while romance or lust increases the chance of going against the group.[19]

Social structure

Social networks

A social network is a social structure made up of nodes (representing individuals or organizations) which are connected (through ties, also called edges, connections, or links) by one or more types of interdependency (such as friendship, common interests or beliefs, sexual relations, or kinship). Social network analysis uses the lens of network theory to examine social relationships. Social network analysis as a field has become more prominent since the mid-20th century in determining the channels and effects of social influence. For example, Christakis and Fowler found that social networks transmit states and behaviors such as obesity,[20] smoking,[21][22] drinking[23] and happiness.[24]

Identifying the extent of social influence, based on large-scale observational data with a latent social network structure, is pertinent to a variety of collective social phenomena including crime, civil unrest, and voting behavior in elections. For example, methodologies for disentangling social influence by peers from external influences—with latent social network structures and large-scale observational data—were applied to US presidential elections,[25][26] stock markets,[27] and civil unrest.[28]

See also

References

  1. ↑ "Qualities of a Leader - Online Leadership Guide - Personal MBTI Type Analysis". qualities-of-a-leader.com. December 26, 2011. Archived from the original on March 22, 2012. Retrieved 8 April 2013.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kelman, H. (1958). "Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change" (PDF). Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2 (1): 51–60. doi:10.1177/002200275800200106.
  3. ↑ Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B. (1955). "A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment" (PDF). Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 51 (3): 629–636. PMID 13286010. doi:10.1037/h0046408.
  4. 1 2 Aronson, Elliot, Timothy D. Wilson, and Robin M. Akert. Social Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010. Print.
  5. ↑ Forsyth, D. R. (2010, 2006). Group Dynamics. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
  6. ↑ Moscovici, S. and Nemeth (1974) Minority influence. In C. Nemetn (ed.), Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations (pp. 217-249), Chicago: Rand McNally
  7. ↑ Wood, W.; Lundgren, S.; Ouellette, J.; Busceme, S. & Blackstone, T. (1994). "Minority Influence: A Meta-Analytic Review of Social Influence Processes". Psychological Bulletin. 115 (3): 323–345. PMID 8016284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.323.
  8. ↑ Merton, Robert K. (1948), "The Self Fulfilling Prophecy", Antioch Review, 8 (2 (Summer)): 193–210, JSTOR 4609267, doi:10.2307/4609267
  9. 1 2 Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press
  10. 1 2 Frager, R (1970). "Conformity and anti-conformity in Japan". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 15: 203–210. doi:10.1037/h0029434.
  11. 1 2 Cialdini, Robert B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 0-321-01147-3
  12. ↑ Latané, B (1981). "The psychology of social impact". American Psychologist. 36: 343–356. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.36.4.343.
  13. ↑ Sussman, R. & Gifford, R. (2013). "Be the Change You Want to See: Modeling Food Composting in Public Places". Environment & Behavior. 45 (3): 323–343. doi:10.1177/0013916511431274.
  14. ↑ Milgram, Stanley (1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67 (4): 371–378. PMID 14049516. doi:10.1037/h0040525. Archived from the original on 2012-07-17. Full-text PDF. Archived June 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
  15. ↑ Ivory Tower Unswayed by Crashing Economy. New York Times.
  16. ↑ C. Mugny; L Souchet; C Codaccioni; A Quiamzade (2008). Social Representation and Social Influence. 53 (2), pg 223-237.
  17. ↑ Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books.
  18. ↑ Sistrunk, Frank; McDavid, John W.; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 17(2), Feb, 1971. pp. 200-207.
  19. ↑ EurekAlert. (2009). Fear or romance could make you change your mind, U of Minnesota study finds.
  20. ↑ Christakis, N.A.; Fowler, J.H. (2007). "The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network Over 32 Years". New England Journal of Medicine. 357 (4): 370–379. PMID 17652652. doi:10.1056/nejmsa066082.
  21. ↑ Christakis, N.A.; Fowler, J.H. (2008). "The Collective Dynamics of Smoking in a Large Social Network". New England Journal of Medicine. 358 (21): 2249–2258. PMC 2822344 Freely accessible. PMID 18499567. doi:10.1056/nejmsa0706154.
  22. ↑ Gina Kolata, "Study Finds Big Social Factor in Quitting Smoking," The New York Times, May 22, 2008.
  23. ↑ Rosenquist, J.N.; Murabito, J.; Fowler, J.H.; Christakis, N.A. (2010). "The Spread of Alcohol Consumption Behavior in a Large Social Network". Annals of Internal Medicine. 152 (7): 426–433. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-7-201004060-00007.
  24. ↑ Fowler, J.H.; Christakis, N.A. (2008). "The Dynamic Spread of Happiness in a Large Social Network: Longitudinal Analysis Over 20 Years in the Framingham Heart Study". British Medical Journal. 337: a2338. PMC 2600606 Freely accessible. PMID 19056788. doi:10.1136/bmj.a2338.
  25. ↑ Braha, D., & de Aguiar, M. A. (2016). Voting Contagion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.04406.
  26. ↑ Braha, D., & de Aguiar, M. A. (2017). Voting contagion: Modeling and analysis of a century of U.S. presidential elections. PLoS ONE 12(5): e0177970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177970
  27. ↑ Harmon, D.; Lagi, M.; de Aguiar, M. A.; Chinellato, D. D.; Braha, D.; Epstein, I. R.; Bar-Yam, Y. (2015). "Anticipating economic market crises using measures of collective panic". PLOS ONE. 10 (7): e0131871. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131871.
  28. ↑ Braha, D (2012). "Global civil unrest: contagion, self-organization, and prediction". PLOS ONE. 7 (10): e48596. PMC 3485346 Freely accessible. PMID 23119067. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048596.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.