Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Sozialpsychologie – Der Mensch in sozialen Beziehungen pp 87–155Cite as

Sozialer Einfluss

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Kapitel widmet sich den Mechanismen sozialen Einflusses, d. h., wie wir durch andere Menschen in unserem Denken und Handeln beeinflusst werden. Sozialer Einfluss liegt bereits vor, wenn sich allein durch die Anwesenheit anderer Personen unser Leistungsverhalten verändert, auch wenn jene uns gar nicht absichtlich beeinflussen wollen. Dies wird unter den Stichworten „soziale Erleichterung“ und „soziale Hemmung“ dargestellt. Ob andere Personen eine Mehr- oder Minderheitsmeinung uns gegenüber vertreten, wirkt ebenfalls als sozialer Einfluss (eine direkte Beeinflussungsabsicht kann, muss hier aber nicht vorliegen) und wird im Anschluss besprochen. Im letzten Teil des Kapitels geht es um den klassischen Fall sozialen Einflusses, den absichtlichen, taktisch klug eingefädelten Beeinflussungsversuch.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

eBook
USD   24.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Dieselben Auswirkungen auf die Leistung wie die Anwesenheit anderer Personen haben auch andere ablenkende Reize, wie beispielsweise ein blinkendes Licht (Baron 1986).

  2. 2.

    Eine Situation, in der die Anwesenheit anderer Personen von großer Bedeutung ist, ist die soziale Situation Gruppe. Weitere Einflüsse auf das Leistungsverhalten, die über die bloße Anwesenheit anderer Personen hinausgehen, werden im Zusammenhang mit Intragruppenprozessen ausführlich besprochen (Abschn. 3.2).

  3. 3.

    Kinder und Jugendliche sind beeinflussbarer als Erwachsene, im Besonderen durch ihre Peergroup. In einer Studie von Gardner und Steinberg (2005) hat sich beispielsweise gezeigt, dass sowohl die Risikobereitschaft als auch der diese verstärkende Peergroup-Einfluss bei Jugendlichen höher sind als bei Erwachsenen. Ob Jugendliche anfangen zu rauchen, wird u. a. davon beeinflusst, ob der beste Freund raucht oder nicht (Maassen et al. 2004).

  4. 4.

    Das Prinzip sozialer Bewährtheit kann auch strategisch – beispielsweise in der Werbung – eingesetzt werden, um bewusst das Verhalten anderer zu beeinflussen, und gehört damit zu den sog. Judostrategien (Abschn. 2.3).

  5. 5.

    In einer Variation des Experiments bestand die Gruppe aus einem Vertrauten des Versuchsleiters und 15 echten Teilnehmern. Der Vertraute gab sein Urteil als Siebter ab und war instruiert, eine falsche Antwort zu geben. Er wurde von den Teilnehmern offen ausgelacht, und sogar der Versuchsleiter musste lachen (Asch 1965, S. 479 f.).

  6. 6.

    Diese Einflüsse sind u. a. ursächlich für Effektivitätshindernisse bei Gruppenentscheidungen wie dem Effekt des gemeinsamen Wissens oder der Gruppenpolarisierung, die in Kap. 3 detailliert beschrieben werden.

  7. 7.

    Für soziale Einflüsse (z. B. Suggestion) auf die Erinnerung (▶ Sozialpsychologie I, Abschn. 2.5).

  8. 8.

    Der Ausdruck Door in the Face kommt daher, dass Vertretern an der Haustür zunächst ob der unverschämt großen Bitte die Tür vor der Nase zugeschlagen wird. Er muss dann noch einmal klingeln, um dabei von der ersten Forderung zurückzutreten und eine kleinere – die ursprünglich beabsichtigte – Forderung zu stellen.

  9. 9.

    Für einen Effizienzvergleich der beiden Prinzipien Door in the Face und Foot in the Door, die eine entgegengesetzte Abfolge von kleiner und großer Bitte benutzen, vgl. Pascual und Gueguen (2005).

  10. 10.

    Das Konsistenzbestreben tritt in der Kindheit erst im Rahmen eines erweiterten Verständnisses dafür auf, dass Personeneigenschaften stabil (und damit Meinungen konsistent) sind. So zeigten in einer Studie von Eisenberg et al. (1987) Kinder im Kindergartenalter nach einem Commitment noch keine konsistenten Reaktionen; dies begann erst im Alter von sieben bis acht Jahren – parallel zu dem erweiterten Verständnis für die Stabilität von Personeneigenschaften.

  11. 11.

    Die Formulierung Foot in the Door stammt aus der Zeit, in der Vertreter von Tür zu Tür gingen. Die Verkaufsraten derjenigen Vertreter, die es geschafft hatten, in die jeweiligen Wohnungen gelassen zu werden (die den Fuß wahrlich in die Tür setzen durften), um ihre Produkte vorzuführen, waren deutlich höher.

  12. 12.

    Für gruppenspezifische injunktive Normen hat sich auch die Unterscheidung zwischen sog. Minimal- und Maximalzielen als bedeutsam erwiesen, wobei eine Übertretung von Minimalzielen einen Ausschluss aus der Gruppe bedeutet, während Maximalziele erwünschtes Verhalten beschreiben, welches die Werte der Gruppe besonders gut ausdrückt (Berthold et al. 2012; Fritsche et al. 2009; Kessler et al. 2010). So könnte ein Minimalziel für eine Umweltgruppe sein, keinen Müll zurückzulassen, während ein Maximalziel darin besteht, ein Strandstück von Müll zu säubern.

Literatur

  • Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 18–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aiello, J. R., & Kolb, K. J. (1995). Electronic monitoring and social context: Impact on productivity and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 339–353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1082–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allcott, H., & Rogers, T. (2014). The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation. American Economic Review, 104, 3003–3037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, V. L. (1965). Conformity and the role of deviant. Journal of Personality, 33, 584–597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, V. L., & Levine, J. M. (1969). Consensus and conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 389–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, V. L., & Levine, J. M. (1971). Social support and conformity: The role of independent assessment of reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (1992). The cultural evolution of beneficent norms. Social Forces, 71, 279–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, S. T., & Messick, D. M. (1988). The feature-positive effect, attitude strength, and degree of perceived consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 231–241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1047–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., & Milem, J. F. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15, 507–510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Apanovitch, A. M., Hobfoll, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2002). The effects of social influence on perceptual and affective reactions to scenes of sexual violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 443–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Hrsg.), Groups, leadership, and men: Research in human relations (S. 177–190). Oxford: Carnegie Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70, 1–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1965). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axsom, D., Yates, S., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, I., Raseman, S., & Shih, A. (2013). Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 29, 992–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantimaroudis, P. (2016). “Chemtrails” in the sky: Toward a group-mediated delusion theory. Studies in Media and Communication, 4, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. In L. Berkowitz (Hrsg.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Bd. 19, S. 1–40). Orlando: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. S., Moore, D., & Sanders, G. S. (1978). Distraction as a source of drive in social facilitation research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 816–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A., Fortin, S. P., Frei, R. L., Haver, L. A., & Shack, M. L. (1990). Reducing organizational conflict: The potential role of socially-induced positive affect. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, A., Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Luecke, B., & Schubert, T. (2012). When different means bad or merely worse. How minimal and maximal goals affect ingroup projection and outgroup attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 682–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessi, A., Coletto, M., Davidescu, G. A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Quattrociocchi, W., et al. (2015). Science vs conspiracy: Collective narratives in the age of misinformation. PLoS One, 10, e0118093.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bickman, L. (1974). The social power of a uniform. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Salomon, K. (1999). Social “facilitation” as challenge and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 68–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blass, T. (1996). Attribution of responsibility and trust in the Milgram obedience experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1529–1535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohner, G., & Schlüter, L. E. (2014). A room with a viewpoint revisited: Descriptive norms and hotel guests’ towel reuse behavior. PLoS One, 9, e106606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., et al. (2013). Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: A review and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24, 245–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. F., Jr., Atoum, A. O., & Van Leeuwen, M. D. (1996). Social impairment of complex learning in the wake of public embarrassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownstein, R., & Katzev, R. (1985). The relative effectiveness of three compliance techniques in eliciting donations to a cultural organization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 564–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehler, R., & Griffin, D. (1994). Change-of-meaning effects in conformity and dissent: Observing construal processes over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 984–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that’s-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 277–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. M. (2011). In their own words: Explaining obedience to authority through an examination of participants’ comments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 24, 654–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. M., & Caldwell, D. F. (2003). The effects of monetary incentives and labeling on the foot-in-thedoor effect: Evidence for a self-perception process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 235–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. M., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The low-ball compliance technique: Task or person commitment? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 492–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. M., Messian, N., Patel, S., del Prado, A., & Anderson, C. (2004). What a coincidence! The effects of incidental similarity on compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 35–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bushman, B. J. (1988). The effects of apparel on compliance: A field experiment with a female authority figure. Personality and Social Bulletin, 14, 459–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butter, M. (2018). “Nichts ist, wie es scheint” – Über Verschwörungstheorien. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D., & Rhamey, R. (1965). Magnitude of positive and negative reinforcements as a determinant of attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 884–889.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. D., & Fairey, P. J. (1989). Informational and normative routes to conformity: The effect of faction size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the stimulus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 457–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chajut, E., & Algom, D. (2003). Selective attention improves under stress: Implications for theories of social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 231–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., Liu, M., Chen, H., Wang, L., Li, D., et al. (2005). Compliance in Chinese and Canadian toddlers: A crosscultural study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 428–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effects of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 62–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: Science and practice. New York: Harper-Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B. (1997). Die Psychologie des Überzeugens: Ein Lehrbuch für alle, die ihren Mitmenschen und sich selbst auf die Schliche kommen wollen. Göttingen: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Hrsg.), The handbook of social psychology (Bd. 2, S. 151–192). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T., Basset, R., & Miller, J. (1978). Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment, then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 463–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In M. P. Zanna (Hrsg.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Bd. 24, S. 201–234). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Green, B. L., & Rusch, A. J. (1992). When tactical pronouncements of change become real change: The case of reciprocal persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 30–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 318–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cichocka, A., Marchlewska, M., Golec de Zavala, A., & Olechowski, M. (2016). “They will not control us”: Ingroup positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 556–576.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D. (1990). Minority influence: The role of argument refutation of the majority position and social support for the minority position. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 489–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D. (1998). Minority influence: The role of the rate of majority defection and persuasive arguments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 787–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D. (1999a). Effect of number of majority defectors on minority influence. Group Dynamics, 3, 303–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D. (1999b). The effect of majority defectors and number of persuasive minority arguments on minority influence. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 23, 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D., & Maass, A. (1990). The effects of majority size on minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condon, J. W., & Crano, W. D. (1988). Inferred evaluation and the relation between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 789–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell, N. B., Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. J., & Rittle, R. H. (1968). Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 245–250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, M. F., & Platow, M. J. (2010). Deviance as adherence to injunctive group norms: The overlooked role of social identification in deviance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 827–847.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10, 191–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M. (1995). Constructive and destructive obedience: A taxonomy of principal-agent relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 125–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, N. K., De Dreu, C. K. W., Gordijn, E., & Schuurman, M. (1996). Majority and minority influence: A dual role interpretation. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Hrsg.), European Review of Social Psychology (Bd. 7, S. 145–172). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker, O., Kiess, J., & Brähler, E. (Hrsg.). (2016). Die enthemmte Mitte. Autoritäre und rechtsextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeJong, W. (1979). An examination of self-perception mediation on the foot-in-the-door effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2221–2239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational influence upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillard, J. P. (1991). The current status of research on sequential-request compliance techniques. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 283–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillard, J. P., Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M. (1984). Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communications Research, 10, 461–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ditto, P. H., & Jemmott, J. B. (1989). From rarity to evaluative extremity: Effects of prevalence information on evaluations of positive and negative characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 16–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., Callan, M. J., Dawtry, R. J., & Harvey, A. J. (2016). Someone is pulling the strings: Hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories. Thinking & Reasoning, 22, 57–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwick, P. W., & Gardner, W. L. (2008). Is it a game? Evidence for social influence in the virtual world. Social Influence, 4, 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, N., Cialdini, R. B., McCreath, H., & Shell, R. (1987). Consistency-based compliance: When and why do children become vulnerable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1174–1181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, F. B. (1963). Selling as a dyadic relationship. American Behavioral Scientist, 6, 76–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H., Sherman, S. J., & Herr, P. M. (1982). The feature-positive effect in the self-perception process: Does not doing matter as much as doing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 404–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, T. H., Anker, A. E., & Aloe, A. M. (2012). The Door-in-the-face persuasive message strategy: A meta-analysis of the first 35 years. Communication Monographs, 79, 316–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felser, G. (2001). Werbe- und Konsumentenpsychologie. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, C. J., Muñoz, M. E., Garza, A., & Galindo, M. (2014). Concurrent and prospective analyses of peer, television and social media influences on body dissatisfaction, eating disorder symptoms and life satisfaction in adolescent girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T. (2010). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, C. (1989). Impression management in the selection interview. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Hrsg.), Impression management in the organization (S. 269–282). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fointiat, V., Caillaud, J., & Martinie, M. A. (2004). Étiquetage social vs étiquetage fonctionnel : quels effets sur le pied-dans-la-porte avec demande implicite? Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 54, 273–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, J. L. (1965). Long-term behavioral effects of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frenzen, J. R., & Davis, H. L. (1990). Purchasing behavior in embedded markets. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, H. H., & Fireworker, R. B. (1977). The susceptibility of consumers to unseen group influence. The Journal of Social Psychology, 102, 155–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsche, I., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., & Neumann, J. (2009). Minimal and maximal goal orientation and reactions to norm violations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, R. G. C., & Sheehy-Skeffington, A. (1974). Effects of group laughter on responses to humorous materials: A replication and extension. Psychological Reports, 35, 531–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadel, M. S. (1964). Concentration by salesmen on congenial prospects. Journal of Marketing, 28, 64–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41, 625–635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Geen, R. B., Thomas, S. L., & Gammill, P. (1988). Effects of evaluation and coaction on state anxiety and anagram performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 293–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard, H. B., Wilhelmy, R. A., & Conolley, E. S. (1968). Conformity and group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 79–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. J., Ellsworth, P. C., Maslach, C., & Seipel, M. (1975). Obligation, donor resources, and reactions to aid in three cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 390–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girandola, F. (2002a). Foot-in-the-door technique and computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 11–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girandola, F. (2002b). Sequential requests and organ donation. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 171–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gladue, B. A., & Delaney, H. J. (1990). Gender differences in perception of attractiveness of men and women in bars. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleich, U. (2000a). Aktuelle Ergebnisse aus der Werbeforschung. Media Perspektiven, 6, 266–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleich, U. (2000b). ARD-Forschungsdienst: Werbewirkung – Gestaltungseffekte und Rezipientenreaktionen. Media Perspektiven, 1, 40–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, D. R., Jones, E. E., & Lord, C. C. (1986). Selfpromotion is not ingratiating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 106–115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, M., & Creason, C. R. (1981). Inducing compliance by a two-door-in-the-face procedure and a self-determination request. The Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 229–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorassini, D. R., & Olson, J. M. (1995). Does self-perception change explain the foot-in-the-door effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Patil, S. V. (2012). Challenging the norm of self-interest: Minority influence and transitions to helping norms in work units. Academy of Management Review, 37, 547–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graumann, C. F., & Moscovici, S. (1987). Changing conceptions of conspiracy. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Griggs, R. A. (2016). Milgram’s obedience study: A contentious classic reinterpreted. Teaching of Psychology, 44, 32–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gueguen, N., & Jacob, C. (2001). Fund-raising on the Web: The effect of an electronic foot-in-the-door on donation. Cyber-Psychology and Behavior, 4, 705–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gueguen, N., Pascual, A., & Dagot, L. (2002). Low-ball and compliance to a request: An application in a field setting. Psychological Reports, 91, 81–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guerin, B. (1986). Mere presence effects in humans: A review. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 38–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerin, B. (1993). Social facilitation. European monographs in social psychology. New York: Cambrigde University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, V. L. (1978). Obedience and responsibility: A jury simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 126–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1995). Crimes of obedience and conformity in the workplace: Surveys of Americans, Russians, and Japanese. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haritos-Fatouros, M. (1988). The official torturer: A learning model for obedience to the authority of violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1107–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, J. W., Stasson, M. F., & Karau, S. J. (1999). Effects of source expertise and physical distance on minority influence. Group Dynamics, 3, 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Birney, M. E. (2014). Nothing by mere authority: Evidence that in an experimental analogue of the Milgram paradigm participants are motivated not by orders but by appeals to science. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 473–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Millard, K., Miller, A., Russell, N., Milgram, S., et al. (2015). Shock treatment: Using immersive digital realism to restage and re-examine Milgram’s “obedience to authority” research. PLoS One, 10, e109015.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Heerey, E. A., & Crossley, H. M. (2013). Predictive and reactive mechanisms in smile reciprocity. Psychological Science, 24, 1446–1455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hehman, E., Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2011). Evaluations of presidential performance: Race, prejudice, and perceptions of americanism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 430–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofling, C. K., Brotzman, E., Dalrymple, S., Graves, N., & Pierce, C. M. (1966). An experimental study of nurse-physician relationships. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143, 171–180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hornsey, M. J., Majkut, L., Terry, D. J., & McKimmie, B. M. (2003). On being loud and proud: Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 319–335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, H. A., Fisch, E., & Holmes, M. (1968). Influence of a model’s feeling about his behavior and his relevance as a comparison other on observers’ helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 222–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, D. J. (1990). The influence of verbal responses to common greetings on compliance behavior: The foot-in-the-mouth effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1185–1196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huguet, P., Galvaing, M. P., Monteil, J. M., & Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task: Further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1011–1025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huguet, P., Dumas, F., Marsh, H. W., Régner, I., Wheeler, L., Suls, J., et al. (2009). Clarifying the role of social comparison in the big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE): An integrative study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 156–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Imhoff, R., & Bruder, M. (2014). Speaking (Un-)truth to power: Conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude. European Journal of Personality, 28, 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imhoff, R., & Lamberty, P. K. (2017). Too special to be duped: Need for uniqueness motivates conspiracy beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 724–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory micro culture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 649–658.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James, J. M., & Bolstein, R. R. (1992). Large monetary incentives and their effect on mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 442–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, N., & Alex, N. (1972). The uniform: A sociological perspective. American Journal of Sociology, 77, 719–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joule, R.-V. (1987). Tobacco deprivation: The foot-in-the-door technique versus the low-ball technique. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 361–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joule, R.-V., Girandola, F., & Bernard, F. (2007). How can people be induced to willingly change their behavior? The path from persuasive communication to binding communication. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 493–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, J. M., & Kellaris, J. J. (2004). Cross-national differences in proneness to scarcity effects: The moderating roles of familiarity, uncertainty avoidance, and need for cognitive closure. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 739–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JunIT. (2016). Alles über Hass auf Facebook – JunIT | Kanzlei für IT- und Wirtschaftsrecht. https://www.junit.de/facebook-hate-speech/554-faq-zu-fake-news-und-recht. Zugegriffen: 15. Nov. 2019.

  • Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzev, R., Edelsack, L., Steinmetz, G., & Walker, T. (1978). The effect of reprimanding transgressions on subsequent helping behavior: Two field experiments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 126–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., & Gutierres, S. E. (1980). Contrast effects and judgments of physical attractiveness: When beauty becomes a social problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., Montello, D. R., Gutierres, S. E., & Trost, M. R. (1993). Effects of physical attractiveness on affect and perceptual judgments: When social comparison overrides social reinforcement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 195–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenworthy, J. B., & Miller, N. (2001). Perceptual asymmetry in consensus estimates of majority and minority members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 597–612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, T., Neumann, J., Mummendey, A., Berthold, A., Schubert, T., & Waldzus, S. (2010). How do we assign punishment? The impact of minimal and maximal standards on the evaluation of deviants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1213–1224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, C. A., & Sakumura, J. (1971). A test of a model for commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 349–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilham, W., & Mann, L. (1974). Level of destructive obedience as a function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 696–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klauer, K. C., Herfordt, J., & Voss, A. (2008). Social presence effects on the Stroop task: Boundary conditions and an alternative account. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 469–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer, S. M., & Mosler, H. J. (2010). Persuasion factors influencing the decision to use sustainable household water treatment. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 20, 61–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W. (1987). Blame-placing schemata and attributional research. In C. F. Graumann & S. Moscovici (Hrsg.), Changing conceptions of conspiracy (S. 219–229). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 395–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwahk, K.-Y., & Ge, X. (2012). The effects of social media on e-commerce: A perspective of social impact theory. In 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (S. 1814–1823). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laskey, H. A., & Fox, R. J. (1994). Investigating the impact of executional style on television commercial effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 34, 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B., & L’Herrou, T. (1996). Spatial clustering in the conformity game: Dynamic social impact in electronic groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1218–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E.-J. (2004). Effects of gendered character representation on person perception and informational Social influence in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 779–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefkowitz, M., Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1955). Status factors in pedestrian violation of traffic signals. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 704–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2006). Social norms approaches using descriptive drinking norms education: A review of the research on personalized normative feedback. Journal of American College Health, 54, 213–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 117–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, G. F. (1955). Behavior in a selling group. Boston: Irvin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, M. (1989). Scarcity effects on desirability: Mediated by assumed expensiveness? Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maass, A., & Clark, R. D. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maassen, I. T. H. M., Kremers, S. P. J., Mudde, A. N., & Joof, B. M. (2004). Smoking initiation among Gambian adolescents: Social cognitive influences and the effect of cigarette sampling. Health Education Research, 19, 551–560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mantell, D. M. (1971). The potential for violence in Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 27, 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 280–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (2003). Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect on academic self-concept: A cross-cultural (26-country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58, 364–376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Causal effects of academic self-concept on academic achievement: Structural equation models of longitudinal data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2001). Reunification of East and West German school systems: Longitudinal multilevel modeling study of the big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 321–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., Hewstone, M., & Martin, P. Y. (2003). Resistance to persuasive messages as a function of majority and minoriy source status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 585–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000a). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social marketing. American Psychologist, 55, 531–537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000b). New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 543–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meeus, W. H. J., & Raaijmakers, Q. A. W. (1995). Obedience in modern society: The Utrecht studies. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meierhofer, R., & Landolt, G. (2009). Factors supporting the sustained use of solar water disinfection – Experiences from a global promotion and dissemination programme. Desalination, 248, 144–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, J. W., Blommel, J. M., Brocato, R. M., Linkous, R. A., & Rowe, J. S. (1982). Social facilitation and inhibition in a natural setting. Replications in Social Psychology, 2, 21–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, O. (1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 79–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteil, J. M., & Huguet, P. (1999). Social context and cognitive performance: Towards a social psychology of cognition. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Hrsg.), Handbook of social psychology (Bd. 2, S. 347–412). New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S. (1994). Three concepts: Minority, conflict, and behavioral style. In S. Moscovici, A. Mucchi-Faina, & A. Maass (Hrsg.), Minority influence (S. 233–251). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S., & Lage, E. (1976). Studies in social influence. III: Majority versus minority influence in a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 149–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S., & Nemeth, C. (1974). Studies in social influence. II: Minority influence. In C. Nemeth (Hrsg.), Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations (S. 217–249). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mugny, G. (1975). Negotiations, image of the other, and the process of minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mühlberger, A., Wieser, M. J., Gerdes, A. B. M., Frey, M. C. M., Weyers, P., & Pauli, P. (2011). Stop looking angry and smile, please: Start and stop of the very same facial expression differentially activate threat- and reward-related brain networks. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6, 321–329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, D., Atzeni, T., & Butera, F. (2004). Coaction and upward social comparison reduce the illusory conjunction effect: Support for distraction-conflict theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 659–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, D. A., Luepker, R. V., Johnson, C. A., & Mittelmark, M. B. (1984). The prevention of cigarette smoking in children: A comparison of four strategies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 274–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J. (1977). Interactions between jurors as a function of majority versus unanimity decision rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 38–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition, 13, 273–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J., & Chiles, C. (1988). Modeling courage: The role of dissent in fostering independence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 275–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J., & Kwan, J. L. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 786–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J., & Owens, P. (1996). Making work groups more effective: The value of minority dissent. In M. West (Hrsg.), Handbook of work group psychology (S. 125–141). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Individualism-collectivism as a boundary condition for effectiveness of minority influence in decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 198–225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nida, S. A., & Koon, J. (1983). They get better looking at closing time around here, too. Psychological Reports, 52, 657–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913–923.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nosanchuk, T. A., & Lightstone, J. (1974). Canned laughter and public and private conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 153–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, J. E., & Wood, T. J. (2014). Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style(s) of mass opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 952–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallak, M. S., Cook, D. A., & Sullivan, J. J. (1980). Commitment and energy conversation. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 1, 235–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascual, A., & Gueguen, N. (2005). Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face: A comparative meta-analytic study. Psychological Reports, 96, 122–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual, A., Carpenter, C. J., Guéguen, N., & Girandola, F. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the low-ball compliance-gaining procedure. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 66, 261–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patch, M. E., Hoang, V. R., & Stahelski, A. J. (1997). The use of metacommunication in compliance: Door-in-the-face and single-request strategies. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 88–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J. W., Dyer, M. A., Caulkins, R. S., Litowicz, D. L., Ackerman, P. L., & Anderson, D. B. (1979). Don’t the girls get prettier at closing time: A country and western application to psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 122–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perloff, R. M. (2014). Social media effects on young women’s body image concerns: theoretical perspectives and an agenda for research. Sex Roles, 71, 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). Normative and informational influences in online political discussions. Communication Theory, 16, 47–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purvis, J. A., Dabbs, J. M., & Hopper, C. H. (1984). The “opener”: Skilled user of facial expression and speech pattern. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 61–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raßmus, S. (5. Mai 2014). Best Practice Social Media: Wie die Bahn vom „Chef-Ticket“ lernte. Upload Magazin: E-Business, Online-Marketing, Social Media. https://upload-magazin.de/blog/8793-best-practice-social-media-db-bahn/. Zugegriffen: 27. Okt. 2017.

  • Reese, G., Loeschinger, D. C., Hamann, K., & Neubert, S. (2013). Sticker in the box! Object-person distance and descriptive norms as means to reduce waste. Ecopsychology, 5, 146–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reese, G., Loew, K., & Steffgen, G. (2014). A towel less: Social norms enhance pro-environmental behavior in hotels. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 97–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, R. A., Baker, G. A., Boyd, J. G., & Cialdini, R. B. (1991). The door-in-the-face technique: Reciprocal concessions versus self-presentational explanations. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 545–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2011). After shock? Towards a social identity explanation of the Milgram “obedience” studies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 163–169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 104–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, K. J., Subašić, E., & Tindall, K. (2015). The problem of behaviour change: From social norms to an ingroup focus. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochat, F., & Modigliani, A. (1995). The ordinary quality of resistance: From Milgram’s laboratory to the village of Le Chambon. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & Stoess, C. (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 8, 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574–586.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salchegger, S. (2016). Selective school systems and academic self-concept: How explicit and implicit school-level tracking relate to the big-fish-little-pond effect across cultures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 405–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, G. S., Baron, R. S., & Moore, D. L. (1978). Distraction and social comparison as mediators of social facilitation effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 291–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R., Dlugolecki, D. W., & Doherty, K. (1994). The impact of self-presentations on self-appraisals and behavior: The power of public commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms: Research article. Psychological Science, 18, 429–434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N. (1984). When reactance effects persist despite restoration of freedom: Investigations of time delay and vicarious control. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 405–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzwald, J., Raz, N., & Zvibel, M. (1979). The application of the door-in-the-face technique when established behavioral customs exist. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 576–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seta, C. E., & Seta, J. J. (1995). When audience presence is enjoyable: The influences of audience awareness of prior success on performance and task interest. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, J. (2003). Automatic for the people: How representations of significant others implicitly affect goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 661–681.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1977). A behavioral study of obedience in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 530–536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, D., Booth, R., Brown, R., & Huguet, P. (2010). Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 52–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27, 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, D. M., & Heerey, E. A. (2011). The value of genuine and polite smiles. Emotion, 11, 169–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2. Aufl.). London: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Do as we say and as we do: The interplay of descriptive and injunctive group norms in the attitude-behaviour relationship. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 647–666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. M., Tindale, R. S., & Dugoni, B. L. (1996). Minority and majority influence in freely interacting groups: Quatlitative versus quantitative differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smolowe, J. (26. November 1990). Contents require immediate attention. Time, S. 64. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,971768,00.html.

  • Spence, K. W. (1956). Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Suedfeld, P., Bochner, S., & Matas, C. (1971). Petitioner’s attire and petition signing by peace demonstrators: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 278–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in organizations. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Hrsg.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Bd. 3, S. 31–58). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesser, A., Campbell, J. D., & Mickler, S. (1983). The role of social pressure, attention to the stimulus, and self-doubt in conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uehara, E. S. (1995). Reciprocity reconsidered: Gouldner’s “moral norm of reciprocity” and social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 483–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Lange, P. A. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 337–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varava, K. A., & Quick, B. L. (2015). Adolescents and movie ratings: Is psychological reactance a theoretical explanation for the forbidden fruit effect? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 59, 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhallen, T. M. M., & Robben, H. S. J. (1995). Scarcity and preference: An experiment on unavailability and product evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15, 315–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vonk, R., & van Knippenberg, A. (1995). Processing attitude statements from in-group and out-group members: Effects of within-group and within-person inconsistencies on reading times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Walster, G. W., Piliavin, J., & Schmidt, L. (1973). “Playing hard to get”: Understanding an elusive phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., Brownstein, R., & Katzer, R. (1989). Promoting charitable behavior with compliance techniques. Applied Psychology, 38, 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Yu, C., & Wei, Y. (2012). Social media peer communication and impacts on purchase intentions: A consumer socialization framework. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 198–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whatley, M. A., Webster, J. M., Smith, R. H., & Rhodes, A. (1999). The effect of a favor on public and private compliance: How internalized is the norm of reciprocity? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 251–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S. C., DeMarree, K. G., & Petty, R. E. (2014). Understanding prime-to-behavior effects: Insights from the active-self account. Social Cognition, 32, 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilder, D. A. (1977). Perception of groups, size of opposition, and social influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilder, D. A. (1978). Homogeneity of jurors: The majority’s influence depends upon their perceived independence. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 363–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. B., Radefeld, P. S., Binning, J. F., & Sudak, J. R. (1993). When job candidates are “hard-” versus “easy-to-get”: Effects of candidate availability on employment decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 169–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, P. L. (2006). The impact of normative message types on off-trail hiking. Journal of Interpretation Research, 11, 35–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W., Pool, G. J., Leck, K., & Purvis, D. (1996). Self-definition, defensive processing, and influence: The normative impact of majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1181–1193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Woodside, A. D., & Davenport, J. B. (1974). The effect of salesman similarity and expertise on consumer purchasing behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 198–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worchel, S., Arnold, S. E., & Baker, M. (1975a). The effect of censorship on attitude change: The influence of censor and communicator characteristics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 222–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worchel, S., Lee, J., & Adewole, A. (1975b). Effects of supply and demand on ratings of object value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 906–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wortman, C. B., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1977). Interpersonal attraction and techniques of ingratiation in organizational settings. In B. N. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Hrsg.), New directions in organizational behavior (S. 133–178). Chicago: St. Clair Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zdaniuk, B., & Levine, J. M. (1996). Anticipated interaction and thought generation: The role of faction size. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellinger, D. A., Fromkin, H. L., Speller, D. E., & Kohn, C. A. (1975). A commodity theory analysis of the effects of age restrictions on pornographic materials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 94–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., Zigon, R., & Fett, T. (2004). Source consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus: The three dimensions of the Kelley ANOVA model in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 352–364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zou, X., Tam, K.-P., Morris, M. W., Lee, S., Lau, I. Y.-M., & Chiu, C. (2009). Culture as common sense: Perceived consensus versus personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 579–597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fachgebiet Wirtschafts- und Organisationspsychologie, Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Deutschland

    Lioba Werth

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norwegen

    Beate Seibt

  3. Zentrum für Soziales und Ökonomisches Verhalten (C-SEB), Universität zu Köln, Köln, Deutschland

    Jennifer Mayer

Authors
  1. Lioba Werth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beate Seibt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lioba Werth .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Werth, L., Seibt, B., Mayer, J. (2020). Sozialer Einfluss. In: Sozialpsychologie – Der Mensch in sozialen Beziehungen. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53899-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53899-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-53898-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-53899-9

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation