{{Short description|Alteration of attitudes and behaviors based on outside influences}} {{Behavioural influences}} '''Social influence''' comprises the ways in which individuals adjust their behavior to meet the demands of a social environment. It takes many forms and can be seen in conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, and marketing. Typically social influence results from a specific action, command, or request, but people also alter their attitudes and behaviors in response to what they perceive others might do or think. In 1958, Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman identified three broad varieties of social influence.<ref name="Kelman">{{cite journal|author=Kelman, H.|year=1958|title=Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change|journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution|volume=2|issue=1|pages=51–60|doi=10.1177/002200275800200106|bibcode=1958JConR...2...51K |s2cid=145642577|url=http://scholar.harvard.edu/hckelman/files/Compliance_identification_and_internalization.pdf|access-date=2016-10-16|archive-date=2020-03-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200306055009/https://scholar.harvard.edu/hckelman/files/Compliance_identification_and_internalization.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
#'''Compliance''' is when people appear to agree with others but actually keep their dissenting opinions private.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Cialdini |first1=Robert B. |last2=Goldstein |first2=Noah J. |date=2004-02-01 |title=Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity |journal=Annual Review of Psychology |volume=55 |issue=1 |pages=591–621 |doi=10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 |pmid=14744228 |issn=0066-4308}}</ref> #'''Identification''' is when people are influenced by someone who is liked and respected, such as a famous celebrity. #'''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).<ref name="Gerard">{{cite journal|author1=Deutsch, M.|author2=Gerard, H. B.|name-list-style=amp|year=1955|title=A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment|journal=Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology|volume=51|issue=3|pages=629–636|pmid=13286010|doi=10.1037/h0046408|url=http://web.comhem.se/u52239948/08/deutsch55.pdf|access-date=2016-10-16|archive-date=2017-01-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170112050329/http://web.comhem.se/u52239948/08/deutsch55.pdf}}</ref> 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 from stimuli being intrinsically ambiguous or because of 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 and identification, whereas informational influence leads to private acceptance and internalization.<ref name=Kelman /> Beyond these classic forms of social influence, University of Kansas psychologist Christian S Crandall emphasize that imitation, conformity, and social norms form the deeper foundation of how influence works. Humans are biologically prepared to pay attention to others and learn from them, and this shared expectation of what behaviors are appropriate (social norms), shapes nearly all group behavior.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal |last1=McDonald |first1=Rachel I |last2=Crandall |first2=Christian S |date=June 21, 2025 |title=Social norms and social influence |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352154615000558 |journal=Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences |language=en |volume=3 |pages=147–151 |doi=10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.04.006|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
==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 social psychology.
===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''.<ref name="Kelman" /> 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).
=== Compliance === {{Main|Compliance (psychology)}}
thumb|A protester with a placard reading "Silence is Compliance" Compliance is the act of responding favorably to an explicit or implicit request offered by others. Technically, compliance is a behavior change but not necessarily in attitude; one can comply due to mere obedience or by otherwise opting to withhold private thoughts due to social pressures.<ref name="Aronson">Aronson, Elliot, Timothy D. Wilson, and Robin M. Akert. Social Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010. Print.</ref> 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).<ref name="Kelman" />
=== Identification === {{Main|Identification (psychology)}}
Identification is the changing of attitudes or behaviors due to the influence of someone who is admired. Advertisements relying 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.<ref name="Kelman" />
=== Internalization === {{Main|Internalization (sociology)}}
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".<ref name="Kelman" />
===Conformity=== {{Main|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).<ref name="Aronson" /> Christian S Crandall also point out that conformity is rooted in the broader system of social norms,the shared expectations within a group about appropriate behavior. Humans are naturally equipped to learn from and imitate others, so conformity is not just copying what people do, but responding to both descriptive norms (what people typically do) and injunctive norms (what people believe one should do).<ref name=":02"/> Experiments by Solomon Asch demonstrated that individuals frequently conform to a clearly incorrect majority, and that the presence of even a single dissenter substantially reduces conformity pressure. Later work found that experiences of social exclusion increase people’s likelihood to conform, suggesting that conformity can function as a strategy to regain social acceptance.<ref name="Aronson" /> Conformity also spreads through norm cascades, in which a small number of people adopting a behavior can trigger rapid group-wide adoption once a critical threshold is reached.<ref name=":02"/>
===Minority influence=== {{Main|Minority influence}}
Researchers have been studying social influence and minority influence for over thirty years. Early research in social psychology emphasized conformity and behaviors that enforced conformity on others. Which created a conformity bias and overshadowed the role of minorities.<ref name=":13">{{Citation |last1=Moscovici |first1=Serge |title=Minority Influence |date=1983 |work=Basic Group Processes |pages=41–64 |editor-last=Paulus |editor-first=Paul B. |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5578-9_3 |access-date=2025-12-09 |place=New York, NY |publisher=Springer |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-1-4612-5578-9_3 |isbn=978-1-4612-5578-9 |last2=Mugny |first2=Gabriel|url-access=subscription }}</ref> The first publication covering these topics was written by social psychologist Serge Moscovici and published in 1976.<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00314.x | title=Minority Influence, Social Change, and Social Stability | year=2010 | last1=Mucchi-Faina | first1=Angelica | last2=Pacilli | first2=Maria Giuseppina | last3=Pagliaro | first3=Stefano | journal=Social and Personality Psychology Compass | volume=4 | issue=11 | pages=1111–1123 }}</ref> 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 size 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).<ref name="Moscovici">Moscovici, S. and Nemeth (1974) Minority influence. In C. Nemetn (ed.), Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations (pp. 217–249), Chicago:Rand McNally</ref> Moscovici’s more recent research highlights that active minorities, such as social movements, scientific innovators, or emerging artistic groups, play a crucial role in challenging majority norms and driving social change. Minority groups can gain influence by promoting new ideas, and can shift majority beliefs by presenting consistent, confident, and autonomous positions.<ref name=":13"/> 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.<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Wood, W.|author2=Lundgren, S.|author3=Ouellette, J.|author4=Busceme, S.|author5=Blackstone, T.|year=1994|name-list-style=amp|title=Minority Influence: A Meta-Analytic Review of Social Influence Processes|journal=Psychological Bulletin|volume=115|number=3|pages=323–345|pmid=8016284|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.323}}</ref>
===Self-fulfilling prophecy=== {{Main|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.<ref name=SFP-48>{{Citation | last = Merton | first = Robert K. | title = The Self Fulfilling Prophecy | journal = Antioch Review | volume = 8 | year = 1948 | issue = 2 (Summer) | pages = 193–210 | jstor = 4609267 | doi=10.2307/4609267 }}</ref>
===Social contagion=== {{Main|Social contagion}}
Social contagion involves the spontaneous spread of behaviors or emotions through a group, population or social network. Social contagion consists of two categories, behavioral contagion and emotional contagion. Unlike conformity, the emotion or behavior being adopted may not represent a social norm.<ref name ="OSI2017" >{{cite book |editor=Stephen G. Harkins |editor2=Kipling D. Williams |editor3=Jerry M. Burger | title = The Oxford Handbook of Social Influence | year = 2017 | chapter = 7 , 23 | publisher = Oxford University Press |isbn = 978-0-19-985987-0 }}</ref>
===Reactance=== {{Main|Reactance (psychology)}}
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''.According to the Encyclopedia of Social Psychology by Roy F. Baumeister, people become upset when their freedom feels restricted and may deliberately do the opposite of what they are told in an attempt to restore that lost sense of freedom.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Baumeister |first=Roy F. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Mqk5DQAAQBAJ&q=social+influence++encyclopedia&pg=PP1 |title=Encyclopedia of Social Psychology |date=2007-08-29 |publisher=SAGE |isbn=978-1-4129-1670-7 |language=en}}</ref> While the results are the opposite of what the influencer intended, the reactive behavior is a result of social pressure.<ref name="Brehm">Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press</ref> 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.<ref name="Frager">{{cite journal | last1 = Frager | first1 = R | year = 1970 | title = Conformity and anti-conformity in Japan | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 15 | issue = 3| pages = 203–210 | doi=10.1037/h0029434}}</ref>
===Obedience=== {{Main|Obedience (human behavior)}}
Obedience is a form of social influence that derives from an authority figure, based on order or command.<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1111/bjso.12272 | title=Obedience without orders: Expanding social psychology's conception of 'obedience' | year=2019 | last1=Gibson | first1=Stephen | journal=British Journal of Social Psychology | volume=58 | issue=1 | pages=241–259 | pmid=30156301 | s2cid=52113921 | doi-access=free }}</ref> 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=== {{Main|Persuasion}}
Persuasion is the process of guiding oneself or another toward the adoption of an attitude by rational or symbolic means. US psychologist Robert Cialdini defined six "weapons of influence": reciprocity, commitment, social proof, authority, liking, and scarcity to bring about conformity by directed means. Persuasion can occur through appeals to reason or appeals to emotion.<ref name="Cialdini">Cialdini, Robert B. (2001). ''Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.)''. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. {{ISBN|0-321-01147-3}}</ref>
===Manipulation=== {{Main|Manipulation (psychology)}} Manipulation is defined as an action designed to influence or control another person in an underhanded or subtle manner which facilitates one's personal aims.<ref>Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Manipulation. In Cambridge English Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/manipulation</ref> Methods someone may use to manipulate another person may include seduction, suggestion, coercion, and blackmail.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1986.40.2.189 | doi=10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1986.40.2.189 | title=The Manipulative Patient | date=1986 | last1=Hamilton | first1=J. Devance | last2=Decker | first2=Norman | last3=Rumbaut | first3=Ruben D. | journal=American Journal of Psychotherapy | volume=40 | issue=2 | pages=189–200 | pmid=3728747|quote=We define manipulation as deliberately influencing or controlling the behavior of others to one's own advantage by using charm, persuasion, seduction, deceit, guilt induction, or coercion.| url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="APA">{{cite APA Dictionary |title=Manipulation |shortlink=manipulation |access-date=10 October 2021 }}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Lynam |first1=Donald R. |last2=Vachon |first2=David D. |date=2012 |title=Antisocial personality disorder in DSM-5: Missteps and missed opportunities. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/per0000006 |journal=Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment |language=en |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=483–495 |doi=10.1037/per0000006 |pmid=23106185 |issn=1949-2723|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Manipulation is generally considered a dishonest form of social influence as it is used at the expense of others.<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1007/s11245-023-09940-3 | title=On Artificial Intelligence and Manipulation | date=2023 | last1=Ienca | first1=Marcello | journal=Topoi | volume=42 | issue=3 | pages=833–842|quote="In this tradition, manipulation is considered ethically wrong because it involves influencing someone's behavior or beliefs in a non-transparent way that (i) undermines their autonomy, freedom, or dignity, (ii) promotes the personal gain of the manipulator at the expense of the manipulated, and (iii) may result in direct or indirect harm for the manipulated."| doi-access=free }}</ref> Humans are inherently capable of manipulative and deceptive behavior, with the main differences being that of specific personality characteristics or disorders.<ref> *"That human beings should universally possess a talent for deceiving one another shouldn’t surprise us. Researchers speculate that lying as a behavior arose not long after the emergence of language." -----{{cite web | url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/lying-hoax-false-fibs-science | title=Why We Lie: The Science Behind Our Deceptive Ways | website=National Geographic Society | date=18 May 2017 }} *Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2013). ''The H factor of personality: Why some people are manipulative, self-entitled, materialistic, and exploitive—and why it matters for everyone.'' * Ekman, P. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage (revised edition). WW Norton & Company. * DePaulo, B. M., Kirkendol, S. E., Tang, J., & O'Brien, T. P. (1988). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: Replications and extensions. Journal of nonverbal Behavior, 12, 177-202. * Bursten, B. (1972). The manipulative personality. Archives of general psychiatry, 26(4), 318-321.</ref><ref>{{citation|url=https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.53|quote=First, in addition to evolved strategies for individual and cooperative resource acquisition, humans, like many other species, have evolved an array of exploitation strategies that are designed to expropriate the resources of others through force, deception, intimidation, and coercion, most of which have remained entirely unstudied by scientists. |doi=10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.53 |title=Adaptations for exploitation |date=2008 |last1=Buss |first1=David M. |last2=Duntley |first2=Joshua D. |journal=Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice |volume=12 |pages=53–62 |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{citation|last1=Coons |first1=Christian |last2=Weber |first2=Michael |title=Manipulation: Theory and Practice |date=July 2014 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-933822-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pl2yAwAAQBAJ&dq=manipulation%20behavior&pg=PA17|quote=Human beings are social creatures. This means that people are dependent on other people for nearly everything they need in life. That entails, in turn, that they regularly need to get others to do things they need or want them to do—or to refrain from doing things they need them not to do or don’t want them to do.People get others to do what they want in a variety of ways. Some of these are morally unproblematic, at least most of the time. We can get other people to do things, for instance, because these others have a legal obligation to do them. Or they may have (and respond to) a non-coercible moral obligation, or just do it for us out of moral decency......Other ways that people get others to do things according to their needs or wants are morally problematic.}}</ref>
Manipulation differs from general influence and persuasion.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/292086?journalCode=et | doi=10.1086/292086 | title=Manipulation | date=1978 | last1=Rudinow | first1=Joel | journal=Ethics | volume=88 | issue=4 | pages=338–347 | url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1i55AgAAQBAJ&dq=interpersonal-manipulation-nature-moral-limits-mark-seabright-dennis-moberg&pg=PT249 | title=Managerial Ethics: Moral Management of People and Processes | isbn=978-1-135-68713-7 | last1=Schminke | first1=Marshall | date=August 1998 | publisher=Psychology Press }}</ref> Manipulation, unlike persuasion, typically involves exploiting the vulnerabilities of an individual.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0957926506060250 | doi=10.1177/0957926506060250 | title=Discourse and manipulation | date=2006 | last1=Van Dijk | first1=Teun A. | journal=Discourse & Society | volume=17 | issue=3 | pages=359–383 | url-access=subscription }}</ref>
Manipulative behavior is fundamentally deliberate and intentional, with the manipulator knowing full well the consequences of their actions, and what they want out of the person being manipulated.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/17.2.173 | doi=10.1093/jmp/17.2.173 | title=An Analysis of Interpersonal Manipulation | date=1992 | last1=Kligman | first1=M. | last2=Culver | first2=C. M. | journal=Journal of Medicine and Philosophy | volume=17 | issue=2 | pages=173–197 | pmid=1588243 | url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Susser |first1=Daniel |last2=Roessler |first2=Beate |last3=Nissenbaum |first3=Helen |title=Technology, autonomy, and manipulation |journal=Internet Policy Review |date=2019 |volume=8 |issue=2 |doi=10.14763/2019.2.1410 |url=https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1410|quote=In our view, manipulation is hidden influence. Or more fully, manipulating someone means intentionally and covertly influencing their decision-making, by targeting and exploiting their decision-making vulnerabilities.}}</ref>
===Controlling behavior=== {{Main|Controlling behavior}}
Controlling individuals use various tactics to abuse their victims.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Postmus |first1=Judy L. |last2=Stylianou |first2=Amanda Mathisen |last3=McMahon |first3=Sarah |date=2015-04-21 |title=The Abusive Behavior Inventory–Revised |journal=Journal of Interpersonal Violence |volume=31 |issue=17 |pages=2867–2888 |doi=10.1177/0886260515581882 |pmid=25900914 |issn=0886-2605}}</ref> Tactics may include coercion and threats, intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, and more. The goal of the abuser is to control and intimidate the victim or to influence them to feel that they do not have an equal voice in the relationship.<ref name="Cory p. 30">Jill Cory; Karen McAndless-Davis. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=qBFdlUnxmkkC&pg=PA30 When Love Hurts: A Woman's Guide to Understanding Abuse in Relationships] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230121072146/https://books.google.com/books?id=qBFdlUnxmkkC&pg=PA30 |date=2023-01-21 }}''. WomanKind Press; 1 January 2000. {{ISBN|978-0-9686016-0-0}}. p. 30.</ref> Political entities may employ patterns of similar techniques in the exertion of abusive power and control over persons subject to them.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2012-07-17 |title=Venezuela: Concentration and Abuse of Power Under Chávez {{!}} Human Rights Watch |url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/17/venezuela-concentration-and-abuse-power-under-chavez |access-date=2023-11-13 |language=en}}</ref>
===Propaganda=== {{Main|Propaganda}}
Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.<ref name="brit_BLS">{{cite web | last = Smith | first = Bruce L. | author-link = Bruce Lannes Smith | title = Propaganda | website = britannica.com | publisher = Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. | date = 17 February 2016 | url = http://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda | access-date = 23 April 2016 | archive-date = 20 April 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200420160621/https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda | url-status = live }}</ref>
===Hard power=== {{Main|Hard power}}
Hard power is the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. This form of political power is often aggressive (coercion), and is most effective when imposed by one political body upon another of lesser military and/or economic power.<ref name=hard>{{cite web|title=Hard Power Vs. Soft Power|url=http://www.themarknews.com/articles/895-hard-power-vs-soft-power|publisher=The Mark|access-date=26 April 2012|author=Daryl Copeland|date=Feb 2, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120501050956/http://www.themarknews.com/articles/895-hard-power-vs-soft-power|archive-date=1 May 2012}}</ref> Hard power contrasts with soft power, which comes from diplomacy, culture and history.<ref name=hard/>
Psychologist Bertram H. Raven (1964) defines social influence as any change in a person’s thoughts, attitudes, or behavior that originates from another individual or group. He outlines several distinct bases of social power, beginning with informational influence, in which change results from the content or logic of a communication rather than the communicator themselves. Raven also describes coercive and reward power, forms of influence that rely on the perceived ability of a person to administer punishments or provide benefits. Additional sources of power include expert power, which emerges when individuals defer to those believed to possess superior knowledge, and referent power, in which individuals adjust their attitudes or behaviors to align with people or groups they identify with.<ref name="Spears 367–390">{{Cite journal |last=Spears |first=Russell |date=2021-01-04 |title=Social Influence and Group Identity |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-070620-111818 |journal=Annual Review of Psychology |language=en |volume=72 |pages=367–390 |doi=10.1146/annurev-psych-070620-111818 |pmid=32931718 |issn=0066-4308|hdl=11370/ca7a3cff-ef94-4c83-be27-15f04ebe450a |hdl-access=free }}</ref>
== Antecedents == Many factors can affect the impact of social influence.
=== Collective Identity === {{Main|Collective identity}}
Collective identity or group identity is a shared sense of belonging to a group. In Social Influence and Group Identity, Russel Spears (2021) explains that much of what shapes people’s attitudes and behaviors comes from the social groups they identify with, drawing on classic self-categorization theory by JC Turner(1987, 1991) that argues people conform to group norms when those norms feel self-relevant. Research shows that group identity strengthens conformity in famous studies like Sherif’s autokinetic illusion experiments and Asch’s line-judgment paradigm. Spears also contrasts identity-based influence with other explanations as a distinction between descriptive and injunctive norms. Showing that group identity can shape not only behavior but perceived moral obligations.<ref name="Spears 367–390"/>
===Social impact theory=== {{Main|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:<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Latané | first1 = B | year = 1981 | title = The psychology of social impact | doi = 10.1037/0003-066x.36.4.343 | journal = American Psychologist | volume = 36 | issue = 4| pages = 343–356 }}</ref>
*''Strength'': The importance of the influencing group to the individual *''Immediacy'': Physical (and temporal) proximity of the influencing group to the individual at the time of the influence attempt *''Number'': The number of people in the group
===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:<ref name="Cialdini" /><ref>{{cite web |url=https://conceptually.org/concepts/6-principles-of-influence/ |title=What are the 6 principles of influence? |website=conceptually.org |access-date=October 25, 2017 |archive-date=October 26, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171026053847/https://conceptually.org/concepts/6-principles-of-influence/ |url-status=live }}</ref> *Reciprocity: People tend to return a favor. *Commitment and consistency: People do not like to be self-contradictory. Once they commit to an idea or behavior, they are averse to changing their minds without good reason. *Social proof: People will be more open to things that they see others doing. For example, seeing others compost their organic waste after finishing a meal may influence the subject to do so as well.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Sussman, R.|author2=Gifford, R.|name-list-style=amp|year=2013|title=Be the Change You Want to See: Modeling Food Composting in Public Places|journal=Environment and Behavior|volume=45|issue=3|pages=323–343|doi=10.1177/0013916511431274|bibcode=2013EnvBe..45..323S |s2cid=46022154}}</ref> *Authority: People will tend to obey authority figures. *Liking: People are more easily swayed by people they like. *Scarcity: A perceived limitation of resources will generate demand.
===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.<ref name=ObedStudy>{{cite journal|last=Milgram |first=Stanley |year=1963 |title=Behavioral Study of Obedience |journal=Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology |volume=67 |issue=4 |pages=371–378 |pmid=14049516 |url=http://content.apa.org/journals/abn/67/4/371 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120717013242/http://content.apa.org/journals/abn/67/4/371 |archive-date=2012-07-17 |doi=10.1037/h0040525 |citeseerx=10.1.1.599.92 |s2cid=18309531 }} [http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1981/A1981LC33300001.pdf Full-text PDF.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611105753/http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1981/A1981LC33300001.pdf |date=June 11, 2011 }}</ref>
=== Status === {{Main|Appeal to authority}}
{{See also|Reputation}} 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.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/books/05deba.html?scp=5&sq=Shiller%20groupthink&st=cse Ivory Tower Unswayed by Crashing Economy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161114171451/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/books/05deba.html?scp=5&sq=Shiller%20groupthink&st=cse |date=2016-11-14 }}. ''New York Times''.</ref> Appeals to authority may especially affect norms of obedience. The compliance of normal humans to authority in the famous Milgram experiment demonstrates the power of perceived authority.
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.<ref>C. Mugny; L Souchet; C Codaccioni; A Quiamzade (2008). Social Representation and Social Influence. 53 (2), pp. 223–237.</ref>
=== 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.<ref>Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books.</ref> 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.<ref name="Frager" />
While gender does not significantly affect a person's likelihood to conform, under certain conditions gender roles do affect such a likelihood.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tveleneva |first1=Arina |last2=Scholz |first2=Christin |last3=Yoon |first3=Carolyn |last4=Lieberman |first4=Matthew D. |last5=Cooper |first5=Nicole |last6=O'Donnell |first6=Matthew Brook |last7=Falk |first7=Emily B. |last8=Cascio |first8=Christopher N. |date=2023-10-01 |title=The relationship between agency, communion, and neural processes associated with conforming to social influence |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=213 |article-number=112299 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2023.112299 |issn=0191-8869|doi-access=free |hdl=11245.1/05f46d3a-e736-4890-8154-1485b28c5749 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Studies from the 1950s and 1960s concluded that women were more likely to conform than men. However 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 is 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".<ref>Sistrunk, Frank; McDavid, John W.; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 17(2), Feb, 1971. pp. 200–207.</ref>
=== Emotions === {{Main|Appeal to emotion}}
Emotion and disposition may affect an individual's likelihood of conformity or anticonformity.<ref name="Brehm" /> 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.<ref>EurekAlert. (2009). [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/uom-for032309.php Fear or romance could make you change your mind, U of Minnesota study finds] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120927152329/http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/uom-for032309.php |date=2012-09-27 }}.</ref>
== Social structure ==
===Social networks=== {{Main|Social network analysis}}
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,<ref name="content.nejm.org">{{cite journal | last1 = Christakis | first1 = N.A. | last2 = Fowler | first2 = J.H. | year = 2007 | title = The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network Over 32 Years | journal = New England Journal of Medicine | volume = 357 | issue = 4| pages = 370–379 | doi=10.1056/nejmsa066082 | pmid=17652652| citeseerx = 10.1.1.581.4893 }}</ref> smoking,<ref name="J.H. Fowler 2008">{{cite journal | last1 = Christakis | first1 = N.A. | last2 = Fowler | first2 = J.H. | year = 2008 | title = The Collective Dynamics of Smoking in a Large Social Network | journal = New England Journal of Medicine | volume = 358 | issue = 21| pages = 2249–2258 | doi=10.1056/nejmsa0706154 | pmid=18499567 | pmc=2822344}}</ref><ref name="nytimes.com">{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/science/22smoke.html?scp=2&sq=nicholas%20christakis&st=cse |title=Gina Kolata, "Study Finds Big Social Factor in Quitting Smoking," ''The New York Times'', May 22, 2008. |work=The New York Times |date=22 May 2008 |access-date=February 23, 2017 |archive-date=October 19, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019155037/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/science/22smoke.html?scp=2&sq=nicholas%20christakis&st=cse |url-status=live |last1=Kolata |first1=Gina }}</ref> drinking<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Rosenquist | first1 = J.N. | last2 = Murabito | first2 = J. | last3 = Fowler | first3 = J.H. | last4 = Christakis | first4 = N.A. | year = 2010 | title = The Spread of Alcohol Consumption Behavior in a Large Social Network | journal = Annals of Internal Medicine | volume = 152 | issue = 7| pages = 426–433 | doi=10.7326/0003-4819-152-7-201004060-00007| pmid = 20368648 | pmc = 3343772 }}</ref> and happiness.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Fowler | first1 = J.H. | last2 = Christakis | first2 = N.A. | year = 2008 | title = The Dynamic Spread of Happiness in a Large Social Network: Longitudinal Analysis Over 20 Years in the Framingham Heart Study | journal = British Medical Journal | volume = 337 | article-number = a2338 | doi=10.1136/bmj.a2338 | pmid=19056788 | pmc=2600606}}</ref>
However, important flaws have been identified in the contagion model for social influence which is assumed and used in many of the above studies.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lerman |first1=Kristina |author1-link=Kristina Lerman|title=Information Is Not a Virus, and Other Consequences of Human Cognitive Limits |journal=Future Internet |date=13 May 2016 |volume=8 |issue=4 |page=21 |doi=10.3390/fi8020021 |bibcode=2016arXiv160502660L |arxiv=1605.02660 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lyons |first1=Russell |title=The spread of evidence-poor medicine via flawed social-network analysis |journal=Statistics, Politics, and Policy |date=2011 |volume=2 |issue=1 |doi=10.2202/2151-7509.1024 |arxiv=1007.2876 |s2cid=14223489 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Tufekci |first1=Zeynep |chapter=Big Questions for Social Media Big Data: Representativeness, Validity and Other Methodological Pitfalls |title=Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media |date=2014 |volume=8 |pages=505–514 |doi=10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14517 |chapter-url=https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM14/paper/viewFile/8062/8151 |bibcode=2014arXiv1403.7400T |arxiv=1403.7400 |s2cid=13936629 |access-date=2019-10-21 |archive-date=2019-10-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191021175403/https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM14/paper/viewFile/8062/8151 |url-status=live }}</ref> In order to address these flaws, causal inference methods have been proposed instead, to systematically disentangle social influence from other possible confounding causes when using observational data.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Liotsiou |first1=Dimitra |title=Social Informatics |last2=Halford |first2=Susan |last3=Moreau |first3=Luc |date=2016 |volume=10047 |pages=116–132 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-47874-6_9 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |isbn=978-3-319-47873-9 |chapter-url=https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/401369/1/DLiotsiouSocialInfluenceCausalityCR.pdf |chapter=Social Influence: From Contagion to a Richer Causal Understanding |s2cid=43270799 |access-date=2019-11-07 |archive-date=2023-02-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230204151748/https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/401369/1/DLiotsiouSocialInfluenceCausalityCR.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shalizi |first1=Cosma Rohilla |last2=Thomas |first2=Andrew C |title=Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies |journal=Sociological Methods & Research |date=2011 |volume=40 |issue=2 |pages=211–239 |doi=10.1177/0049124111404820 |pmid=22523436 |pmc=3328971 }}</ref>
== Global approach to the phenomenon of influence ==
===Provisional introduction===
As described above, theoretical approaches are in the form of knowledge clusters. The global theory of influence is missing for an easy understanding and an education to protect from manipulators. A first tentative was published in 2012.<ref>{{citation |last1=Frezal |first1=B et J-C |last2=Leininger-Frezal |first2=C |last3=Mathia |first3=TG |last4=Mory |first4=B |translator-last=Leslie |translator-first=Wendy |edition=1st English |title=Influence & Systems: Provisional Introduction to the Theory of Influence and Manipulation |url=http://www.theory-influence.com/books/Document_UK_WEB.pdf |access-date=2019-06-16 |archive-date=2023-02-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230204151749/http://www.theory-influence.com/books/Document_UK_WEB.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> The first pages of ''Influence & Systems'' explain why a global approach is necessary.
== See also == {{Columns-list|colwidth=30em| * {{Annotated link |Artificial intelligence and elections}} * Authority bias * Bystander effect * Influence-for-hire * Impression management * Judge–advisor system * Popularity * Response bias * Social-desirability bias * Social influence bias }}
==References== {{Reflist|2}}
==External links== *{{Commons category-inline|Social influence}}
{{Conformity}} {{Authority control}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Social Influence}} Influence Category:Social influence Category:Majority–minority relations