References
* * *
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97–119.
Asch, S. E. (1948). The doctrine of suggestion, prestige, and imitation in social psychology. Psychological Review, 55, 250–276.
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzhow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburg, PA: Carnegie Press.
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.
Baron R. S., & Bellman S. B. (2007). No guts, no glory: Courage, harassment and minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 101–124.
Bem, D. J. (1965). An experimental analysis of self persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 199–218.
Bettinghaus, E. P. (1981). Persuasive communication. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Boster, F. J., Carpenter, C. J., Andrews, K. R., & Mongeau, P. A. (2012). Employing interpersonal influence to promote multivitamin use. Health Communication, 27, 399–407.
Boster, F. J., Fryrear, J. E., Mongeau, P. A., & Hunter, J. E. (1982). An unequal speaking linear discrepancy model: Implications for the polarity shift. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 6 (pp. 395–418). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Boster, F. J., & Hale, J. L. (1989). Response scale ambiguity as a moderator of the choice shift. Communication Research, 16, 532–551.
Boster, F. J., Hunter, J. E., & Hale, J. L. (1991). An information-processing model of jury decision making. Communication Research, 18, 524–547.
Boster, F. J., Kotowski, M. R., Andrews, K. R., & Serota, K. (2011). Identifying influence: Development and validation of the connectivity, persuasiveness, and maven scales. Journal of Communication, 61, 178–196.
Boster, F. J., & Mayer, M. E. (1984). Choice shifts: Argument qualities or social comparisons. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 8 (pp. 393–410). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Boster, F. J., Mayer, M. E., Hunter, J. E., & Hale, J. L. (1980). Expanding the persuasive arguments explanation of the polarity shift: A linear discrepancy model. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 4 (pp. 165–176). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Gliner, M. D. (1995). The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1014–1029.
Carpenter, C. J., Kotowski, M. R., Boster, F. J., Andrews, K. R., Serota, K. S., & Shaw. A. S. (2009). Do superdiffusers argue differently? An analysis of argumentation style as a function of diffusion ability. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45, 151–170.
Cialdini, R., Levy, A., Herman, P., & Evenbeck, S. (1973). Attitudinal politics: The strategy of moderation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 100–108.
Cialdini, R., Levy, A., Herman, C., Kozlowski, L., & Petty, R. (1976). Elastic shifts of opinion: Determinants of direction and durability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 663–672.
Cialdini, R., & Petty, R. (1981). Anticipatory opinion effects. In R. Petty, T. Ostrom, & T. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clark, R. D., III. (1998). Minority influence: The role of the rate of majority defection and persuasive arguments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 787–796.
Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10, 191–198.
David, C., Cappella, J. N., & Fishbein, M. (2006). The social diffusion of influence among adolescents: Group interaction in a chat room environment about antidrug advertisements. Communication Theory, 16, 118–140.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. G. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influence upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.
Earp, J. L., Eng, E., O’Malley, M. S., Altpeter, M., Rauscher, G., Mayne, L., et al. (2002). Increasing use of mammography among older, rural African American women: Results from a community trial. American Journal of Public Health, 82, 646–654.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.
Festinger, L. (1953). An analysis of compliant behavior. In M. Sherif & M. O. Wilson (Eds.), Group relations at the crossroads (pp. 323–256). New York, NY: Harper.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Festinger, L., &Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210.
French, J. R. P., Jr. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63, 181–194.
Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., O’Brien, A., & Jacobs, E. (2004). Social identity, social influence, and reactions to potentially stressful tasks: Support for the self-categorization model of stress. Stress and Health, 20, 3–9.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1992) Primitive emotional contagion. Review of Personal and Social Psychology, 14, 151–177.
Henningsen, D. D., & Henningsen, M. L. M. (2004). Pre-deliberation moderation on choice dilemmas: Proposing a moderation-elasticity theory of choice shift. Communication Monographs, 71, 148–160.
Hocking, J. E., Margreiter, D. G., & Hylton, C. (1977). Intra-audience effects: A field test. Human Communication Research, 3, 243–249.
Hoffman, L. R. (1961). Conditions for creative problem-solving. Journal of Psychology, 52, 429–444.
Hoffman, L. R., & Kleinman, G. B. (1994). Individual and group in group problem solving: The valence model redressed. Human Communication Research, 21, 36–59.
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117–127.
Hylton, C. (1971). Intra-audience effects: Observable audience response. Journal of Communication, 21, 253–265.
Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 653–670.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141–1151.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence. New York, NY: Free Press.
Kelly, J. A., St. Lawrence, J. S., Stevenson, L. Y., Hauth, A. C., Kalichman, S. C., Diaz, Y. E., et al. (1992). Community AIDS/HIV risk reduction: The effects of endorsements of popular people in three cities. American Journal of Public Health, 82, 1483–1489.
Kelman, H. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78.
Kerr, N. L. (2002). When is a minority a minority? Active versus passive minority advocacy and social influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 471–483.
Krizan, Z., & Baron, R. S. (2007). Group polarization and choice-dilemmas: How important is self-categorization? European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 191–201.
Latane, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of minorities and majorities. Psychological Review, 88, 438–453.
Laughlin, P. R., & Early, P. C. (1982). Social combination models, persuasive arguments theory, social comparison theory, and the choice shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 273–280.
Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Lee, E.-J. (2007). Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer-mediated communication: The role of group identification, public-self-awareness, and perceived argument quality. Journal of Communication, 57, 385–403.
Lee, E.-J. (2008). When are strong arguments stronger than weak arguments? Deindividuation effects on message elaboration in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35, 646–665.
Lewin, K. (1947). Group dec
ision and social change. In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 330–344). New York, NY: Holt.
Mackie, D. M., Gastardo-Conaco, M. C., & Skelly, J. J. (1992). Knowledge of the advocated position and the processing of in-group and outgroup persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 145–151.
Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812–822.
Martin, R., Hewstone, M., & Martin, P. Y. (2003). Resistance to persuasive messages as function of majority and minority source status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 585–593.
Martin, R., Hewstone, M., & Martin, P. Y. (2008). Majority versus minority influence: The role of message processing in determining resistance to counter-persuasion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 16–34.
Martin, R., Martin, P. Y., Smith, J. R., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Majority versus minority influence and prediction of behavioral intentions and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 763–771.
McPhee, R. D., Poole, M. S., & Seibold, D. R. (1982). The valence model unveiled: A critique and reformulation. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 5 (pp. 259–278). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1998). Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument-outcome link. Communication Monographs, 65, 261–281.
Meyers, R. A., Brashers, D. E., & Hanner, J. (2000). Majority-minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Communication, 50, 3–30.
Meyers, R. A., & Seibold, D. R. (1990). Perspectives on group argument: A critical review of persuasive arguments theory and an alternative structurational view. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 13 (pp. 268–302). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Miller, R., Klotz, D., & Eckholdt, H. (1998). HIV prevention with male prostitutes and patrons of hustler bars: Replication of an HIV preventive intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 97–131.
Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 209–239.
Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 347–412). New York, NY: Random House.
Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365–380.
Myers, D. G., & Murdoch, P. J. (1972). Is risky shift due to disproportionate influence by extreme group members? British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 109–114.
Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The spiral of silence. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Platow, M. J., Haslam, S. A., Both, A., Chew, I., Cuddon, M., Goharpey, N., et al. (2005). “It’s not funny when they’re laughing”: A self-categorization social-influence analysis of canned laughter. The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 542–550.
Platow, M. J., Voudouris, N. J., Coulson, M., Gilford, N., Jamieson, R., Najdovski, L., et al. (2007). In-group reassurance in a pain setting produces lower levels of physiological arousal: Direct support for a self-categorization analysis of social influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 649–660.
Pruitt, D. G. (1971). Choice shifts in group discussion: An introductory review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 339–360.
Robinson, R. J., & Keltner, D. (1996). Much ado about nothing? Revisionists and traditionalists choose an introductory English syllabus. Psychological Science, 7, 18–24.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation (5th ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Serota, K. B., Carpenter, C. J., Andrews, K. R., & Boster, F. J. (2009). Influentials in America: Identifying political superdiffusers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27, 1–60.
Sia, C.-L., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2002). Group polarization and computer-mediated communication: Effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. Information Systems Research, 13, 70–90.
Sigall, H., Mucchi-Faina, A., & Mosso, C. (2006). Minority influence is facilitated when communication employs linguistic abstractness. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 443–451.
Soumerai, S. B., McLauglin, T. J., Gurwitz, J. H., Guadagnoli, E., Hauptman, P. J., Borbas, C., et al. (1998). Effect of local medical opinion leaders on quality of care of acute myocardial infarction. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 1358–1363.
Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121–134.
Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decision involving risk. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Tanford, S. E., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 189–225.
Tormala, Z. L., DeSensi, V. L., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Resisting persuasion by illegitimate means: A metacognitive perspective on minority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 354–367.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup behavior (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1987). The analysis of social influence. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 68–88). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Valente, T. W., & Pumpuang, P. (2007). Identifying opinion leaders to promote behavior change. Health Education and Behavior, 34, 881–896.
Van Swol, L. M. (2009). Extreme members and group polarization. Social Influence, 4, 185–199.
Van Swol, L. M., & Seinfeld, E. (2006). Differences between minority, majority, and unanimous group members in the communication of information. Human Communication Research, 32, 178–197.
Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1962). Group influence on individual risk-taking: Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 75–86.
Wilder, D. A. (1990). Some determinants of the persuasive power of in-groups and out-groups: Organization of information and attribution of independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1202–1213.
Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323–345.
CHAPTER 22
When Presumed Influence Turns Real
An Indirect Route of Media Influence
Ye Sun
How do messages shape one’s attitudes and behaviors? Various theoretical lenses have been offered in this volume to understand the workings of persuasive communications through eliciting intended cognitive or emotional responses in the target audience. Media messages, however, can also inadvertently “cause” behaviors. Penn State University students, following the firing of the football coach Joe Paterno in a recent scandal, stormed into the downtown streets and overturned a television news van, a symbol of the news media, as they believed news reports had exaggerated Mr. Paterno’s role in the scandal and misled the public (Schweber, 2011). Or earlier in 2011, in the wake of the nuclear plant crisis in Japa
n, a great “salt rush” hit the east coast of China after messages were spread on the Internet that the iodine contained in the salt would help prevent sickness from radiation exposure. Whereas salt purchase itself could be a direct effect of those messages, purchasing in bulk and hoarding was a preemptive response fueled by fear of “competing” others who must have been persuaded by the messages. In both cases, individuals displayed such behaviors not primarily because the messages in question directly convinced them to do so, but because they thought that such messages must have influenced other people.
Such scenarios depict an image of message recipients that is eclipsed in traditional persuasion research: Message recipients, like us persuasion and media effects scholars, also ponder over the persuasive effects of messages. They have their own lay theories about the power of messages on other audience members, such as the belief that the news reports about Joe Paterno had skewed the public’s perception about him, or the messages about the iodine in salt would lead others to hoard salt. Such presumptions about media effect, when transformed into actual behaviors, become the real effect of the media messages (Gunther, Perloff, & Tsfati, 2008).
This indirect route from message to attitudinal or behavioral outcomes via speculations about other audience members is succinctly characterized as “the influence of presumed influence” (IPI, hereafter; Gunther & Storey, 2003). Different from traditional persuasion perspectives focusing on direct, intended effects of persuasive messages, it shifts analytical attention to how recipients’ subjective perceptions about message effects shape their personal or social behaviors. This chapter is organized as follows. First, I will sketch out the larger theoretical background from which IPI originated, with a focus on the third-person effect framework (TPE, hereafter; Davison, 1983). Then I will take a look at IPI as a process model and review the empirical findings from the extant literature. Following that I will engage in a substantive analysis of the key components of IPI, mapping out some underlying conceptual dimensions and bringing forth a few conceptual issues. Finally, based on the previously mentioned review and analysis, I will discuss problems with current IPI research in terms of empirical rigor, theoretical vigor, and practical significance, and call for more efforts from future research to tackle these challenges.
The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion Page 75