Advertisement

Sozialer Einfluss

Chapter
  • 12k Downloads

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.

Literatur

  1. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aiello, J. R., & Kolb, K. J. (1995). Electronic monitoring and social context: Impact on productivity and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 339–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1082–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allen, V. L. (1965). Conformity and the role of deviant. Journal of Personality, 33, 584–597.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Allen, V. L., & Levine, J. M. (1969). Consensus and conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Allison, P. D. (1992). The cultural evolution of beneficent norms. Social Forces, 71, 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70, 1–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Asch, S. E. (1965). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Axsom, D., Yates, S., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bantimaroudis, P. (2016). “Chemtrails” in the sky: Toward a group-mediated delusion theory. Studies in Media and Communication, 4, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bickman, L. (1974). The social power of a uniform. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Blass, T. (1996). Attribution of responsibility and trust in the Milgram obedience experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1529–1535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Bohner, G., & Schlüter, L. E. (2014). A room with a viewpoint revisited: Descriptive norms and hotel guests’ towel reuse behavior. PLoS One, 9, e106606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  36. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Butter, M. (2018). “Nichts ist, wie es scheint” – Über Verschwörungstheorien. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  46. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effects of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 62–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: Science and practice. New York: Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  54. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Clark, R. D. (1999a). Effect of number of majority defectors on minority influence. Group Dynamics, 3, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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
  68. Clark, R. D., & Maass, A. (1990). The effects of majority size on minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Darley, J. M. (1995). Constructive and destructive obedience: A taxonomy of principal-agent relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 125–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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
  75. Decker, O., Kiess, J., & Brähler, E. (Hrsg.). (2016). Die enthemmte Mitte. Autoritäre und rechtsextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.Google Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Dillard, J. P. (1991). The current status of research on sequential-request compliance techniques. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Eastwick, P. W., & Gardner, W. L. (2008). Is it a game? Evidence for social influence in the virtual world. Social Influence, 4, 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Evans, F. B. (1963). Selling as a dyadic relationship. American Behavioral Scientist, 6, 76–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Felser, G. (2001). Werbe- und Konsumentenpsychologie. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer.Google Scholar
  88. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Fiske, S. T. (2010). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  90. 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
  91. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Freedman, J. L. (1965). Long-term behavioral effects of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Frenzen, J. R., & Davis, H. L. (1990). Purchasing behavior in embedded markets. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Friedman, H. H., & Fireworker, R. B. (1977). The susceptibility of consumers to unseen group influence. The Journal of Social Psychology, 102, 155–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Gadel, M. S. (1964). Concentration by salesmen on congenial prospects. Journal of Marketing, 28, 64–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Gerard, H. B., Wilhelmy, R. A., & Conolley, E. S. (1968). Conformity and group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 79–82.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Girandola, F. (2002a). Foot-in-the-door technique and computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Girandola, F. (2002b). Sequential requests and organ donation. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 171–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Gleich, U. (2000a). Aktuelle Ergebnisse aus der Werbeforschung. Media Perspektiven, 6, 266–273.Google Scholar
  107. Gleich, U. (2000b). ARD-Forschungsdienst: Werbewirkung – Gestaltungseffekte und Rezipientenreaktionen. Media Perspektiven, 1, 40–46.Google Scholar
  108. Godfrey, D. R., Jones, E. E., & Lord, C. C. (1986). Selfpromotion is not ingratiating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 106–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 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
  113. Graumann, C. F., & Moscovici, S. (1987). Changing conceptions of conspiracy. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  115. Griggs, R. A. (2016). Milgram’s obedience study: A contentious classic reinterpreted. Teaching of Psychology, 44, 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  118. Guerin, B. (1986). Mere presence effects in humans: A review. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 38–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Guerin, B. (1993). Social facilitation. European monographs in social psychology. New York: Cambrigde University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Hamilton, V. L. (1978). Obedience and responsibility: A jury simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 126–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Heerey, E. A., & Crossley, H. M. (2013). Predictive and reactive mechanisms in smile reciprocity. Psychological Science, 24, 1446–1455.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  127. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  133. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  134. Imhoff, R., & Bruder, M. (2014). Speaking (Un-)truth to power: Conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude. European Journal of Personality, 28, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  137. James, J. M., & Bolstein, R. R. (1992). Large monetary incentives and their effect on mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 442–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Joseph, N., & Alex, N. (1972). The uniform: A sociological perspective. American Journal of Sociology, 77, 719–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 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.
  143. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  148. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  149. Kiesler, C. A., & Sakumura, J. (1971). A test of a model for commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 349–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  151. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  153. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 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
  156. 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
  157. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  161. 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
  162. Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Lombard, G. F. (1955). Behavior in a selling group. Boston: Irvin.Google Scholar
  165. Lynn, M. (1989). Scarcity effects on desirability: Mediated by assumed expensiveness? Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Maass, A., & Clark, R. D. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  168. Mantell, D. M. (1971). The potential for violence in Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 27, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Marsh, H. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 280–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  171. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000a). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social marketing. American Psychologist, 55, 531–537.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  176. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Meeus, W. H. J., & Raaijmakers, Q. A. W. (1995). Obedience in modern society: The Utrecht studies. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 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
  180. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  182. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Monteil, J. M., & Huguet, P. (1999). Social context and cognitive performance: Towards a social psychology of cognition. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  184. Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  185. 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
  186. 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
  187. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 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
  189. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  190. Mugny, G. (1975). Negotiations, image of the other, and the process of minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  192. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Nemeth, C. J. (1977). Interactions between jurors as a function of majority versus unanimity decision rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Nemeth, C. J. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition, 13, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Nemeth, C. J., & Chiles, C. (1988). Modeling courage: The role of dissent in fostering independence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. Nemeth, C. J., & Kwan, J. L. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 786–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. 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
  200. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Nida, S. A., & Koon, J. (1983). They get better looking at closing time around here, too. Psychological Reports, 52, 657–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Nosanchuk, T. A., & Lightstone, J. (1974). Canned laughter and public and private conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Pallak, M. S., Cook, D. A., & Sullivan, J. J. (1980). Commitment and energy conversation. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 1, 235–253.Google Scholar
  206. Pascual, A., & Gueguen, N. (2005). Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face: A comparative meta-analytic study. Psychological Reports, 96, 122–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). Normative and informational influences in online political discussions. Communication Theory, 16, 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. 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.
  214. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. 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
  217. Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  221. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  224. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  226. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  227. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  229. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  232. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  233. Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1977). A behavioral study of obedience in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 530–536.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  234. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  235. Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27, 1–60.Google Scholar
  236. Shore, D. M., & Heerey, E. A. (2011). The value of genuine and polite smiles. Emotion, 11, 169–174.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  237. Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2. Aufl.). London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  238. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  239. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  240. Smolowe, J. (26. November 1990). Contents require immediate attention. Time, S. 64. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,971768,00.html.
  241. Spence, K. W. (1956). Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  242. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  243. 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
  244. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  245. Uehara, E. S. (1995). Reciprocity reconsidered: Gouldner’s “moral norm of reciprocity” and social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 483–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  246. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  247. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  248. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  249. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  250. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  251. Wang, T., Brownstein, R., & Katzer, R. (1989). Promoting charitable behavior with compliance techniques. Applied Psychology, 38, 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  252. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  253. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  254. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  255. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  256. Wilder, D. A. (1977). Perception of groups, size of opposition, and social influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  257. Wilder, D. A. (1978). Homogeneity of jurors: The majority’s influence depends upon their perceived independence. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  258. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  259. Winter, P. L. (2006). The impact of normative message types on off-trail hiking. Journal of Interpretation Research, 11, 35–52.Google Scholar
  260. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  261. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  262. 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
  263. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  264. 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
  265. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  266. Zdaniuk, B., & Levine, J. M. (1996). Anticipated interaction and thought generation: The role of faction size. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  267. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  268. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  269. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachgebiet Wirtschafts- und OrganisationspsychologieUniversität HohenheimStuttgartDeutschland
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OsloOsloNorwegen
  3. 3.Zentrum für Soziales und Ökonomisches Verhalten (C-SEB)Universität zu KölnKölnDeutschland

Personalised recommendations