Social Influence

Social Influence

 

Translated with free online software, without any warranty.

Social influence or social pressure is the influence exerted by an individual or group on each of its members, the result of which is to impose dominant standards of attitude and behavior. Emile Durkheim was the first sociologist to emphasize the “strength” of the social on the individual.

This influence changes the behavior, attitudes, beliefs, opinions or feelings of an individual or group as a result of contact with another individual or group. To note such an influence effect, any relation must exist between these entities1. There are several types of social influences, known as typologies of influence, such as conformism, innovation and submission to authority. There are also other phenomena that can be explained in terms of social influence such as the resistance that opposes the previous phenomena.

Social influence covers a very wide field. The phenomena studied can be observed on a daily basis.

Summary

1 Social norms
2 History
3 Typologies of influence
3.1 Deutsch and Gerard
3.2 Kelman
4 Phenomena observed in social influence
4.1 Conformity
4.2 Innovation
4.3 Obedience and submission to authority
5 Other forms of influence
5.1 Facilitation and social inhibitory
5.2 Handling and commitment
5.3 Group polarization
5.4 The creative prediction
5.5 Behavioral confirmation
6 Annexes
6.1 Notes and references
6.2 Bibliography
6.2.1 Works
6.2.2 Articles
6.3 Related Articles
6.4 External links

Social norms
Main article: Social norm.

A social norm is defined as an implicit or explicit rule that prescribes the appropriate behavior to be adopted in society in specific situations. These standards are therefore an important source of influence in that they prescribe to people how they should behave in order not to be categorized as “out of the ordinary”. The fear of being categorized as such engenders a powerful form of influence found, for example, in conformism.

Social norms are influenced by culture and can therefore vary drastically from one country to another as well as touching very diverse subjects such as nudity or greeting. For example, in Europe, nudity is strongly associated with the notion of modesty, but being naked is quite normal for a member of a tribe in Papua, who would risk being frowned upon if he came to wear clothes2.

Standards also regulate many different areas of daily life such as meals, hobbies, personal space, time, interactions, etc. They vary not only culturally but can also be different according to social status or gender.

The social role includes a set of expected norms on how to behave2.

These behaviors are sufficiently anchored in the mentalities that they have become almost unconscious. In large, less usual situations, automatism disappears and attention is shifted to the behaviors of others in order to model them and act according to the expected norm2.
Historical
This section is empty, insufficiently detailed or incomplete. Your help is welcome ! How to do ?

In Greek mythology, it is under the pressure of the population incited by a certain Phoinodamas that the king of Troy Laomédon must sacrifice his own daughter Hésione3,4.
Typologies of influence

Deutsch and Gerard

It was after the experiences of Muzafer Sherif and Solomon Asch that in 1955, Morton Deutsch and Harold Benjamin Gerard began their work. Knowing that individual psychological processes are subject to social influence, according to them, in these experiences, subjects did not act as members of a group. The aim of their work was therefore to highlight that there are two types of social influences and that these are operational in these experiences5.

On the one hand, they identified the informational influence, defined as “the influence of accepting information obtained from someone else as evidence of reality” 5. Indeed, the individual, anxious to provide a correct answer6, seeks to gather the relevant information that will enable him to solve the task he is confronted with7; to achieve this, the individual relies on the opinion of others8.

On the other hand they identified the normative influence, defined as “the influence of conforming to the positive expectations of someone else (individual or group)” 5. In fact, the individual who wishes to remain a member of a group must adhere to the norms of the group7, the majority being more favorable to compliance behavior than to deviant behavior. In addition, the group may decide to punish a member who does not adhere to the standards. He would then feel the pressure to comply with these standards in order to avoid punishment9. Several studies have highlighted that those who deviate from the norms were rejected from the group10,11. This reflects the importance that the individual attaches to his social image2.

To verify the hypotheses they had put, they took up the experimental situation that Asch had developed by making some modifications. The main results of their experiment emphasized that when a group situation was created, even if it was trivial and artificial, the normative social influence increases, producing more errors in the judgment of the individuals5. They also noted a lesser effect of this type of influence when individuals gave their answers anonymously. In fact, unlike a group situation, anonymity protects them from the immediate pressure to conform (by observing, for example, certain expressions of stupefaction that are visible to other members of the group) 5. Another result highlights that the more uncertain the subject is in relation to the correctness of his judgment, the more he will be sensitive to social influence in the construction of the latter5.

To illustrate these two types of influence, Luc Lamarche shared one of his personal experiences6: when he attended a scientific congress in Paris, he was surprised that at the end of his lecture, those present had started to tables. When he realized that it was the same for the one who followed him, he understood that this behavior indicated an appreciation (informational influence). Moreover, not wanting to be the only one to applaud at the end of the next lecture, he tapped on the table. He therefore conformed to the behavior of others (normative influence).
Kelman

In 1958, Herbert Kelman identified three distinct processes of influence12.

Compliance: an individual changes his behavior in order to obtain a reward and to avoid punishment from an individual or a group. However, his beliefs remain unchanged12. For example, agree to smoke because his friend does, to avoid being rejected by the latter while continuing to believe that it is not good for health. As a result, the individual has submitted to the wishes of his friend without changing his beliefs.
Identification: an individual changes his behavior because he identifies with the individual or group that constitutes the source of influence12. It should be noted that identification is the strongest influence process. Indeed, the individual modifies his beliefs according to his reference model (an individual or a group). This means that when he changes his model, he also changes his beliefs8. For example, the individual dresses in the same way as other members of the group to which he or she identifies.
Internalization: an individual changes his behavior because it is congruent with his system of values12. For example, adhere to the ideas of a person or group by operating at home an internal change.

Phenomena observed in social influence

Conformism
Main articles: Conformity and experience of Asch.

The influence of the majority on the individual is called conformism. It is defined more precisely as “a change of behavior or belief resulting from the actual or imagined pressure of a majority towards an individual or a minority of individuals” 13. Jacques-Philippe Leyens7 points out that the influential majority can be quantitative or qualitative. The influential majority is quantitative when it is the large number of its members that gives it weight; it is qualitative when it is the level of competence, prestige or authority that legitimately rests in this majority.
Schematic representation of the Solomon Asch experiment where segments are compared by subjects
Schematic representation of Solomon Asch’s experience.

It was in 1951 that Solomon Asch began his research on conformism13.

His best-known experience involves a group of up to ten people, where the subject of experience is alone and the rest of the group is an accomplice of the research team. The task proposed to the group is to compare one control segment with three others, of which only one is the same length as the control segment, 14 the experiment carried out on control individuals made it possible to determine that the task was unambiguous since the responses were consistently good.

In each group, each person must say aloud which segments he thinks to be identical, the subject of the test being placed in penultimate. Each test contains a series of 18 questions on the length of the segments, the accomplices of the experimenter answering falsely 12 times. 123 subjects were tested, who answered as false as the rest of the group in 36.8% of the cases14.

The origin of the phenomenon of conformism could be found in the fact that the unanimity of a group of individuals pleads in favor of the correctness of the opinion expressed7. Moreover, individuals are generally afraid of social disapproval: they are afraid of the consequences of their disobedience, in particular of being rejected15.

One can also explain the conformism with regard to the typologies developed, on the one hand, by Kelman and, on the other hand, by Deutsch and Gerard. The influence process involved in this experiment is submission, which corresponds to the compliance defined by Kelman. Indeed, it is not because the individual conforms to the majority that he accepts the answer of the latter as just. Conformism can also be explained by two types of influence following Deutsch’s and Gerard’s theory: an informational influence (the group is right against the individual) and a normative influence (it is more costly to suffer the group’s disapproval than to comply) 16.

Multiple parameters can influence the conformism of a subject, including the size of the group, the unanimity of the group, the difficulty of the task, the ambiguity of the stimulus, the attraction for the group, the self-confidence of the subject, the need for affiliation, culture, etc..17.
innovation
Main article: innovation.

Innovation is defined as the influence of an individual or a minority of people on a majority. Contrary to conformism, it is the minority that succeeds in imposing its point of view. This creates new behaviors or modifies those already in place. In order to be heard, the minority must ignore the “deviance” that is lent to them for their refusal to conform to the norms and to follow the majority18. Twelve Angry Men by Sidney Lumet is a good example of this phenomenon. Indeed, there are 12 jurors to decide the fate of an accused. Faced with a sure majority of the guilt of the defendant, a man in doubt. He puts forward his arguments firmly and ends up changing the other jurors one by one.

Several elements favor the emergence of an innovation2:

Consistency: it is meant to be both “internal” (or intra-individual: the person seems convinced of what it says) than “social” (or inter-individual: the minority group adopts a firm and valid position). A united, consistent and consistent minority is much more effective in dealing with the majority.
Confidence: having confidence in oneself or, in any case, giving one the impression is much more convincing. A confident minority is more effective in the face of the majority.
People who leave the position of the majority to rally to that of the minority are even more influential than those who initiated the movement of innovation. Moreover, once an individual joins the opinion of the minority, the others follow relatively quickly. We can talk about a kind of “snowball effect”.
What helps innovation is that the minority opinion becomes the focus of the discussion, allowing more arguments to be exposed. The minority can then have more than one occasion to expose his point of view, which increases his chances of convincing. Even if the minority does not gather new supporters, it allows to break the majority opinion and to let the members of the group express an opinion that they might not have dared advance before

One of the best-known experiments on the phenomenon of innovation is that of Serge Moscovici, Elisabeth Lage and Martine Naffrechoux in 1969. The experiment consists in judging the color and luminous intensity of six blue slides. The experimental groups are composed of four naive subjects and two accomplices of the experimenters. Each gives his answer in turn and out loud. The accomplices answer either in position 1 and 2 or in position 1 and 4 and systematically give the wrong answer: green instead of blue. Participants agree with the poor response given by the accomplices in 8.25% of the cases against 0.25% in the control groups. The control groups are composed of six “naïve” subjects who give their answers in writing19.

The effect of constancy could be demonstrated as well. In fact, minorities who have repeatedly repeated their “green” choice instead of “blue” have more often than not accepted the majority of their opinion. On the other hand, those who ensured that the blue slides were green only for two thirds of these did not convince.
Obedience and submission to authority
Main article: Milgram’s experience.

Obedience is defined in psychology as the realization of a conduct prescribed by a source of authority (fulfillment of an obligation). The term “source of influence” is sometimes used. Obedience implies a differentiation of positions or social roles between individuals (a boss and his employee, a mother and child) and thus brings to the fore the notion of “agent” of a system (work, family, etc.).

Research in psychology makes distinction between obedience and submission to authority, especially in the interest that it bears rather on the second notion. Indeed, it is the extreme cases of obedience that have been most studied, mainly through Milgram’s experience of submission to authority21. The experience of the 1960s at Yale University was to test how well the participants submit to authority. The goal was to measure their degree of obedience to a source of authority in this case the experimenter in white coats. The experimenter asked the participant to inflict on a fellow subject, who was in another room, more and more electric shocks (punishment) whenever the latter was mistaken in the task of recall of words imposed on him. .

The results of Stanley Milgram’s work have led to many interpretations of this phenomenon. He and other researchers have tried to verify or confront these leads by replicating the study according to different modus operandi and different populations.

The main conclusion of this research is that the subject subject to explicit pressure from a source of influence is placed in a “state of being”: when an individual receives instructions or orders from another an individual with a certain authority or prestige, he becomes the instrument of a will whose ins and outs go beyond it.

The authors distinguish obedience from conformism by pointing out that obedience and, by extension, submission to authority requires pressure from a third party but also a difference in status between the two individuals in the situation22.
Other forms of influence
Facilitation and social inhibitory

In 1898, Norman Triplett, a social psychologist, found that a rider had a better performance when he was in the presence of another rider than when he ran alone against the clock. To verify this effect, he set up an experiment in which children were asked to wrap the wire as quickly as possible on a fishing rod reel. Half of the children did this task alone while the other half did it with another child. The results showed that children had better performance when they were in the presence of a classmate23.

Social facilitation is defined as “the positive effect of the presence of others on performance”. However, it should be noted that the presence of others may also have an inhibitory effect and thus reduce the performance of the individual24.

Robert Zajonc has undertaken several studies on this subject. He pointed out that when the tasks were easy (that is, when the most likely answer was the correct one), there was a social facilitation effect and therefore a better performance. On the other hand, when the tasks were complex (that is, when the correct answer was not the one that prevailed), the presence of others favored inaccurate answers25.

Handling and commitment

Manipulation is an implicit form of influence in which the victim is left with the impression of being free to make choices. It is based primarily on the principle of commitment. The person engages in a behavior that will be difficult to leave. Sometimes, it is an outsider who initiates the first behaviors and implicitly forces the individual to engage in a dynamic from which it will be difficult to escape26.

Jean-Léon Beauvois and Robert-Vincent Joule in their book Petit Traité de manipulation for the use of honest people, define commitment as “the link that exists between the individual and his actions”. They release two axioms:

“Only the acts engage the individuals. ”
“The commitment of an individual has a variable and controllable intensity,” that is to say, it can be strengthened or weakened.

Different factors may influence engagement, such as whether the act is public, repetitive, expensive or irrevocable. It is also important to note that these must be acts that do not go against the habitual attitudes of the individual27.

There are different types of commitment, here are the main ones:

The technique of the foot in the door: it is about asking one or more trivial things to a person to then share with us our real request. For example, ask the time before asking to lend 1 €.
The technique of the door to the nose: it is to make a huge demand and then get something reasonable. For example, ask someone to lend 100 € and then lower the request to 10 €.
Seeding: the individual launches into a behavior that is initially hiding the real cost. He is dangled with something he will not have. For example, the person sees a couch that does not really like him, but with which he is promised a free halogen. Arrived at the box it is explained to him that the promotion is no longer relevant and that it must therefore pay more than expected. In most cases, the person will agree to pay more because otherwise it would mean that she would have bought this sofa for the promotion and not because he liked it.
Foot in the mouth: it is simply a question of asking someone if they are well. A positive response predisposes favorably to the acceptance of a request.
Labeling: Assigning a label to a person often makes them behave accordingly. For example, telling someone he is generous will increase the chances of him lending money.
Touch: Touching a person briefly can increase the chances of accepting a request. For example, brush your forearm or put your hand on your shoulder for a brief moment.
The lure: It is about dangling something to the individual, to announce that unfortunately it is not available and then offer him something less good. For example offer a superb mobile phone trendy and on sale that is just not in stock. However there is another one a little less well, unresolved but available immediately.
The technique of “but you are free”: to state these words at the end of the sentence gives the person the illusion that he is the mistress of his actions and increases the chances that he accepts a request26,27.

Group polarization

Community decision-making can also be socially influenced; it is rare that all members of a group have the same point of view. To reach a decision or consensus, the members of the group engage in interactions that reveal the phenomenon of group polarization: the decisions that individuals take alone in relation to a situation are less extreme and risky than those that they take after discussing it in groups.

In 1961 James Stoner, an American social psychologist, was the first to have studied social influence empirically in group decision-making. It was then for him to measure differences in risk-taking interindividual. desired]

Serge Moscovici and Marisa Zavalloni in 1969 are the first French authors to generalize this important concept in social psychology and collective psychology22. Work on group polarization generally involves the following phases28:

Individual decisions (preconsensus): the individual alone in a given situation makes his opinion.
Collective discussions and decisions in small groups (consensus): all subjects working on the initial situation engage in interactions in order to make a unanimous decision.

New individual decisions (postconsensus): each group member finally notes his decision.

It can be seen from these works that when individuals argue in groups to arrive at a decision they take a more extreme position than they take individually.

Moscovici and Zavalonni and Willem Doise (1969) argue that the effect of the group is to polarize attitudes28.

In 1969, Moscovici and Zavalloni asked students from a Parisian high school to discuss in groups of four their opinions concerning General de Gaulle for a first group and Americans for a second group. Beforehand, these students expressed their opinion individually.

At the end of the experiment, Moscovici and Zavalloni observe that in group 1 the individual positions of the students are more extreme and favorable to Charles de Gaulle, in group 2 the individual opinions are more extreme and unfavorable to the Americans than before group discussions. They deduced that the polarization effect of the group could have a different direction depending on the topic of discussion.

The two main conclusions of the various experiments conducted on group polarization are that:

the group is not the average of the individuals who compose it,
the effect of group discussion is always the same: to make the initial individual position more extreme.

In the United States, David G. Myers (in) and Martin F. Kaplan study group polarization in 1976 in the context of jury trials. They asked students on fake juries to judge the guilt or innocence of an individual accused of criminal offenses. The researchers manipulated the evidence that is used in the trial to initially create two groups such as one in favor of conviction, the other in favor of acquittal.

The results show that in the condemned group the discussions increase the likelihood of the accused being convicted. The opposite is found in the pro-acknowledgment group.

Kalven and Zeisel (1966) 29 confirm the effect of polarization in real jury decisions. They found that in 209 cases out of 215, the final decision confirmed the initial majority position.

By extrapolating these findings in the context of intercultural psychology the group can be perceived as a revelator of culture. Of all the processes that exist in a group, the phenomenon of polarization makes it possible to understand the way of thinking and thinking of members of a group and what differentiates them from another group, whether social or cultural by example. Indeed, Doise and Moscovici (1984) point out that polarization takes place “towards the norm, the zeitgeist (spirit of time) of the culture or society in which the members of the group live” 28.

Several explanations have been put forward to understand the phenomenon of polarization29.

Group reflection would lead to a superficial examination of the facts: individuals rely on what others think. The consensus allows the individual to make the least effort to reach a decision because if the majority thinks something then it is that this thing is true. Consensus reflects the reality, so it becomes heuristic, that is, it saves money in the processing of information, thereby eliminating other available data that could lead to decision making.

Conversely, group reflection also leads to an in-depth examination of the facts in general when the decision to be taken affects the group directly. The subjects get more involved and process the information in a more specific way based on what people think and why they think, in addition to their own opinion.

Moreover, there may be polarization because of the effect produced by the majority opinion, the majority weighs more heavily in the discussion and therefore in the final consensus because its arguments and its place in the discussion are more central, numerous and imposing.
Creative prediction

The notion of creative prediction – or self-fulfilling prophecy or Pygmalion effect – is defined by Robert King Merton as “a false definition of the situation, provoking a new behavior that makes the design true, false at the origin”, 30 which means in other words that the false expectations of one person towards another person push this other person to behave in such a way as to confirm the original expectation which was false31. The behavior of an individual is unconsciously influenced by the expectations of those around him32,33.

For example, in California in 1979, a rumor started to run about a future gasoline shortage. This led to precipitation to the fuel pumps. Shortly thereafter, there was indeed a shortage, as announced34. In reality, the rumor was unfounded but resulted in its confirmation, following the behavior of motorists. Another example is taken by Merton30: in 1932, there was a rumor about the insolvency of a bank. Once a number of investors believed in it, it was confirmed by bankruptcy. Again, the rumor was unfounded, but it showed a behavior that led to its confirmation.

Snyder and Stukas32 point out that, in self-fulfilling prophecy, the expectations that an individual has for another person can be confirmed in two ways. On the one hand, the confirmation of expectations can be perceptual (literal translation of the English “Perceptual Confirmation”), it takes place in the mind of the perceiver. On the other hand, the confirmation can be behavioral (literal translation of the English “Behavioral Confirmation”), that is to say that during the interaction, the target will act and behave according to the expectations that the perceiving it towards her.
Behavioral confirmation

Behavioral confirmation comprises four steps35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44:

The perceiver adopts beliefs about the target
The perceiver behaves towards the target as if these beliefs were true
The target adapts his behavior according to what the perceiver transmits to him
The perceiver interprets the behavior of the target as confirming their beliefs.

Many authors have undertaken research on behavioral confirmation. This phenomenon has mainly been studied in the laboratory. At first, researchers manipulate the expectations of one individual (the perceiver) towards another (the target). Then they ask the perceiver and the target to talk together to get to know each other. At the end of the interaction, they ask the perceiver to judge the target’s personality based on the dimensions that defined the expectation. Behavioral confirmation occurs when the behavior of the target reflects the expectations of the perceiver. However, expectations may not be confirmed, this is known as Behavioral Disconfirmation.

It is important to note that the individuals who were interacting with each other did not know each other before and would not usually see each other later. In this way, this relationship was described as atypical and unnatural. Haugen and Snyder46 observed that when they told participants that they would have to interact again in the future, the effects of behavioral confirmation were higher than when they knew they would not see each other again later.

According to Snyder and Klein, we must remain cautious about the generalization of this phenomenon because it could perhaps only be manifested in laboratory meetings45.

Swann, Stein-Seroussi, and McNulty noted that negative expectations were harder to express for the perceivers47. They will then usually be perceived through their non-verbal behavior. Targets, which find it more difficult to detect, will be less likely to confirm expectations. Snyder and Stukas, for their part, have found that the perceivers will be more interested in having further contacts with the targets to whom they had positive expectations32.

Snyder points to the differences in power inherent in the role of perceiver or target [unclear]. It is the perceiver who has preconceived beliefs and expectations and who has information about the target. He therefore has more power48.

Copeland points out that sometimes the targets confirm some negative expectations of perceivers even if they are aware of them. Indeed, the fact that perceivers, perceived as powerful, can retaliate against them can explain this reaction. When it was the target who had the power to control the results, there was no behavioral confirmation49. Stukas and Snyder observed that the targets confirmed expectations even when they were at the same level of power with the perceivers50.

Copeland49 also reported that the power granted to perceivers or targets influenced their motives. Indeed, when the perceivers had power, their motivation was to get to know the targets. When they did not have power, they preferred to facilitate the exchange for a favorable interaction with the target. At the same time, when the targets had power, they wanted to get to know their partners, while when they did not have power, they preferred to have pleasant interactions.

Jost & Kruglanski51 note that, in general, perceivers perpetuate erroneous impressions and beliefs, even when targets have not confirmed their expectations52,53,54.

This phenomenon of behavioral confirmation makes it possible to understand why certain shared social stereotypes are maintained. In general, the target behaves in a way that confirms these stereotypes, which makes them legitimate. They can also legitimize the actions of advantaged groups and the imbalance of power and power between advantaged and disadvantaged groups in society55. Jussim and Fleming56 have shown that the maintenance of stereotypes is more often the result of self-fulfilling, “institutional” rather than dyadic self-fulfilling prophecy.

People who are typically targets of social and cultural stereotypes often have the least power in our society (eg members of minority groups). They depend on the power of the perceivers, which is why they want to get along well with the latter and adapt to their will, often by acting as expected from them, by confirming the expectations of the perceivers32.

Some research has suggested that large-magnitude confirmation effects tend to occur in dyads composed of male and female targets57, with the perceiver having relatively high status and more power than the target. However, other research has indicated that gender-related composition within the target-perceiving dyad can not reliably explain the magnitude of behavioral confirmation58,59.
Attachments
Notes and references

J.-L. Beauvois, G. Mugny and D. Oberlé 1995, p. 203.
↑ a, b, c, d and e D. G. Myers 1992.
Lycophron, Alexandra, [read online [archive]] [(grc) read online [archive]] Study extract 951-957 [archive], 951-957.
Tzétzès Scholie about Lycophron, 956. See (grc) Christian Gottfried Müller, Ισαακιου και Ιωαννου του τζετζου Σχολια εις Λυκοφρονα [“Isaac and Jean Tzétzès Scholies on Lycophron”], Leipzig, Sumtibus F.C.G. Vogelii, 1811 (read online [archive]), p. 891,949).
↑ a, b, c, d, e and f M. Deutsch and H. B. Gerard 1955
↑ a and b D. G. Myers 1992, p. 218-219
A, b, c and d J.-P. Leyens and V. Yzebyt 1979
↑ a and b L. Bedard, J. Déziel and L. Lamarche 2006, p. 172-174
J.-L. Beauvois, G. Mugny and D. Oberlé 1995
S. Schachter 1951, p. 190-207
C. E. Miller and P. Anderson 1979, p. 354-363
↑ a, b, c and d H. Kelman 1958, p. 50-61
↑ a and b L. Bedard, J. Déziel and L. Lamarche 2006, p. 180-181.
↑ a and b S. Asch 1955, p. 31-35.
L. Ross, G. Bierbauer and S. Hoffman 1976, p. 148-157.
↑ L. Bédard, J. Déziel and L. Lamarche 2006, p. 188.
↑ L. Bédard, J. Déziel and L. Lamarche 2006.
G. Paicheler 1985.
S. Moscovici, E. Lage and M. Naffrechoux 1969, p. 365-379.
Larousse 2011.
S. Milgram 1974.
↑ a and b J. Bouchet et al. 1996, p. 82. Reference error: Invalid <ref> tag; the name “Bouchet” is defined several times with different contents
N. Triplett 1898, p. 507-533
↑ L. Bédard, J. Déziel and L. Lamarche 2006, p. 323
R. B. Zajonc 1965, p. 269-274
A and b S. Baggio 2011
↑ a and b J.-L. Beauvois and H.-V. Joule 2002
↑ a, b and c S. Guimond 2010, p. 25-26
↑ a and b E. R. Smith and D. M. Mackie 1999, p. 347-351
↑ a and b R. K. Merton 1948, p. 193-210
L. Jussim 1991, p. 54-73
↑ a, b, c and d M. Snyder and A. A. Stukas 1999, p. 273-303
J. D. Vorauer and D. T. Miller 1997, p. 281-295
J.-F. Staszak 2000, p. 105-119
J. Brophy and T. Good 1974
J. J. Darley and R. H. Fazio 1980, p. 867-881
K. Deaux and B. Major 1987, p. 369-389
Mr. J. Harris and R. Rosenthal 1985, p. 363-386
↑ E. E . Jones 1986, p. 41-46 ↑ L. Jussim 1986, p. 429-445 ↑ D. T. Miller and W. Turnbull 1986, p. 233-256 ↑ R. Rosenthal 1974 ↑ Mr. Snyder 1984, p. 274-305 ↑ Mr. Snyder 1992, p. 67-114 ↑ a, b and c M. Snyder and O. Klein 2005, p. 53-67 ↑ J. A. Haugen and M. Snyder 1995 ↑ W. B. Swann, A. Stein-Seroussi and S. E. McNulty 1992, p. 618-624 ↑ M. Snyder 1995 ↑ a and b J. T. Copeland 1994, p. 264-277 ↑ A. A. Stukas and M. Snyder 2002, p. 31-40 ↑ J. T. Jost and A. W. Kruglanski 2002, p. 168-187 ↑ S. L. Neuberg 1989, p. 374-386 J. J. Hilton and J. M. Darley 1985, p. 1-18 ↑ M. Snyder and J. A. Haugen 1995, p. 963-974 ↑ J. T. Jost and M. R. Banaji 1994, p. 1-27 ↑ L. Jussim and C. Fleming 1996, p. 161-192 ↑ D. Christiansen and R. Rosenthal 1982, p. 75-87 ↑ S. M. Andersen and S. L. Bem 1981, p. 74-86 ↑ J. A. Hall and N. J. Briton 1993, p. 276-295 Bibliography Books Jean-Léon Beauvois, Gabriel Mugny and Dominique Oberlé, Human Relations, Group and Social Influence, t. 1, Grenoble, University Presses of Grenoble, coll. “Social Psychology”, 1st January 1995, 1st ed., 384 p. (ISBN 978-2706106071, online presentation [archive]) David G. Myers, Social Psychology, New York, McGraw-Hill College, October 1992, 4th ed., 704 p. (ISBN 0070442924 and 978-0075511373, online presentation [archive]) Jacques-Philippe Leyens and Vincent Yzebyt, Social Psychology: New revised and expanded edition, Sprimont, Mardaga, 1997, 368 p. (ISBN 2-87009-663-1 and 978-2870096635, online presentation [archive]) Luc Bédard, Josée Déziel and Luc Lamarche, Introduction to social psychology: Living, thinking and acting with others, Sprimont, Éditions du Renouveau Pedagogical Inc, coll. “Humanities”, September 13, 2006, 2nd ed., 418 p. (ISBN 2761319141 and 978-2761319140, online presentation [archive]) Geneviève Paicheler, Psychology of Social Influences: compelling, convincing, persuading, Neuchâtel, Delachaux & Niestlé, coll. “Educational and psychological news”, 1985, 256 p. (ISBN 2-603-00555-3 and 978-2603005552) Large Dictionary of Psychology, Larousse, coll. “The Great Cultural Dictionaries”, September 2011, 2nd ed., 1062 p. (ISBN 2035863996 and 978-2035863997, online presentation [archive]) Patrick Gosling (eds.), Jérôme Bouchet et al., Social Psychology, t. 1: The individual and the group, Rosny-sous-Bois, Bréal, coll. “Lexifac”, 1996, 1st ed., 224 p. (ISBN 2-85394-886-2, online presentation [archive]) Stéphanie Baggio, Social Psychology: Concepts and Experiences, Brussels, De Boeck, coll. “The point on … Psychology”, June 2011, 2nd ed., 176 p. (ISBN 2804164012 and 9782804164010, online presentation [archive]) Jean-Léon Beauvois and Robert-Vincent Joule, A small treatise on manipulation for the use of decent people, Grenoble, Presses universitaires de Grenoble, January 2002, 1st ed., 288 p. (ISBN 978-2706110443, online presentation [archive]) Guimond, S., Social Psychology: Multicultural Perspectives, Mardaga, 2010 (ISBN 978-2804700324), p. Smith, E. R. and Mackie, D. M., Social Psychology 2nd Edition, Psychology Press, US, 1999 (ISBN 9781841694092), p. 347 Jere E. Brophy and Thomas L. Good, Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1974, 400 p. (ISBN 978-0030857492) Articles Morton Deutsch and Harold Benjamin Gerard, “A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, American Psychological Association, vol. 51, No. 3, November 1955, p. 629-636 (ISSN 0021-843X, DOI 10.1037 / h0046408, summary [archive], read online [archive]) (in) Stanley Schachter, “Deviation, rejection and communication,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, American Psychological Association, vol . 46, No. 2, April 1951, p. 190-207 (ISSN 0021-843X, DOI 10.1037 / h0062326, abstract [archive]) (in) Charles E. Miller and Patricia Doede Anderson, “Group decision rules and rejection of deviates,” Social Psychology Quarterly, American Sociological Association, flight. 42, No. 4, 1979, p. 354-363 (ISSN 0190-2725, abstract [archive]) (in English) Herbert C. Kelman, “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization Three Processes of Attitude Change,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, American Sociological Association, vol. 2, No. 1, March 1958, p. 51-60 (ISSN 0022-0027, DOI 10.1177 / 002200275800200106, read online [archive] [[PDF]]) Solomon E. Asch, “Opinions and Social Pressure,” Scientific American, San Francisco, WH Freeman & co., vol. 193, No. 5, November 1955, p. 31-35 (read online [archive] [[PDF]]) Lee Ross, Gunter Bierbrauer, and Susan Hoffman, “The role of attribution processes and conformity: Revisiting the Asch Situation,” American Psychologist, Washington, DC American Psychological Association, vol. 31, No. 2, February 1976, p. 148-157 (ISSN 0003-066X, DOI 10.1037 / 0003-066X.31.2.148, summary [archive]) (in) S. Moscovici, E. Lage and M. Naffrechoux, “Influence of a consistent minority on the response s of a majority in a color perception task. “, Sociometry, vol. 32, No. 4, December 1969, p. 365-379 summary = https: //www.jstor.org/stable/2786541 [archive]. S Milgram (translated Emy Molinié), Submission to authority, Paris, Calman-Lévy, 1974, 268 p. (ISBN 2702104576) Norman Triplett, “The Dynamical Factors in Pacemaking and Competition,” American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 9, 1898, p. Robert B. Zajonc, “Social Facilitation,” Science, Vol. 149, No. 3681, 1965, p. 269-274 (read online [archive]) Robert King Merton, The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, The Antioch Review, vol. 8, No. 2, 1948, p. 193-210 Lee Jussim, “Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model”, Psychological Review, vol. 98, No. 1, 1991, p. 54-73 (en) Mark Snyder and Arthur A. Stukas, “Interpersonal Processes: The Interplay of Cognitive, Motivational, and Behavioral Activities in Social Interaction,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, 1999, p. 273-303 (read online [archive]) (in French) Jacquie D. Vorauer and Dale T. Miller, “Failure to recognize the effect of implicit social influence on the presentation of self,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 73, No. 2, 1997, p. 281-295 (read online [archive]) Jean-François Staszak, “Self-fulfilling prophecies and geography”, L’espace géographique, vol. 29, No. 2, 2000, p. 105-119 (read online [archive]) John M. Darley and Russell H. Fazio, “Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence,” American Psychologist, vol. 35, No. 10, 1980, p. 867-881 (DOI 10.1037 / 0003-066X.35.10.867) (in French) Kay Deaux and Brenda Major, “Putting gender into context: an interactive model of genderrelated behavior”, Psychological Review, vol. 94, No. 3, 1987, p. 369-389 (DOI 10.1037 / 0033-295X.94.3.369) (in) Monica J. Harris and Robert Rosenthal, “Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 metaanalyses”, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 97, No. 3, 1985, p. 363-386 (DOI 10.1037 / 0033-2909.97.3.363, read online [archive]) (in) Edward E. Jones, “Interpreting interpersonal behavior: the effects of expectancies”, Science, vol. 234, No. 4772, 1986, p. 41-46 (DOI 10.1126 / science.234.4772.41) (in) Lee Jussim, “Self-fulfilling prophecies: a theoretical and integrative review”, Psychological Review, vol. 93, No. 4, 1986, p. 429-445 (DOI 10.1037 / 0033-295X.93.4.429) (in) Dale T. Miller and William Turnbull, “Expectancies and interpersonal processes,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 37, 1986, p. 233-256 (DOI 10.1146 / annurev.ps.37.020186.001313) Robert Rosenthal, On the Social Psychology of Self-fulfilling Prophecy: Further Evidence for Pygmalion Effects and Their Mediating Mechanisms, New York, MSS Modular Publications Inc., 1974, 28 p. (OCLC 12832066) M. Snyder, “When belief creates reality”, in L. Berkowitz (eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 18, Orlando, FL, Academic Press, 1984, p. 247-305. M. Snyder, “Motivational Foundations of Behavioral Confirmation,” in M. Zanna (eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25, Orlando, FL, Academic Press, 1992, p. 67-114. Mark Snyder and Olivier Klein, “Construing and constructing others: On the reality and the generality of the behavioral confirmation scenario,” Interaction Studies, vol. 6, No. 1, 2005, p. 53-67 (DOI 10.1075 / is.6.1.05sny, read online [archive]) J. A. Haugen and M. Snyder, Effects of perceiver’s beliefs about future interactions on the behavioral confirmation process. : Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, American Psychological Society, 1995. William B. Swann, Alan Stein-Seroussi and Shawn E. McNulty, “Outcasts in a white lie society: The enigmatic words of people with negative self-conceptions “, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 62, No. 4, 1992, p. 618-624 (read online [archive]) Dr. Snyder, Power and Dynamics of Social Interaction. : Presented at the 8th Annual Conference Advers., Amherst, MA, 1995. John T. Copeland, “Prophecies of power: Motivational implications of social power for behavioral confirmation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 67, No. 2, 1994, p. 264-277 (DOI 10.1037 / 0022-3514.67.2.264) Arthur A. Stukas and Mark Snyder, “Targets’ awareness of expectations and behavioral confirmation in ongoing interactions,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 38, No. 1, 2002, p. 31-40 John T. Jost and Arie W. Kruglanski, “Strangulation of social construction and experimental social psychology: A tale of a rift and prospects for reconciliation,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 6, No. 3, 2002, p. 168-187 (read online [archive]) Steven L. Neuberg, “The goal of making accurate impressions during social interactions: attenuating the impact of negative expectations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 56, No. 3, 1989, p. 374-386 (DOI 10.1037 / 0022 -3514.56.3.374) James L. Hilton and John M. Darley, “Constructing other persons: a limit on the effect,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 21, No. 1, 1985, p. 1-18 Mark Snyder and Julie A. Haugen, “Why does behavioral confirmation occur? A functional perspective on the role of the target, “Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 21, No. 9, 1995, p. 963-974 (DOI 10.1177 / 0146167295219010) John T. Jost and Mahzarin R. Banaji, “The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness,” British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 33, No. 1, 1994, p. 1-27 (DOI 10.1111 / j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x) L. Jussim and C. Fleming, “Self-fulfilling prophecies and maintenance of social stereotypes: The role of dyadic interactions and social forces,” in CN Macrae , M. Hewstone, M. and C. Stangor (eds., Stereotypes and stereotyping, New York, Guilford, 1996, pp. 161-192.) Dana Christiansen and Robert Rosenthal, “Gender and nonverbal decoding skill as determinants of interpersonal expectancy effects “, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1, 1982, 75-87 (DOI 10.1037 / 0022-3514.42.1.75, read online [archive]) Susan M. Andersen and Sandra L. Bem, “Sex typing androgyny in dyadic interaction: individual differences in responsiveness to physical attractiveness”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1, 1981, 74-86 (in French). online [archive]) JA Hall and NJ Briton, “Gender, nonverbal behavior, and expectations,” in PD Blanck (eds.), Interpersonal expectations: Theory, research, and applications, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 276-295 Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W. & Jonas, K. (2007). Introduction to Social Psychology: A European Perspective (4th ed.). London: Blackwell. Related Articles Alienation Conformism Social Control Asch’s Experience Milgram’s Experience Influencer Web Stereotype Threat Social Norm Spiral of Silence Resistance (Social Psychology) Two step flow theory External Links Authority RecordsView and Modify Data on Wikidata: National Library de France (data) • University Documentation System • Library of Congress • Gemeinsame Normdatei 5 Ways to be Influential [archive]: Canadian Policy Analysis Page (centrerion.blogspot.com). [PDF] Influence on the Internet [archive] – Didier Heiderich, International Crisis Observatory (OIC) 2009; “The ability to deliver rich, free content without ostentatious underlying intent is still the surest way to gain notoriety, credit, and influence in the” internet galaxy “” [PDF] Theory ‘Influence [archive] – JC Frezal, B Frezal, Leininger-Frezal C, TG Mathia, B Mory, A provisional introduction for a global model, usable by all, teachable to all. [en] [PDF] Social Influence [archive] (in) Kelman, H. (1958). [PDF] Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change [archive]. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1, 51-60. Portal of Sociology Portal of Sociology Portal of Psychology Portal of Psychology Categories: Concept of Social PsychologySocial GroupPolitical SociologyInformation Science

 

Information source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_sociale

Translated with free online software.

NOTE ON LIABILITY

The ideas, tips, suggestions and comments expressed on this site represent a point of view. The information on this site is provided without warranty. The responsibility of the decisions made on the basis of the information presented on this site belongs entirely to the decision-maker.

 

Page Name: Influence sociale
Authors: Wikipédia en français
Publisher: Wikipedia
Link to the quoted version: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_sociale

.

 

• Nom de la page : Influence sociale
• Crédit à insérer : Contenu soumis à la licence CC-BY-SA 3.0. Source : Article Influence sociale de Wikipédia en français (auteurs)

 

 

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.fr.

Information source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_sociale

The material was translated with free online software, without any warranty.

You are free to:

Share – copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt – remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.

This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.

The licensor can not revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

Attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any way, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

ShareAlike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

No additional restrictions – You may not apply to any other legal measures.

Records:

You do not have to comply with the law or allow the use of the product.
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all the necessary permission for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.