Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Social Psychology pp 291–318Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Social Influence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Traditionally, social influence has been defined as the ‘process whereby attitudes and behaviour are influenced by the real or imagined presence of other people’ (Hogg and Vaughan, p. 236). Social psychologists have distinguished between three forms of social influence: compliance, conformity and obedience. In this chapter, we review some of the most influential studies in the field, before moving on to consider critical reactions to this area of research, and alternatives proposed by critical social psychologists. In particular, we will suggest that by looking at how people use language we can recast what we understand by social influence.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the transcripts of Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments, numbers in parentheses indicate timed silences; comments in double parentheses are transcribers’ notes.

References

  • Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arber, A. (2008). Team meetings in specialist palliative care: Asking questions as a strategy within interprofessional interaction. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 1323–1335. doi:10.1177/1049732308322588.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Transcript notation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “behavioural study of obedience”. American Psychologist, 19, 421–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumrind, D. (2013). Is Milgram’s deceptive research ethically acceptable? Theoretical and Applied Ethics, 2, 1–18. doi:10.1353/tha.2013.0012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauvois, J.-L., Courbet, D., & Oberlé, D. (2012). The prescriptive power of the television host. A transposition of Milgram’s obedience paradigm to the context of a TV game show. European Review of Applied Psychology, 62, 111–119. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2012.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D. J., & Radley, A. R. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, S. S., & Kassin, S. M. (1996). Social psychology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11. doi:10.1037/a0010931.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. M., Girgis, Z. M., & Manning, C. M. (2011). In their own words: Explaining obedience to authority through an examination of participants’ comments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 460–466. doi:10.1177/1948550610397632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromby, J., & Willis, M. (2011). England’s dreaming? UK critical psychology, 2011. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 10, http://www.discourseunit.com/arcp10/United%20Kingdom%20932-951.pdf

  • Dambrun, M., & Vatiné, E. (2010). Reopening the study of extreme social behaviors: Obedience to authority within an immersive video environment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 760–773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danziger, K. (1992). The project of an experimental social psychology: Historical perspectives. Science in Context, 5, 309–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolinski, D. (2000). On inferring one’s beliefs from one’s attempt and consequences for subsequent compliance. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78, 260–272. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D. (1999). Emotion discourse. Culture & Psychology, 5, 271–291. doi:10.1177/1354067X9953001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D. (2005). Discursive psychology. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language & social interaction (pp. 257–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faye, C. (2012). American social psychology: Examining the contours of the 1970s crisis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 514–521.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 47, 382–389. doi:10.1037/h0057906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figgou, L. (2013). Essentialism, historical construction, and social influence: Representations of Pomakness in majority talk in Western Thrace (Greece). British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 686–702. doi:10.1111/bjso.12002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., Harris, L. T., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2004). Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners. Science, 306, 1482–1483. doi:10.1126/science.1103788.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 4, 195–202. doi:10.1037/h0023552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 26, 309–320. doi:10.1037/h0034436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.3.266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, S. (2013a). Milgram’s obedience experiments: A rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 290–309. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02070.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, S. (2013b). ‘The last possible resort’: A forgotten prod and the in situ standardization of Stanley Milgram’s voice-feedback condition. History of Psychology, 16, 177–194. doi:10.1037/a0032430.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, S. (2014). Discourse, defiance and rationality: ‘Knowledge work’ in the ‘obedience’ experiments. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 424–438. doi:10.1111/josi.12069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, S. (2015). Rhetoric and resistance. The Psychologist, 28, 648–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, S. (2016). Re-visiting Milgram: Developing psychology’s archival sensibilities. Qualitative Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/qup0000040

  • Gough, B., McFadden, M., & McDonald, M. (2013). Critical social psychology: An introduction (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R., & Secord, P. F. (1972). The explanation of social behaviour. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 615–622. doi:10.1177/0146167206298570.

    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. doi:10.1111/josi.12072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Millard, K., & McDonald, R. (2015). ‘Happy to have been of service’: The Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 55–83. doi:10.1111/bjso.12074.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, D., & Hegarty, P. (2015). A genealogy of postmodern subjects: Discourse analysis and late capitalism. Theory & Psychology, 25, 369–387. doi:10.1177/0959354314553966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Unwin, C., Venn, C., & Walkerdine, V. (1984). Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2011). Threats: Power, family mealtimes, and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 99–120. doi:10.1348/014466610X500791.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, B. H., & Geyer, A. L. (2006). A nonconformist account of the Asch experiments: Values, pragmatics, and moral dilemmas. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10, 2–19. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2011). Social psychology (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, M. M. (2015). The repertoire of resistance: Non-compliance with directives in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 425–444. doi:10.1111/bjso.12099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horton-Salway, M. (2007). The ‘ME bandwagon’ and other labels: Constructing the genuine case in talk about a controversial illness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 895–914. doi:10.1348/014466607X173456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel, J., & Tajfel, H. (1972). The context of social psychology: A critical assessment. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S. B. (2011). Military social influence in the global information environment: A civilian primer. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 11, 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2010.01214.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lankford, A. (2009). Promoting aggression and violence at Abu Ghraib: The U.S. military’s transformation of ordinary people into torturers. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 14, 388–395. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Bon, G. (1895, trans. 1947). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. London: Ernest Benn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millard, K. (2014). Revisioning obedience: Exploring the role of Milgram’s skills as a filmmaker in bringing his shocking narrative to life. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 439–455. doi:10.111/josi.12070.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57–76. doi:10.1177/001872676501800105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. G. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. G. (2004). What can the Milgram experiments tell us about the Holocaust? Generalizing from the social psychology laboratory. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 193–239). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mixon, D. (1989). Obedience and civilization. London: Pluto.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420060202.

    Article  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. doi:10.2307/2786541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S., & Marková, I. (2006). The making of modern social psychology: The hidden story of how an international social science was created. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, I. (2011). “Torture at Yale”: Experimental subjects, laboratory torment and the “rehabilitation” of Milgram’s “Obedience to Authority”. Theory and Psychology, 21, 737–761. doi:10.1177/0959354311420199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. C. (1968). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6, 282–293.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, G. (2012). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments. Brunswick, Australia: Scribe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pina e Cunha, M., Rego, A., & Clegg, S. R. (2010). Obedience and evil: From Milgram and Kampuchea to normal organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 291–309. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0510-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behaviour: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238–259. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor—A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reicher, S. D. (1984). The St. Pauls’ riot: An explanation of the limits of crowd action in terms of a social identity model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 1–21. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420140102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 1–40. doi:10.1348/014466605X48998.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reicher, S., & Stott, C. (2011). Mad mobs & Englishmen? Myths and realities of the 2011 riots. London: Constable & Robinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ring, K. (1967). Experimental social psychology: Some sober questions about some frivolous values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 113–123. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(67)90016-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self (2nd ed.). London: Free Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, N. J. C. (2011). Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments: Origins and early evolution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 140–162. doi:10.1348/014466610X492205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, N. (2014). The emergence of Milgram’s bureaucratic machine. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 409–423. doi:10.1111/josi.12068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samelson, F. (1986). Authoritarianism from Berlin to Berkeley: On social psychology and history. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 191–208. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986.tb00216.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, J. P., & Young, M. (2007). The routes of moral development and the impact of exposure to the Milgram obedience study. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 315–333. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9255-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M. (1966). The psychology of social norms (Torchbook ed.). New York: Harper and Row (Original work published 1936).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., et al. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLOS One, 1, e39. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Slutkin, G. (2011, August 14). Rioting is a disease spread from person to person—the key is to stop the infection. The Observer. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/14/rioting-disease-spread-from-person-to-person

  • Smart, C. A. (2014). Understanding social influence differently: A discursive study of livery yards. Doctoral thesis, The Open University, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, C. (2004). Cultural standing in expression of opinion. Language in Society, 33, 161–194. doi:10.1017/S004740450433201X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1972). Experiments in a vacuum. In J. Israel & H. Tajfel (Eds.), The context of social psychology: A critical assessment (pp. 69–119). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, M. (2007). A step too far: Discursive psychology, linguistic ethnography and questions of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11, 661–681. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00345.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeigler-Hill, V., Southard, A. C., Archer, L. M., & Donohoe, P. L. (2013). Neuroticism and negative affect influence the reluctance to engage in destructive obedience in the Milgram paradigm. Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 161–174. doi:10.1080/00224545.2012.713041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17, 237–307.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. York St John University, York, UK

    Stephen Gibson

  2. Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK

    Cordet Smart

Authors
  1. Stephen Gibson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cordet Smart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK

    Brendan Gough

Appendix

Appendix

The transcripts from the livery yard study are presented in an abbreviated form of Gail Jefferson’s conventions, which are widely used in conversation analysis and discursive psychology. The conventions described below are amalgamated and adapted from descriptions provided in Atkinson and Heritage (1984), Hutchby and Wooffitt (2008, pp. x–xi) and Wooffitt (2005, pp. 211–212):

(.2)

Number in brackets indicates a time gap in tenths of a second.

(.)

A dot enclosed in brackets indicates a pause in the talk of less than two-tenths of a second.

I [see]

[see]

Square brackets are used to show where talk overlaps, these are aligned to show where overlap starts and finishes.

.hhh

In-breath.

:

Colons indicate that the speaker has stretched the preceding sound or letter.

(boot)

Indicates speech that is difficult to make out.

,

A comma indicates a slight fall in tone.

↑↓

Pointed arrows indicate a marked falling or rising intonational shift. They are placed immediately before the onset of the shift.

° °

Degree signs are used to indicate that the talk they encompass is spoken noticeably quieter than the surrounding talk.

< >

‘Less than’ and ‘more than’ signs are used to enclose talk that is slower than the surrounding talk. Where these face the other way, they denote faster talk.

Key References

Arber, A. (2008). Team meetings in specialist palliative care: Asking questions as a strategy within interprofessional interaction. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 1323–1335. doi:10.1177/1049732308322588

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

Gibson, S. (2013a). Milgram’s obedience experiments: A rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 290–309.

Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2011). Threats: Power, family mealtimes and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 99–120.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gibson, S., Smart, C. (2017). Social Influence. In: Gough, B. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Social Psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51018-1_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation