The psychology of social impact.

Abstract

The author proposes a theory of social impact specifying the effect of other persons on an individual. According to the theory, when other people are the source of impact and the individual is the target, impact should be a multiplicative function of the strength, immediacy, and number of other people. Furthermore, impact should take the form of a power function, with the marginal effect of the Nth other person being less than that of the (N -l)th. Finally, when other people stand with the individual as the target of forces from outside the group, impact should be divided such that the resultant is an inverse power function of the strength, immediacy, and number of persons standing together. The author reviews relevant evidence from research on conformity and imitation, stage fright and embarrassment, news interest, bystander intervention, tipping, inquiring for Christ, productivity in groups, and crowding in rats. He also discusses the unresolved issues and desirable characteristics of the theory.

Sociometric Status and Social Drinking: Observations of Modelling and Persuasion in Young Adult Peer Groups

“…On the other hand, because young adult drinking in The Netherlands is concentrated in social settings such as bars, discos and pubs (Engels et al 1999) and takes place primarily in groups ( Van de Goor 1990), it is likely to assume that peer group members besides the best friend influence individual alcohol consumption (see e.g. also the Social Impact Theory; Latané 1981). Moreover, it is questionable whether the emotional bond that exists between best friends necessarily implies that they exert the strongest influence on individual drinking.…”

“…As far as we know, very few studies examined the role of sociometric position in the actual influence on others in the group (Polansky et al 1950a, b). In studies the objective is usually the perception of (power to) influence others or susceptibility to influence (as reported in questionnaires by peers, teachers or parents) and not the actual interpersonal influence (Lease et al 2002a;b). Even though the outcomes of these studies may be a good indicator of actual social influence being exerted, it is uncertain to what extent and on which time scale this influence occurs.…”

Peer Standing and Substance Use in Early-Adolescent Grade-Level Networks: A Short-Term Longitudinal Study

“…For example, among children in grades 6 through 8, those who receive relatively high numbers of "friend" or "liking" nominations, including popular children (higher numbers of "friend" nominations; Valente et al, 2005) (2006) report that adolescents who are "liked but not too well-liked"-a classification perhaps most closely consistent with "average" sociometric status-are least likely to be smokers. The relative status of adolescent friends also impacts the extent to which adoption of drinking behavior occurs over time: young adolescents are more likely to adopt the drinking behavior of a unilateral friend with higher status (Bot et al, 2001), and are more susceptible to influence from well-liked others (Latane, 1981), affirming the power of elevated peer standing to influence substance use behaviors.…”

“…For example, among children in grades 6 through 8, those who receive relatively high numbers of "friend" or "liking" nominations, including popular children (higher numbers of "friend" nominations; Valente et al, 2005) (2006) report that adolescents who are "liked but not too well-liked"-a classification perhaps most closely consistent with "average" sociometric status-are least likely to be smokers. The relative status of adolescent friends also impacts the extent to which adoption of drinking behavior occurs over time: young adolescents are more likely to adopt the drinking behavior of a unilateral friend with higher status (Bot et al, 2001), and are more susceptible to influence from well-liked others (Latane, 1981), affirming the power of elevated peer standing to influence substance use behaviors.Peer standing also has been addressed using indicators derived from social network analysis, with an increasing number of studies that assess both peer standing and substance use among adolescents using this framework (e.g., Alexander et al, 2001;Ennett & Baumann, 1993;Ennett et al, 2006;Pearson & West, 2003;Rodkin et al, 2000;Valente et al, 2005). According to social network theory (Knoke & Kulinski, 1982;Wasserman & Faust, 1994), individuals central to a bounded network (such as a classroom or grade) are both relatively visible and well-connected to others in the network, whereas less central or marginal (peripheral) members of the network are relatively less visible and less well-connected.…”

Putting Life in Years (PLINY): a randomised controlled trial and mixed-methods process evaluation of a telephone friendship intervention to improve mental well-being in independently living older people

“…Although optimal group size is a function of session and programme duration, there seems to be some agreement in the literature that the group size for adults should not drop below five or six participants with one facilitator. 31,57,79 The opportunities to engage with others are reduced as the group size diminishes, with passive behaviour and negative group image being frequent consequences. For these reasons, some theorists advocate replacing group members or combining small groups in preference to persisting with insufficient membership.…”