1956
DOI: 10.2307/2785766
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Behavioral Assessment of Persuasibility: Consistency of Individual Differences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
47
1

Year Published

1970
1970
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
47
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Insko (1985) also has argued that the primary motives for conformity seem to be the desire to be liked and the desire to be correct-a number of theories would suggest that both of these motives are driven by a concern with maintaining one's self-image (e.g., Aronson, 1969;Solomon et al, 1991;Steele, 1988). Along similar lines, Janis and Field (1956) and more recently Brockner (1988) have argued that individuals with low self-esteem are especially susceptible to social influence because they are more concerned about others' evaluations of them and because they doubt the accuracy or potency of their beliefs. Brockner (1988) cites several lines of research showing that people with low self-esteem display more behavioral plasticity than people with high self-esteem.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Insko (1985) also has argued that the primary motives for conformity seem to be the desire to be liked and the desire to be correct-a number of theories would suggest that both of these motives are driven by a concern with maintaining one's self-image (e.g., Aronson, 1969;Solomon et al, 1991;Steele, 1988). Along similar lines, Janis and Field (1956) and more recently Brockner (1988) have argued that individuals with low self-esteem are especially susceptible to social influence because they are more concerned about others' evaluations of them and because they doubt the accuracy or potency of their beliefs. Brockner (1988) cites several lines of research showing that people with low self-esteem display more behavioral plasticity than people with high self-esteem.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The rationale for this prediction was based on the idea that individuals with low self-esteem may conform to the attitudes and behaviors of others because they are concerned about how others will evaluate them along with their doubts about the correctness of their own attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Cohen, 1959;Janis & Field, 1956;Silverman, 1964). Further, this prediction is consistent with sociometer theory (e.g., Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995), which argues that the function of self-esteem is to help individuals monitor their relational value.…”
Section: Overview and Predictionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More specifically, these studies have often shown that individuals with low levels of self-esteem are more likely to conform than are individuals who possess high levels of self-esteem. One explanation for this pattern is that conformity may serve as a form of psychological defense that is used to protect individuals from the negative evaluations of others that may accompany deviations from group norms (e.g., Cohen, 1959;Janis & Field, 1956;Silverman, 1964). Conforming to the attitudes and behaviors of others can improve how individuals feel about themselves which may explain why individuals with low versus high levels of self-esteem are more susceptible to various forms of social influence (e.g., Cohen, 1959).…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Six items to tap academic esteem were taken from the Janis and Field Feelings of Inadequacy Scale (FIS) [45]. Fleming and Watts [46] reported that a rotated factor solution for the full set of FIS items included dimensions tapping both academic (i.e., school abilities: a = .77) and non-academic components of selfesteem (i.e., self-regard).…”
Section: Personal Competencementioning
confidence: 99%