Modalities of Social Influence

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Modalities of Social Influence

Martin W Bauer

Institute of Social Psychology (ISP)

1

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

The Argument of today

1 Different Modalities of Social Influence

2 The Problem of Rationality and Sub-Rationality

3 Some Reconstruction and Integration Work

4 Moral of the story: the moral dubiousness of influence

An old concern: raising awareness of social influence to protect us against it (harnessing the enlightenment effect)

Social Psychology = the study of what persuades at present !

2

21/04/23 MBauer LSE 3

Social Influence and Social Interaction

The battle for the hearts and minds of others

How do others influence me or us?How do I or we influence them?

The many influence the one/few: majority, crowdsThe many influence the many: imitation, pressureOne/few influence the many: minority, persuasion, prestigeOne influences one another: contagion, persuasion, prestigeTo influence yourself: to argue, to reason


Other takes on ‘influence’

Militaryforce: moving in tanks, fortification to keep enemies out

Politicshard power: armies, police and threat of violence soft power: cultural influence; attractive ‘way of life’; good music

Sociologya) generalised communication media (GCMs) e.g. money: a code that substitutes for ambiguous language and thus increases the probability of communication between A and B;similarly prestige, power, law (see Parsons, Luhmann etc)

b) Trust: general condition that reduces transaction costs; a kind of credit that absorbs losses, disappointments

Social Psychology: we will now see ?


crowds, contagion, persuasion normalising, compliance, obedience, conversion

Mass behaviour

Rhetoric

communityPrestigehierarchy

RepresentationsNorms, attitudes, opinions, beliefs

Behaviour & actions

Eristics, Sophistry

Public sphere

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Crowds and Leadership of Masses

Gustave Le Bon (1895) ‘The Age of the Crowd’

In social company individuals are lulled into a state of hypnosis The power of suggestion: accepting propositions without testing reason‘mass’ = metaphor: matter (hyle) that needs to be given form (soul)

Crowds bring about a hypnotic state in individuals = crowd effect

• de-individuation in crowds: lowering the threshold of restraint;• ’effemination’: otherwise rational individuals turn into irrational animals; animal spirits (irrational = women is a 19th century stereotype)• Personality alteration towards impulsiveness, exaggeration, intolerance, simplistic reasoning etc (everything that is despicable happens in crowds)• individuals in mass can be ‘formed like clay’, there is no control left; a need and opportunity for leaders (crowds = material in need of form)

1841-1931

7

Critique: middle class panic over street politics (the shock of ‘Paris Commune’ of 1871); ‘fin de siecle’ pessimism on human nature; social factors pitted against rational judgement; assumes that imitation works without reasoning and judgements, the latter at most a special case; a theory of political populism; huge success as popular science; Taiwan edition 2011.

Neo-stoic, modern ethos of a ‘rational individual’ (Taylor, 2007)buffered against outside: others, demons, spirits, contact buffered against inside: desire, passion An elitist last stand against uncontrollable masses

21/04/23 8MBauer LSE


t

The Pendulum of Managerial Control (cycles of 35-50 years; see Barley & Kunda, 1992)

‘(Job) design’ ‘Devotion’

Reward

Context

Task design Content

Leadership; ‘Charisma’

Extrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation

Identification; Loyalty


Contagion and Imitation

Gabriel Tarde (2001) [1890] ‘The Laws of Imitation’ two sources of similarity and difference of people: by inheritance and by imitation imitation has two phases: invention and imitation (= sharing intentionality):

no laws for invention, but many laws of imitation; lists of principles, for example:

1 imitation proceeds from the inner to the outer man:dress fashion [outer] is anticipated by literary fashions [inner]; ideas [inner] precede behavioural expression [outer]; ends [inner] change before the means [outer];2 Imitation follows the social hierarchy of prestige: The aristocrats are the cultural trend setters; see Stars, opinion leaders; List A people in advertising3Liquid intake is more easily imitated than food intake: Explains why alcoholism is more prevalent than obesity (probably a 19 th century observation) ?

Gabriel Trade (2006) [1901] ‘Opinion and crowds’Difference between crowd and public opinion: co-presence in street versus mediated co-attentionPublic opinion = floating conversations, a homogenity of outlook, not only political, also religiousPublic opinion is selective: focusing attention on X, thus not to Y (Affaire Dreyfus > 1895); Historical novelty: the press substitutes crowds in their function: exerting political pressure to act

(1843-1904)

21/04/23 MBauer LSE21/04/23 11

100%

t

early late

Resistantlaggardsinnovators

The diffusion model (e.g. Rogers et al., 1983)

Adoption rate

density

t1 t2 t3

50%

slow accelerated decelerated Slow again

Key criterion = ‘years to 50%’

Adopters

11


‘The battle for the hearts and minds’

Linear model: invention (idea) - innovation (product) - diffusion (marketing)

• problem attribution: ‘black box’ the product and work on the social system • sigmoid diffusion: logistic adoption rate = ln(p/N-p) = a + bt

•profiling of population: e.g. early adopters, late adopters, laggards• multivariate analysis of attitude data: clustering, typologies, regression• media practices: how to reach the different groups [media mix]

•Guiding a strategic intervention: ‘battle for the hearts and minds of people’•mass communication for awareness

•Advertising campaigns; marketing; two-step flows•inter-personal communication for adoption decisions


Echoes in ‘viral theories’ of ideas, beliefs

Authors like: Dawkins (1976), Sperber (1990) Atran (2002), Boyer (2001)

Ideas modelled in analogy to virus and viral infection, epidemiology of beliefTo entertain a new idea X = being infected by X

•Virulence of an idea (stickiness)•Host susceptibility ‘tipping point’ •Ecological milieu (e.g. herd immunity)

How far does the ‘viral’ analogy go? (asks Kitcher, 2003)•Remember Dr Pasteur: ‘the germ is nothing, the milieu is everything’•Hygiene as intervention: vigilance, contact avoidance, moral cleansing •Transmission of object relations y: y(Ac) => y(Bc)•Intentional entities: ideas are ‘entities that refer to something else’•Is ‘y’ before and after transmission from A to B identical object relation ?•Unspecified epidemiological analogues: mutation, rate of recovery, immunity, competition, rate of re-infection after recovery, gestation time etc.


Rational or irrational;

that is the question


Influence as (ir)rational

a) The doctrine of suggestion (a 19th century fad?)Tarde, LeBon et al.

Somnambulism as normal, everyday state of affairsRationality is exceptional, for an elite of cultivated individuals

‘Oligo poloi’ (few) against the ‘hoi poloi’ (many)The sovereign mind buffered inside and outside (Taylor)

b) Rationality as universal human potential Experimental demonstrations of ‘rationality’ (new social psych) The search for exceptional circumstances where it failsTriarchical rationality in relation to ego, social and worldEither/Or dual-system ideas versus uni-modal system


Dualities of social influence (the lure of dichotomies)

Genetic determination or cultural imitationRational versus irrational/subrationalReason versus passionHard and soft Conscious versus non-conscious, automaticCentral versus peripheralelaboration likelihoodExpectancy-value versus emotional conditioning heuristic-systematicsystem 1 and system 2Hot and coldFast and slowIntuitive versus deliberative

Majority versus minority influence


Elaboration (system 2)Higher brain, slow, cold

Cue based, biased (system 1)Lower brain, fast, hot

Dual-System Ideasbehaviour

Dichotomy of systems or variable parameters ?Tools from same box, combined differently

?


Solomon Asch(1907-1996)

Stanley Milgram(1933-1984)

Serge Moscovici(*1925)

Mustafer Sherif (1906-1988)

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Normalisation and Frame of Reference > 1935

Mustafar Sherif (1935) et al.:

Emerging norm of judgements; once established, they persist‘Auto-kinetic phenomenon’ experiments: an ambiguous stimulus flickering in the dark chamber

Compromising and convergence of judgements in groups

1. Establish an individual norm in repeated observations 2. Bringing individual norms into groups to agree ‘group judgments’3. An agreed frame of reference persists, even in individual perceptions4. The social process as productive process: a basis for co-ordinated action

Critique: innocuous situation; an experiments with no real-life stakes

19


Ludvik Fleck (1939 / 79) the ‘origin of scientific facts’

[demonstrated on the emergence of the modern theory of syphilis]Scientific facts are stabilised in the interplay of •Thinking collective•Thinking style•Genres of communication: lab, journal, popular (concentric)•The need of public appreciation (popularisation)

certainty, simplicity, concreteness

Facts are ‘the world seen as’ (in function of a frame of reference)for simplicity we say ‘x is a’, rather than ‘x is seen as a’ or x(a/F)A spade is a ‘spade’, only when seen ‘as a tool’, otherwise is just wood + metal

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Majority influence > 1950s

Experiments on conformity and complianceUnambiguous stimulus situation: three geometrical lines

Solomon Asch et al. ( > 1951): majority influence and conformity

Experiment on visual stimuli; majority is briefed for false judgements

How is conformity induced; what supports resistance?

Normative-motivational influence = avoidance of sanction, need for affiliation = exclusion anxiety = ‘it hurts to be alone’ (litteraly)

Rational basis: in relation to others, preserving a positive self-concept

Recent: wisdom of the crowd, majority as signal and information

22


The odd one out

The distress of social exclusion (ostracism)• hurts like physical pain (Panksepp, 2003; Eisenberger et.al, 2004)

• Increased immune activity (Dickerson et al., 2009)

• increased hormone level: progesterone (Maner et al., 2010)

• It hurts, even if exclusion pays off (vanBeest et al., 2006)

• Slowing of heart rate (Moor et al, 2010)

• Higher cortisol levels in saliva (Blackhart et al., 2007)

• being ‘left in the cold’, feels cold (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008)

• Craving for warm food (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008)

• Make us more sensitive to cues that signal deception (Bernstein et al., 2008)

So what: we learn from this that we are social animals (individuals 2nd)

•Pain killers like Acetaminophen help when excluded (DeWall et al., 2010)21/04/23 24MBauer LSE


Obedience to Authority Stanley Milgram et al ( > 1963) :

Pretext experiment: ‘Learning by pain’

[disguised purposes: how far do we go?]

People are naturally hesitant, but this is turned-off by authority

The ‘actant state’ = actant abdicates responsibility; ‘I am only a part of the machine’ = the banality of evil (Hannah Arendt)

Compliance rates as cultural indictor: a national ‘litmus test’ [a model for genocide studies]

A model case of AbuGraib, holocaust? but note the pictures !!!

Milgram (1963) Exp 1 USA (New Haven) 65

Exp 2 USA 62.5

Exp 3 USA 40

Exp 5 USA 65

Exp 6 USA 50

Exp 10 USA 47.5

Holland (1967) USA 75

Ancona & Pareyson (1968) Italy 85

Rosenhan (1969) USA 85

Podd (1969) USA 31

Edwards et al, (1969) South Africa 87.5

Ring et al. (1970) USA 91

Mantell (1971) West Germany 85

Bock (1972) USA 40

Powers & Geen (1972) USA 83

Rogers (1973) USA 37

Kilhan & Mann (1974) Australia 28

Shalala (1974) USA 30

Constanza (1976) USA 81

Shanab & Yahya (1977) Jordan 73

Shanab & Yahya (1978) Jordan 62.5

Miranda et al. (1981) Spain 50

Schurz (1985) Austria 80

Burger (2006) USA (California) <70

Obedience rates as cultural indicator ?

% of participants who continued to max

450 Volts with electro shocks

Mean (US) = 61%

Mean (elsewhere) = 66%

Bio-Ethical ban on replications (>1975)

issues: consent and harm to subjects

Source: Blass (2004, p302f);

Burger (2009): only ratio of participants intending to continue beyond 150 Vs

27MBauer LSE

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Conformity (e.g. Asch) Obedience (e.g. Milgram)

group of peers (us and them)imitation involved: acting as modelled implicit pressureinfluence denied by actorfear of exclusionPublic compliance, private dissent

a) social rationality: respect of others, it is costly to check everything oneself; moral community, ‘crowd sourcing’b) Ego-rationality: need for affiliation; ostracism is distressing and avoided

social status hierarchy no imitation, doing as verbally toldexplicit command & requestadmitted influence of authorityrespect for authority, expectation of rewardTransfer of responsibility

Social rationality: loyalty to legitimate authority; hierarchy as division of labour, efficient co-ordinationSub-rational Identification with leader: ‘Wanna be like you’

28


After-Image stimulus

•Short presentations•Recall of colours•Recognition of colours later: priming and latency

Alone or with partner

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Minority influence > 1967

[Moscovici et al.] Experiments on influence of minority and conversion

Reversal of Asch’s paradigm: the deviant minority is briefed to stay firm

Back to ambiguous stimulus as used by Sherif: colour after-images

Behavioural grammar: rigidity, consistency, autonomy/independence

Symbolic-informational change: majority reassesses its own assumptions / beliefs [not avoiding stress nor satisfying a need, but world-oriented rationality]

Sleeper effect: private change precedes public change (Tarde); source of information is forgotten: the tragedy of succesful minorities

Nomic and anomic minorities: organised versus disorganised deviance; influence is only possible for nomic-organised minority

Paradox of minority influence: behavioural grammar requires conformity within the minority [an organised-nomic minority: see Leninism, terror cells]

33

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Majority influence Minority influence

Maintaining a consensus, common sense

assimilation of minority TO majority

Process

Avoiding a conflict and stabilising existing consensus in face of challengecoercion, group pressure, threat of exclusion; attraction, seduction

comparison process: focus on persons; affiliation and identification with majority (normative rationality)

Effect

only public compliance, no internalisationprivate dissent [inner exil]temporary shifts in opinions; peripheral change easily reversible

Normative, social-oriented rationality Ego rationality, self-esteem

challenging an existing consensus, common sense

accommodation of minority IN majority

processCreating a conflict and shift towards new consensus due to behavioural style/grammar consistency, commitment, unanimityperceived autonomy, independence(flexible) rigidity

validation process: focus on topic; more careful assessment of information (objective rationality)

Effect public rejection and latent process: conversion, internalisation ‘sleeper effect’: changing attitudes and forgetting the source of the influence, concluding ‘it is obvious, it is not’. persistence: more durable shifts, change at the attitudinal core, irreversible more elaboration leads to stronger new attitude-new behaviour relationship

World-oriented rationality, objectivity

34


So far - what the textbooks tell you

Now let us do some thinking ……

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Integration work

Bringing things together

36

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Social interations create structures of ‘common sense’ (CS)

CS = social representations such as attitudes, beliefs, ideas, notionsCollective intentionality: common outlook and collective actionThe problem: establishing, maintaining, and re-designing CS in the context of intra- and inter-group conflicts (between groups A, B, C) Multiple common senses not one ‘sensus communis’

Conflict resolution over communalities: processes of structuration

by violence and force: by military warfare [hard power]

by adjudication of institutional authorities [court, church, science]

by social influence in imperfect public sphere [soft power]by deliberation in ‘functioning civil society’ [power-free discourse]

37

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Social influence = negotiations between group A and B

Symmetrical [ A ~ B ]

Normalisation by Compromising a frame of reference

coming to common terms; without a strong project,

‘no axes to grind’; equality of resources; Habermas’ ideal speech situation applies

Asymmetrical [ A > B ]

strong projects involved, basic value commitments are at stake

Assimilation [bring minority into-the-fold]

‘majority influence’: strategy of the strong, power in number:

public agreement / private disagreement [normative]

Accommodation [make inroads with majority]

‘minority influence’: strategy of the weak; power of dissent

public disagreement / private endorsement [informational]

Paradox of minority influence: in order to exert influence, the minority needs to have discipline [= successful minorities require professionalism]

38

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Normalisation[Sherif type]

Assimilation[Asch, Milgram typeTarde type]

Accommodation[Moscovici type]

Social co-ordination of activity: Establishing, Maintaining and Altering Moral Communality (a spiral of communication)

N The newcomer

Representations = normative constraint = artefacts

deviance

39


Function Modalities of Rational Influence

Normalisation Frame of reference – compromise

Assimilation Majority influence – conformity Authority, Prestige – obedienceSocial, legal norm - compliance

Accommodation Minority Influence – conversion

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Extension I

Mass Mediationprint, broadcasting, internet

41

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Limitation of experimental paradigms

Social influence experiments are ‘laboratory dramas’:face-to-face situations arranged by an experimenter; limited ecological validity, because modern social influence is heavily

based on mass mediated communicationIrony: experiments are banned under ‘ethics code’ but TV makes use of their dramatic qualities (dramatic effect, not causal claim is at stake)

Duality of face-to-face and formal communication?Small groups experiments = face-to-face; co-presence of othersWhat happens if mass mediation comes into play?

Two different processes; different degrees of freedom;Can we analogize? Do we have to consider emergent properties?

Social influence is exerted via informal but also via formalized mass media (i.e. professional preparation of meanings)

42

21/04/23 LSE MBauer PS429 43

Face-to-face Mediated, formalized

chat, conversation, dialogue co-presence unity of time and space, everyday activity spontaneous immediate response concrete others speaker / audience defined communality of code equal rights of participants

public speech, newspaper, television, radio, internet, pamphlets, book absence disjunction of time and space special occasion, professional planned, purposive, constructed delayed response stereotypical others speaker / audience vague multiple codes asymmetry of rights third party technical

arrangements

Informal and Formalised Communication

21/04/23 MBauer LSESource: C Tennant, LSE06

Environmental issues in 'The London Times'

1

10

100

1000

19

50

19

52

19

54

19

56

19

58

19

60

19

62

19

64

19

66

19

68

19

70

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

*

Global warming, climate change

Ozone layer, ozone hole

Population explosion

44

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Media Saliance, Evaluation and Public Optimism on Biotechnology

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 1

inde

x 19

99=

100

/ %

opt

imis

m

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

eval

uatio

n st

d

Optimism

Salience

UKeval-std

45

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Mass media on topic/actor X: Attention, positioning and framing

Conversations on X: salience and meaning

Exploring the ‘resonance’ between two spheres

Media effects

Audienceresearch

intensity

- Match +

46

Emerging norms of meaning

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Mediation models: formal communication

C, MS R

C, MS

R1R2R3

Rn

Audienceautonomy research

Shannon-WeaverHIFI engineeringmodel

‘different worlds’Differentiation ofcontents and receptionsMedia Systems

S1

S1

S1

M’

S2

M’’’

S2

M’’

S2

C

C

C

Two-step flows

Social Representations

noise

47

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Weak effect Strong effect

The historical pendulum of ‘belief’ in power of mass media

1930s, 1970s1950s, 1990s ?48

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Mass media effect hypotheses Ways of operationalising ideas of ‘resonance’

alternatives to ‘magic bullet’ ‘epidermic needle’ ‘hifi models’

Agenda setting (weak): (McCoombs, Rogers et al.) Agenda setting (strong): (Mazur et al. )

quantity of coverage of fluoridation, vaccination storiesFraming of issues ‘as X’ (Gamson et al.): images, definition, culprits, solutionsCultivation under high exposure (Gerbner et al.)

‘mean world’; coding of Red and Green biotechnologyConsistency-or-experts hypotheses (Rothman et al.)

source credibility requires expert agreement: see ‘global warming’Gap hypotheses for knowledge, motivation etc (Tichenor et al.)

new technology faster prevalent among the educated Spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann)

dissent shuts up: Anti-GM crop voices in the US; anti-war voices49

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Outcome Informal, face-to-face ‘experimental’ paradigms

Formal communication mass mediation effects

Normalisation small stakes Establishing a norm

Compromise as average (Sherif, Lewin) Pluralism among equals; No a-priori, no project; [Storning, forming, norming, performing]

liberal ideal of free speech; ‘power free discourse arrangements’ reaching a common understanding

Assimilation Settled towards majority avoiding, ending conflict Sustaining a norm

Normative pressure (Asch) Conformity Fear of exclusion; affiliation need ‘Private exil’ Obedience to authority (Milgram) Turning off hesitations Action without responsibility

Spiral of silence [Cultivation analysis] Consistency-of-experts gate keeper / two step flow Inf = f (message, source, aud)

Accommodation Settled towards minority creating conflict Changing a norm

Minority influence (Moscovici) Behaviour style Influence is informational Private precedes public change Sleeper effect of change: delayed

[Agenda setting] [Cultivation analysis] [Framing analysis]

50

?

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Extension III

Influence by Artefacts

51

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

A puzzle: the missing ‘thing’ of SocPsych !!

Solomon Asch’s in ‘Social Psychology’ (1952)

‘there remains to be mentioned one great consequence of social interaction – the creation of a realm of social facts’. Interaction produces a host of objects, roles and relations of great permanence …….’ [p178]‘Interactions between men generate a host of phenomena …., which form the fabric of social existence: material equipment, beliefs and ideas, language and the human character themselves are its massive products’ [p181]

But where are the ‘things’ in social psychology?

52


Object relations (mainly ex-post factum)

• Attitude ‘object’ ex-post-facto: the object already exists: e.g. cognitive dissonance after fait accompli, forced situations

• affective (like/dislike) reactions based on group specific norms or values

• Identity: possessions as self-expressive, fashion items, favourite things, souvenirs, status symbols, memorabilia (symbolic re-appropriation of existing things; our autonomy vis-à-vis things);

• Developmental: ‘thing constitution’ as assimilation and accommodation of the child’s mentality growing towards the adult object, overcoming ego-centrism and socialisation [e.g. Piaget]

Others ?


The Scandal of Artefacts: ‘the hidden actions of things’

1. Body building and mind training: ‘configuring the user’training for force or skill to handle it [e.g. a heavy machine, a fine tool]

2. Things have action in-scripted [inscriptions; user’s guide; how to do it]required action schemata, routines of usage with some degree of freedom

3. Avoids violence: framing interaction without body contact e.g. create distance between actors; with e.g. a counter or a fortification

4. Affordance; demand characteristics (visual cueing of actions, without previous experience)surfaces to step on, buttons to press, levers to push or pull (= designer rules)

5. Goal shifting [Wundt’s heteronomy of purposes = in-built purposes are never final]buying a car for work, then thinking about a car holiday, internet for nuclear warfare, then becoming a general communication network

6. Dependency: taken-for-granted, cannot life/work without it skill lost, no time to do it the old way; depending on supply chain for parts

7. Delegation of a legal norm; instead of a legal norm. a fence or speed bumps instead of police or friendly signs [no trespassing!]cigarette machines that require id card; mobile phone: if stolen, receive messages

8. Negotiation by fait-accomplifacts on the ground; leaving no choice; reduction of dissonance after the fact

9. Things as root metaphor for thinking about self, psyche, human identitye.g. Self = a programmed computer in need of debunking and reprogramming

10. The normative power of the factual: What is, ought to be (naturalistic fallacy).


Affordances and Moral Imperatives

Direct, unmediated perception inviting action tendencies (Gibson, 1986) : a ‘thing to grasp’, a ‘walkable surface’, a ‘picture to look at’, a ‘wall to stay out‘

• Lock-in: ‘emotional design’ (captology), in-scripted objects: a heavy Hotel key annoys and tells you: ‘leave me at home’

• Inter-locking: an particular action is required before another can take placeA bank till requires you to pull your card before the money is dispensed: ‘you shall not leave your credit card’Testing your breath before the car can ignite: ‘you shall not drink and drive’

• Lock-out: makes a particular action impossibleautomatic access check, e.g. via finger print or iris: no entry for outsidersBuild a wall that is difficult to climb: Do not trespass, enter

‘Boundary objects’: objects are seen as different things by different peoplee.g. ‘Nanotechnology’: many do it, but understand it differently.

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

Objects X

Everyday use of object X

Exploring the ‘fitting’ between two spheres

diffusion

User research

57

Afford uses

DesignInstallation

21/04/23 MBauer LSE21/04/23 58

100%

t

early late

Resistantlaggardsinnovators

The diffusion model: creates expectations !!

Adoption rate

density

t1 t2 t3

50%

slow accelerated decelerated Slow again

Adopters

58

Obedience, Conversion Conformity


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

bomb indexpower units index

Nuclear bombs and nuclear power stations worldwide


The differential uptake of GM soya in the world


Making beliefs

Designing things

Normalising symmetrical

Compromise (Sherif); Equilibration (Lewin)

Deliberation (Habermas)

Association by

translation (drifting) (AN-Theory) User-centred installations

assymmetical

Assimilating

compliance to majority

(Asch) obedience to experts

(Milgram)

Diffusion research

(fait accompli) System building

(Hughes) Accommodating

conversion of majority

by minority (Moscovici)

?

[Theory of resistance]

constraint bias

‘less norms the better’ enabling bias

‘progress ideology’


And the moral of the story is ……

1.Many modalities of social influence, not only two systems 2.Sub-rational and rational modalities: what is ‘rationality’?3.Three functions in relation to co-ordination of activity:

normalisation, assimilation, accommodation4. Two necessary extensions of models: mass mediation, artefacts

Social influence = manipulating the context of persuasion‘under the circumstances, I am persuaded’

When is a situation ‘persuasive’, or ‘violating’ presumed autonomy?

We all have intuitions that circumstances can be morally dubious‘under the influence of x’ disqualifies as reasoned persuasion

Dubious are: guns, drugs, alcohol, food, make up, nice words?


imitation, crowds, framing, peer pressure, authority, dissent, artefacts

Mass behaviour

Rhetoric

communityPrestigehierarchy

Social representationsNorms, attitudes, beliefs, opinion

Individual behaviour & collective action

Eristics, Sophistry

Public Sphere

Circumstances of Persuasion

21/04/23 MBauer LSE

persuasionDeliberation

social influence

Communication action: common understanding

Strategic communication: efficiency and success

Ideal Public sphere

Corrupt public sphere

The public sphere as circumstances of persuasion

65

Reason Violence


Additional references regarding ideas towards integration of modalities

Sammut G and MW Bauer (2011) Social influence: modes and modalities, in: DW Hook, B Franks & MW Bauer (eds) The Social Psychology of Communicaition, London, Palgrave

Bauer MW (2008) The ‘fait accompli’ and its social influence, DIOGENE, 217, 68-83.

Bauer MW (2006) The paradoxes of resistance in Brazil, in: Gaskell G & M Bauer (eds) Genomic & Society: legal, ethical and social dimension, London, Earthscan, p228-249 Bauer MW (2005) The mass media and the biotechnology controversy, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17 (1), 5-22

Bauer MW &G Gaskell (eds) (2002) Biotechnology – the making of a global controversy, Cambridge, CUP.

Bauer MW (2002) Arenas, platforms and the biotechnology movement, Science Communication, 24, 144-161.

Burger J (2009) Replicating Milgram: would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1-11 Keren G & Y Schul (2009) two is not always better than one: a critical evaluation of two systems theories, Perspectives on Psychologica Science, 4, 6, 533-51.

Kruglanski AW, HP Erb, A Pierro, L Mannetti, WY Chun (2006) On parametric continuities in the world of binary either ors, Psychological Enquiry, 17, 153-165.

Packer DJ (2008) Identifying systematic disobedience in Milgram’s Obedience Experiments, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 4, 301-4.

Paicheler G (1988) The psychology of social influence, Cambridge, CUP.

Petty RE & B Brinol (2008) Persuasion: from single to multiple to metacognitive processes, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 2, 137-47.

Russsel NJC (2011) Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments: origins and early evoluation, British J of Social Psychology, 50, 140-162.

Modalities of Social Influence

Documents

Transcript of Modalities of Social Influence