Social influence

Short description: Alteration of attitudes and behaviors based on outside influences

Template: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.[1]

1. Compliance is when people appear to agree with others but actually keep their dissenting opinions private.[2]
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 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.[1] 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.[4]

## Contents

* 1 Types
* 1.1 Kelman's varieties
* 1.2 Compliance
* 1.3 Identification
* 1.4 Internalization
* 1.5 Conformity
* 1.6 Minority influence
* 1.7 Self-fulfilling prophecy
* 1.8 Social contagion
* 1.9 Reactance
* 1.10 Obedience
* 1.11 Persuasion
* 1.12 Manipulation
* 1.13 Controlling behavior
* 1.14 Propaganda
* 1.15 Hard power
* 2 Mechanisms of influence
* 2.1 Cognitive
* 2.2 Social
* 2.3 Power-based
* 2.4 Emotional
* 2.5 Behavioral
* 2.6 Cognitive dissonance
* 3 Antecedents
* 3.1 Collective Identity
* 3.2 Social impact theory
* 3.3 Cialdini's "weapons of influence"
* 3.4 Unanimity
* 3.5 Status
* 3.6 Culture
* 3.7 Emotions
* 4 Social structure
* 4.1 Social networks
* 5 Global approach to the phenomenon of influence
* 5.1 Provisional introduction
* 6 Artificial intelligence and persuasion
* 7 See also
* 8 References
* 9 External links

## 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.[1] 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

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.[5] 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).[1]

### Identification

Main article: Philosophy: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.[1]

### Internalization

Main article: Social: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".[1]

### Conformity

Main article: 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).[5] 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).[4] 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.[5] 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.[4]

### Minority influence

Main article: Social: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.[6] The first publication covering these topics was written by social psychologist Serge Moscovici and published in 1976.[7] 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).[8] 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.[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.[9]

### Self-fulfilling prophecy

Main article: 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.[10]

### Social contagion

Main article: Social: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.[11]

### Reactance

Main article: Social: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.[12] While the results are the opposite of what the influencer intended, the reactive behavior is a result of social pressure.[13] 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.[14]

### Obedience

Main article: Philosophy:Obedience (human behavior)

Obedience is a form of social influence that derives from an authority figure, based on order or command.[15] 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 article: Philosophy: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.[16]

### Manipulation

Main article: Philosophy: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.[17] Methods someone may use to manipulate another person may include seduction, suggestion, coercion, and blackmail.[18][19][20] Manipulation is generally considered a dishonest form of social influence as it is used at the expense of others.[21] Humans are inherently capable of manipulative and deceptive behavior, with the main differences being that of specific personality characteristics or disorders.[22][23][24]

Manipulation differs from general influence and persuasion.[25][26] Manipulation, unlike persuasion, typically involves exploiting the vulnerabilities of an individual.[27]

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.[28][29]

### Controlling behavior

Controlling individuals use various tactics to abuse their victims.[30] 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.[31] Political entities may employ patterns of similar techniques in the exertion of abusive power and control over persons subject to them.[32]

### Propaganda

Main article: Social: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.[33]

### Hard power

Main article: Social: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.[34] Hard power contrasts with soft power, which comes from diplomacy, culture and history.[34]

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.[35]

## Mechanisms of influence

### Cognitive

Persuasion is a primary cognitive mechanism, where individuals change their attitudes or beliefs through communication. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)[36] distinguishes between two main routes of persuasion: central route and peripheral route.

Persuasion through the central route occurs when individuals actively engage with the content of a message, leading to deeper, more enduring attitude changes. This route is effective when the audience is able to carefully evaluate the arguments presented.[36]

The peripheral route involves superficial cues (e.g., attractiveness or credibility of the speaker) that lead to temporary changes in attitude. This route is often used when individuals lack motivation or ability to process the information.[36]

One of the key mechanisms of persuasion is social proof, where individuals look to others to guide their behavior, especially in uncertain or ambiguous situations. This is often employed in marketing and advertising, where consumer reviews are used to influence purchasing decisions.[37]

### Social

Social influence works by exploiting conformity, compliance and obedience.

Conformity is the process by which individuals change their behavior to align with group norms or the expectations of others. This mechanism is particularly strong when individuals are motivated by the desire to be accepted by the group or to avoid social rejection.[38][39]

Compliance occurs when individuals change their behavior in response to a direct request. Techniques such as foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face take advantage of commitment and consistency mechanisms, making individuals more likely to comply with larger requests after initial smaller ones.[40][2]

Obedience is a form of social influence where individuals follow instructions or orders from authority figures, often without questioning them.[41][42] While obedience is necessary in certain contexts, such as following instructions in a job or obeying laws, it can also lead to people follow orders without questioning them.[42]

### Power-based

Power is a central concept in influence theory, and individuals often exert influence based on their position in a social hierarchy. French and Raven identified five types of power: legitimate power, expert power, referent power, coercive power, and reward power.[43]

Legitimate power is derived from a formal position of authority, such as a manager or a government official. People comply with requests from those in authority because they recognize their right to make demands.[43]

Expert power stems from the perceived expertise or specialized knowledge of an individual. This form of power is common in technical fields where individuals defer to experts on specific matters.[43]

Referent power is based on admiration or identification with a person. Individuals tend to comply with requests from people they admire or wish to emulate.[43]

Coercive power is the ability to impose negative consequences for non-compliance, such as punishment or social exclusion. This form of power is often used in authoritarian systems or in abusive relationships.[43]

Reward power is the ability to offer rewards for compliance, such as bonuses, promotions, or social recognition. Reward power is commonly used in both organizational settings and personal relationship.[43]

### Emotional

Emotional mechanisms include fear and guilt.

Fear is often used in public health campaigns to motivate individuals to engage in behaviors that reduce risks (e.g., anti-smoking and vaccination campaigns). However, excessive fear can lead to avoidance rather than compliance, so it must be used carefully.[44]

Guilt is frequently used in charitable donations and pro-social campaigns. When individuals feel guilty for not taking action, they are often motivated to comply with requests, such as donating money to a cause or volunteering.[45]

### Behavioral

Behavioral mechanisms include positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and punishment.

Positive reinforcement occurs when desired behaviors are rewarded, thus increasing the likelihood of the behavior being repeated.[46]

Negative reinforcement involves removing an unpleasant stimulus when a desired behavior occurs. This also increases the likelihood of the behavior being repeated.[46]

Punishment is used to decrease the occurrence of undesirable behaviors by applying negative consequences, such as fines, reprimands, or social exclusion.[46]

### Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a critical psychological mechanism that motivates individuals to reduce the discomfort caused by inconsistent beliefs or behaviors.[47] When people experience cognitive dissonance, they are driven to align their attitudes with their actions to relieve the tension.[47] For example, individuals who smoke despite knowing the health risks may either change their behavior (quit smoking) or change their belief (downplay the risks) to reduce the dissonance.[47]

## Antecedents

Many factors can affect the impact of social influence.

### 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.[35]

### Social impact theory

Main article: Social: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:[48]

* 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:[16][49]

* 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.[50]
* 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.[51]

### Status

See also: Social: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.[52] 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.[53]

### 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.[54] 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.[14]

While gender does not significantly affect a person's likelihood to conform, under certain conditions gender roles do affect such a likelihood.[55] 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".[56]

### Emotions

Main article: Social:Appeal to emotion

Emotion and disposition may affect an individual's likelihood of conformity or anticonformity.[13] 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.[57]

## Social structure

### Social networks

Main article: Philosophy: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,[58] smoking,[59][60] drinking[61] and happiness.[62]

However, important flaws have been identified in the contagion model for social influence which is assumed and used in many of the above studies.[63][64][65] 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.[66][67]

The rise of social media has amplified social influence, with algorithms shaping content that reinforces existing beliefs,[68] and creating echo chambers.[69] In the field of marketing, digital influencers use reciprocity to influence their followers. A 2019 study demonstrates that the informative value of influencer-generated content, trustworthiness, and attractiveness positively influence followers' trust in branded posts, enhancing brand awareness and purchase intentions.[68][70] A 2023 study shows that viral marketing increases purchasing behavior on Instagram's adds platform.[71]

## 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.[72] The first pages of Influence & Systems explain why a global approach is necessary.

## Artificial intelligence and persuasion

Studies on large language models (LLMs) explored how AI-driven systems can produce persuasive messages based on individual preferences. AI systems can employ influence techniques to subtly persuade users in political campaigns, marketing, and even personal decision-making.[73]

Bai et al. demonstrate that messages generated by LLMs (OpenAI's GPT-3 and GPT-3.5 models) can effectively persuade individuals on various policy issues, including highly polarized topics such as assault weapon bans, carbon taxes, and paid parental leave programs. The research indicates that LLM-generated messages were as persuasive as those created by humans, highlighting the potential for AI to influence political attitudes.[74] Burtell and Woodside examine how AI systems can alter human relationships and views. The authors warn that highly persuasive AI systems could alter our information.[75]

A study published in Nature Human Behavior found that AI can be more persuasive than humans in online debates. The research shows that when AI has access to minimal demographic information about its debate partner, it can tailor its arguments to be more persuasive, raising concerns about the potential for AI to manipulate public opinion through personalized narratives.[76]

Sabour et al. investigate how AI systems exploit users' cognitive biases and emotional vulnerabilities to steer them toward specific outcomes. The research found that participants interacting with manipulative AI agents were more likely to make harmful decisions compared to those interacting with neutral agents.[77]

Persuasion techniques can vary across cultures. In collectivistic cultures, emotions are more effective, whereas in individualistic cultures, facts and logic tend to yield better results. Understanding cultural differences is essential when applying influence strategies in diverse global contexts.[78]

## See also

* 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

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Kelman, H. (1958). "Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change". Journal of Conflict Resolution 2 (1): 51–60. doi:10.1177/002200275800200106. Bibcode: 1958JConR...2...51K. http://scholar.harvard.edu/hckelman/files/Compliance_identification_and_internalization.pdf. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Cialdini, Robert B.; Goldstein, Noah J. (2004-02-01). "Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity". Annual Review of Psychology 55 (1): 591–621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015. ISSN 0066-4308. PMID 14744228.
3. ↑ Deutsch, M.; Gerard, H. B. (1955). "A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51 (3): 629–636. doi:10.1037/h0046408. PMID 13286010. http://web.comhem.se/u52239948/08/deutsch55.pdf. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 McDonald, Rachel I; Crandall, Christian S (June 21, 2025). "Social norms and social influence" (in en). Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 3: 147–151. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.04.006. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352154615000558.
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Aronson, Elliot, Timothy D. Wilson, and Robin M. Akert. Social Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010. Print.
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Moscovici, Serge; Mugny, Gabriel (1983), "Minority Influence", in Paulus, Paul B. (in en), Basic Group Processes, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 41–64, doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5578-9_3, ISBN 978-1-4612-5578-9, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5578-9_3, retrieved 2025-12-09
7. ↑ Mucchi-Faina, Angelica; Pacilli, Maria Giuseppina; Pagliaro, Stefano (2010). "Minority Influence, Social Change, and Social Stability". Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4 (11): 1111–1123. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00314.x.
8. ↑ Moscovici, S. and Nemeth (1974) Minority influence. In C. Nemetn (ed.), Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations (pp. 217–249), Chicago:Rand McNally
9. ↑ 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. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.323. PMID 8016284.
10. ↑ Merton, Robert K. (1948), "The Self Fulfilling Prophecy", Antioch Review 8 (2 (Summer)): 193–210, doi:10.2307/4609267
11. ↑ Stephen G. Harkins, ed (2017). "7 , 23". The Oxford Handbook of Social Influence. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-985987-0.
12. ↑ Baumeister, Roy F. (2007-08-29) (in en). Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. SAGE. ISBN 978-1-4129-1670-7. https://books.google.com/books?id=Mqk5DQAAQBAJ&q=social+influence++encyclopedia&pg=PP1.
13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Frager, R (1970). "Conformity and anti-conformity in Japan". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 15 (3): 203–210. doi:10.1037/h0029434.
15. ↑ Gibson, Stephen (2019). "Obedience without orders: Expanding social psychology's conception of 'obedience'". British Journal of Social Psychology 58 (1): 241–259. doi:10.1111/bjso.12272. PMID 30156301.
16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Cialdini, Robert B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 0-321-01147-3
17. ↑ Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Manipulation. In Cambridge English Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/manipulation
18. ↑ Hamilton, J. Devance; Decker, Norman; Rumbaut, Ruben D. (1986). "The Manipulative Patient". American Journal of Psychotherapy 40 (2): 189–200. doi:10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1986.40.2.189. PMID 3728747. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1986.40.2.189. "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.".
19. ↑ "Manipulation". APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. n.d.. https://dictionary.apa.org/manipulation. Retrieved 10 October 2021.
20. ↑ Lynam, Donald R.; Vachon, David D. (2012). "Antisocial personality disorder in DSM-5: Missteps and missed opportunities." (in en). Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 3 (4): 483–495. doi:10.1037/per0000006. ISSN 1949-2723. PMID 23106185. http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/per0000006.
21. ↑ Ienca, Marcello (2023). "On Artificial Intelligence and Manipulation". Topoi 42 (3): 833–842. doi:10.1007/s11245-023-09940-3. ""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."".
22. ↑
* "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." 
--"Why We Lie: The Science Behind Our Deceptive Ways". 18 May 2017. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/lying-hoax-false-fibs-science.
* 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.
23. ↑ Buss, David M.; Duntley, Joshua D. (2008), "Adaptations for exploitation", Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 12: 53–62, doi:10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.53, https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.53, "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."
24. ↑ Coons, Christian; Weber, Michael (July 2014), Manipulation: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-933822-1, https://books.google.com/books?id=pl2yAwAAQBAJ&dq=manipulation behavior&pg=PA17, "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."
25. ↑ Rudinow, Joel (1978). "Manipulation". Ethics 88 (4): 338–347. doi:10.1086/292086. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/292086?journalCode=et.
26. ↑ Schminke, Marshall (August 1998). Managerial Ethics: Moral Management of People and Processes. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1-135-68713-7. https://books.google.com/books?id=1i55AgAAQBAJ&dq=interpersonal-manipulation-nature-moral-limits-mark-seabright-dennis-moberg&pg=PT249.
27. ↑ Van Dijk, Teun A. (2006). "Discourse and manipulation". Discourse & Society 17 (3): 359–383. doi:10.1177/0957926506060250. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0957926506060250.
28. ↑ Kligman, M.; Culver, C. M. (1992). "An Analysis of Interpersonal Manipulation". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (2): 173–197. doi:10.1093/jmp/17.2.173. PMID 1588243. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/17.2.173.
29. ↑ Susser, Daniel; Roessler, Beate; Nissenbaum, Helen (2019). "Technology, autonomy, and manipulation". Internet Policy Review 8 (2). doi:10.14763/2019.2.1410. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1410. "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.".
30. ↑ Postmus, Judy L.; Stylianou, Amanda Mathisen; McMahon, Sarah (2015-04-21). "The Abusive Behavior Inventory–Revised". Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31 (17): 2867–2888. doi:10.1177/0886260515581882. ISSN 0886-2605. PMID 25900914.
31. ↑ Jill Cory; Karen McAndless-Davis. When Love Hurts: A Woman's Guide to Understanding Abuse in Relationships . WomanKind Press; 1 January 2000. ISBN 978-0-9686016-0-0. p. 30.
32. ↑ "Venezuela: Concentration and Abuse of Power Under Chávez | Human Rights Watch" (in en). 2012-07-17. https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/17/venezuela-concentration-and-abuse-power-under-chavez.
33. ↑ Smith, Bruce L. (17 February 2016). "Propaganda". Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. http://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda.
34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 Daryl Copeland (Feb 2, 2010). "Hard Power Vs. Soft Power". The Mark. http://www.themarknews.com/articles/895-hard-power-vs-soft-power.
35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 Spears, Russell (2021-01-04). "Social Influence and Group Identity" (in en). Annual Review of Psychology 72: 367–390. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-070620-111818. ISSN 0066-4308. PMID 32931718. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-070620-111818.
36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 Petty, Richard E.; Cacioppo, John T. (6 December 2012) (in en). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4612-4964-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=nFFDBAAAQBAJ&dq=Communication+and+Persuasion:+Central+and+Peripheral+Routes+to+Attitude+Change.+Springer-Verlag.&pg=PA1976.
37. ↑ Sommerfeldt, Erich J; Saffer, Adam J; Luoma-aho, Vilma (2022-04-01). "Civil Society Networks and Malaysian Government Reform: Considering Issue Homophily in Interorganizational Relationships". Journal of Communication 72 (2): 264–296. doi:10.1093/joc/jqac001. ISSN 0021-9916. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac001.
38. ↑ "Conformity - Asch (1951)" (in en). https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/conformity-asch-1951.
39. ↑ "Conformity | Psychology Today" (in en-US). https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/conformity.
40. ↑ Freedman, Jonathan L.; Fraser, Scott C. (1966). "Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique." (in en). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4 (2): 195–202. doi:10.1037/h0023552. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 5969145. Bibcode: 1966JPSP....4..195F. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0023552.
41. ↑ Milgram, Stanley (1963). "Behavioral Study of obedience." (in en). The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67 (4): 371–378. doi:10.1037/h0040525. ISSN 0096-851X. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/h0040525.
42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 "The Psychology of Obedience: Insights from Classic Experiments • Psychology Town" (in en-US). 2024-07-31. https://psychology.town/advanced-social/psychology-of-obedience-classic-experiments/.
43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 French, John R. P. Jr.; Raven, Bertram. "The bases of social power" (in en). The Bases of Social Power. pp. 151–157. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215915730.
44. ↑ Witte, Kim; Allen, Mike (October 2000). "A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health Campaigns" (in en). Health Education & Behavior 27 (5): 591–615. doi:10.1177/109019810002700506. ISSN 1090-1981. PMID 11009129. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/109019810002700506.
45. ↑ Gardikiotis, Antonis; Papastamou, Stamos; Prodromitis, Gerasimos; Crano, William (10 October 2023). "Editorial: New advances in social influence: theoretical insights and methodological challenges" (in English). Frontiers in Psychology 14. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1295390. ISSN 1664-1078. PMID 37885749.
46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 46.2 Skinner, B. F. (March 1965) (in en). Science And Human Behavior. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-02-929040-8. https://books.google.com/books?id=Pjjknd1HREIC&dq=Skinner,+B.+F.+(1953).+Science+and+Human+Behavior.+Free+Press.&pg=PA1.
47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 47.2 Festinger, Leon (1962) (in en). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-0911-8. https://books.google.com/books?id=voeQ-8CASacC.
48. ↑ Latané, B (1981). "The psychology of social impact". American Psychologist 36 (4): 343–356. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.36.4.343.
49. ↑ "What are the 6 principles of influence?". https://conceptually.org/concepts/6-principles-of-influence/.
50. ↑ Sussman, R.; Gifford, R. (2013). "Be the Change You Want to See: Modeling Food Composting in Public Places". Environment and Behavior 45 (3): 323–343. doi:10.1177/0013916511431274. Bibcode: 2013EnvBe..45..323S.
51. ↑ Milgram, Stanley (1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67 (4): 371–378. doi:10.1037/h0040525. PMID 14049516. http://content.apa.org/journals/abn/67/4/371. Full-text PDF.
52. ↑ Ivory Tower Unswayed by Crashing Economy . New York Times.
53. ↑ C. Mugny; L Souchet; C Codaccioni; A Quiamzade (2008). Social Representation and Social Influence. 53 (2), pp. 223–237.
54. ↑ Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books.
55. ↑ Tveleneva, Arina; Scholz, Christin; Yoon, Carolyn; Lieberman, Matthew D.; Cooper, Nicole; O'Donnell, Matthew Brook; Falk, Emily B.; Cascio, Christopher N. (2023-10-01). "The relationship between agency, communion, and neural processes associated with conforming to social influence". Personality and Individual Differences 213. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2023.112299. ISSN 0191-8869.
56. ↑ Sistrunk, Frank; McDavid, John W.; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 17(2), Feb, 1971. pp. 200–207.
57. ↑ EurekAlert. (2009). Fear or romance could make you change your mind, U of Minnesota study finds .
58. ↑ 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. doi:10.1056/nejmsa066082. PMID 17652652.
59. ↑ 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. doi:10.1056/nejmsa0706154. PMID 18499567.
60. ↑ Kolata, Gina (22 May 2008). "Gina Kolata, "Study Finds Big Social Factor in Quitting Smoking," The New York Times, May 22, 2008.". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/science/22smoke.html?scp=2&sq=nicholas christakis&st=cse.
61. ↑ 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. PMID 20368648.
62. ↑ 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. doi:10.1136/bmj.a2338. PMID 19056788.
63. ↑ Lerman, Kristina (13 May 2016). "Information Is Not a Virus, and Other Consequences of Human Cognitive Limits". Future Internet 8 (4): 21. doi:10.3390/fi8020021. Bibcode: 2016arXiv160502660L.
64. ↑ Lyons, Russell (2011). "The spread of evidence-poor medicine via flawed social-network analysis". Statistics, Politics, and Policy 2 (1). doi:10.2202/2151-7509.1024.
65. ↑ Tufekci, Zeynep (2014). "Big Questions for Social Media Big Data: Representativeness, Validity and Other Methodological Pitfalls". Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. 8. pp. 505–514. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14517. Bibcode: 2014arXiv1403.7400T. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM14/paper/viewFile/8062/8151. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
66. ↑ Liotsiou, Dimitra; Halford, Susan; Moreau, Luc (2016). "Social Influence: From Contagion to a Richer Causal Understanding". Social Informatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 10047. pp. 116–132. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47874-6_9. ISBN 978-3-319-47873-9. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/401369/1/DLiotsiouSocialInfluenceCausalityCR.pdf. Retrieved 2019-11-07.
67. ↑ Shalizi, Cosma Rohilla; Thomas, Andrew C (2011). "Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies". Sociological Methods & Research 40 (2): 211–239. doi:10.1177/0049124111404820. PMID 22523436.
68. ↑ 68.0 68.1 "How Does Social Media Fuel Confirmation Bias? → Question" (in en-US). https://lifestyle.sustainability-directory.com/question/how-does-social-media-fuel-confirmation-bias/.
69. ↑ Dutta, Surjadeep; R, Arivazhagan; E, Pradeep (2025-03-11). "Breaking the bubble: A case study on the echo chamber effect in Instagram" (in EN). Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases. doi:10.1177/20438869251326279. ISSN 2043-8869. https://doi.org/10.1177/20438869251326279.
70. ↑ Lou, Chen; Yuan, Shupei (2019-01-02). "Influencer Marketing: How Message Value and Credibility Affect Consumer Trust of Branded Content on Social Media" (in en). Journal of Interactive Advertising 19 (1): 58–73. doi:10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501. ISSN 1525-2019. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501.
71. ↑ Razali, Geofakta; Nikmah, Masfiatun; Sutaguna, I. Nyoman Tri; Putri, PA Andiena Nindya; Yusuf, Muhammad (2023-04-16). "The Influence Of Viral Marketing And Social Media Marketing On Instagram Adds Purchase Decisions" (in en). CEMERLANG : Jurnal Manajemen Dan Ekonomi Bisnis 3 (2): 75–86. doi:10.55606/cemerlang.v3i2.1096. ISSN 2962-4797. https://prin.or.id/index.php/cemerlang/article/view/1096.
72. ↑ Frezal, B et J-C; Leininger-Frezal, C; Mathia, TG; Mory, B, Influence & Systems: Provisional Introduction to the Theory of Influence and Manipulation (1st English ed.), http://www.theory-influence.com/books/Document_UK_WEB.pdf, retrieved 2019-06-16
73. ↑ Salvi, Francesco; Ribeiro, Manoel Horta; Gallotti, Riccardo; West, Robert (2024-06-05), On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trial, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4429707/v1, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-4429707/v1, retrieved 2026-01-20
74. ↑ Bai, Hui; Voelkel, Jan G.; Muldowney, Shane; Eichstaedt, Johannes C.; Willer, Robb (2025-07-01). "LLM-generated messages can persuade humans on policy issues" (in en). Nature Communications 16 (1): 6037. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-61345-5. ISSN 2041-1723. PMID 40593786. Bibcode: 2025NatCo..16.6037B. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61345-5.
75. ↑ Burtell, Matthew; Woodside, Thomas (15 March 2023). "Artificial Influence: An Analysis Of AI-Driven Persuasion". arXiv:2303.08721 [cs.CY].
76. ↑ Ho, Vivian (19 May 2025). "AI is more persuasive than a human in a debate, study finds" (in en-US). The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/05/19/artificial-intelligence-llm-chatbot-persuasive-debate/.
77. ↑ Sabour, Sahand; Liu, June M.; Liu, Siyang; Yao, Chris Z.; Cui, Shiyao; Zhang, Xuanming; Zhang, Wen; Cao, Yaru et al. (24 February 2025), Human Decision-making is Susceptible to AI-driven Manipulation
78. ↑ Sommerfeldt, Erich J; Saffer, Adam J; Luoma-aho, Vilma (1 April 2022). "Civil Society Networks and Malaysian Government Reform: Considering Issue Homophily in Interorganizational Relationships" (in en). Journal of Communication 72 (2): 264–296. doi:10.1093/joc/jqac001. ISSN 0021-9916. https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/72/2/264/6517192.

## External links

* v
* t
* e

Conformity

Group pressures|

* Authoritarian personality
* Bandwagon effect
* Collectivism
* Coercive persuasion
* Consensus reality
* Deplatforming
* Contagion
* Behavioral
* Crime
* Hysterical
* Suicide
* FOMO
* Groupthink
* Hazing
* Herd mentality
* Indoctrination
* Invented tradition
* Memory conformity
* Milieu control
* Mobbing
* Nationalism
* Normalization
* Normative social influence
* Ostracism
* Patriotism
* Peer pressure
* Pluralistic ignorance
* Propaganda
* Rally 'round the flag effect
* Right-wing authoritarianism
* Scapegoating
* Shunning
* Social influence
* Socialization
* Spiral of silence
* Teasing
* Tyranny of the majority
* Xeer

Conforming oneself|

* Compliance
* Countersignaling
* Herd behavior
* Internalization
* Social proof
* Obedience

Experiments|

* Asch conformity experiments
* Breaching experiment
* Milgram experiment
* Stanford prison experiment

Counterconformity|

* Alternative media and journalism
* Anti-authoritarianism
* Antisocial tendencies
* Auto-segregation
* Civil disobedience
* Cosmopolitanism
* Counterculture
* Culture jamming
* Deviance
* Devil's advocate
* Eclecticism
* Eccentricity
* Hermit
* Idiosyncrasy
* Individualism
* Rebellion
* Red team
* Ritual clown
* Satire
* Shock value

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social influence. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Social:Social_influence&oldid=4574927"
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template