Can People Resist Normative and Informational Social Influence - Essay Example

Title: Can people resist normative and informational social influence Name Institution Date of submission Can people resist normative and influential social influence? Social influence is the process where behaviours and attitudes of individuals are shaped by the existence of others (Baumeister & Bushman, 2014). Social influence often leads to conformity where individuals have to adapt to them in order to be accepted and be adored. This process happens as a result two practices which are conformity and obedience. According to Gerrard and Duetsch’s theory, normative influence is based on someone’s desire to be adored by others (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975). Therefore, an individual conform since he/she thinks other people will accept them. Deckner (1975) regarded this type of conformity as compliance. Informational social influence is based on individual’s desire to be right by ‘out-sourcing’ the behaviours of others (Sheriff, 1936). Informational social influence often occurs when individuals have wide experience of ‘situational ambiguity.’ According to Gillespie, (2009) ‘situational ambiguity’ is a state where an individual have difficulty or do not know how to behave in new conditions. Informational social influence may be caused by experts and when an individual is subjected to an emergency. Though there is a criticism on Gerrard and Duestch model which state that normative and informational social influence are independent, however, Kruglanski & Stroebe (2012) claims that for the two practices two practices (conformity and obedience) to be achieved, then the two types of social influence need to act alongside each other. Can individuals resist these influences then? The origin of behaviours and attitudes Psychologists refers attitude as ‘fly wheel’ of social psychology (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975). This means that attitude is an aspect that can subjectively prepare the mind to adapt to an action. It is all about the fitness of the mind to agree or disagree on particular aspects subjected to. Therefore, this derives the scientific definition of attitude to be ‘static movements in the body organs and the brain’ (Kruglanski & Stroebe, 2012). These movements are said to have influence on the behaviours displayed by an individual. In a social concept, attitude is sociologically oriented which makes an individual to exhibit certain behaviour in respond to social objects (individuals and groups) (Forgas & Williams, 2001). For example, when groups frequently express particular attitudes where an individual has direct experience, then there is high likelihood of an individual imitating the behaviours he/she is subjected to. It is therefore far more important to know that since people exist because they are socially conditioned and operate under the notion that groups are more influential than the sum of individuals dependently, then it is difficult to resist either of the influence (Elliot & Keulemans, 1995). It is evident that there is increase in formation of social identities in the contemporary society (Kruglanski & Stroebe, 2012). Social media for example, has created a social platform where individuals can interact and share their opinions regardless of geographical location. People tend to look for opinions from others particularly when making decisions. For example, a phone customer has to look for information from online community about a brand released in the market. At the same time, one can resist from unethical online behaviours after having an experience (Lord, Lee & Choong, 2001). This implies that one can resist from social influence but after partially conforming to the particular aspects subjected to. Looking at the insights of social psychology which is implicated in social exchange and field theory, the power-wielder is recognized to be the same as the target. Individual’s allies in this case will permit the level of influence a member will be subjected to. According to Newborn (1976) an individual only is influenced when the allies induces a force beyond threshold that will overcome individual’s resistance. In other words, to influence an individual, the influencers have to influence the whole group. The similar vein is implied in social exchange theory where the power control is perceived to be contingency dependent and thus the level of influence will depend on the relationship of the dependence (Lord, Lee & Choong, 2001). It is difficult to resist either of social influence when the relationship is strong and if it happens there ought to be alternatives. For example, when it comes to close relationship, a clutch of one partner may loosen if one is attracted to the third party and appears to be easily accessible. Individuals are influenced by others because of their level of dependence on them (Serpell, 1995). According to Elliot & Keulemans (1995), individuals accept influence in order to get social-relational satisfaction and avoid social rejection. The influence makes individuals become included in groups are likely to comply without genuine conversion. This implies that an individuals need to get social approval thus giving rise to normative social influence (Forgas & Williams, 2001). One may resist from normative social influence when the subjects of influence are shallow when it comes to cognitive processing (Gillespie, 2009). An individual will not pay much attention on the message content and the merits of the argument thus perceiving less importance of the outcome of the influence. However, when an individual needs to explore more on social reality and feel the presence of others in the same context, then this leads to informational social influence (Elliot & Keulemans, 1995). It is assumed that people individuals who accept informational social influence often have cognitive motivation (Kruglanski & Stroebe, 2012). This attitude helps them to maintain confidence and reduce hesitation particularly when they anticipate for a genuine change. It is thus difficult to resist this kind of influence since an individual often anticipate for a positive change in their behaviours as reflected by influencers (group in this case). Individuals conform in different ways which include compliance, identification and internalization (Lord, Lee & Choong, 2001). Compliance is when an individual conform to the behaviours of a group without neglecting the private view. Identification is where an individual value his/her membership by adopting group’s views both publicly and privately. Internalization is when an individual convert his/her views in a way that matches the views of a group. Internalization process of conformity does not depend on the existence of a group either but it happens without merely considering an external source (Newborn, 1976). The three types of conformity reflect two situations that subject an individual not to resist to any of the two social influences. One, when it comes to normative social influence, group pressure particularly in unclear situations makes offer less resistance to social influence. This happens when an individual do not comprehend the reality thus making decision based on the unanimous majority. Therefore, an individual conformed to the situation to avoid being left alone and rejected. Two, informational social influence based on the perception that ‘majority always cannot be wrong’ and therefore making an individual adopt the views of public majority (Baumeister & Bushman, 2014). Resistance to social influence varies with the kind of tasks individuals are subjected to in a social context (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975). For instance, prisoners conform to their roles differently depending on individuals’ feelings towards the punishment. Some may be depressed and worried of the uncertainty and others may obey the rules coming from the guards. In this case, when an individual is subjected to an environment with brutal treatment, he/she is likely to conform to social role in which they are expected to perform even when these roles are strongly stereotyped. This implies that the duties that people play in the social context often shape the influencee’s (target) attitudes and behaviour. It is thus difficult to resist the ‘rule of the land’ when an individual is placed in the same context where these roles exist and everyone is conformed to the same. Though in this case there is infliction of harm on an individual, but this does not have long lasting effects to individual’s behaviour and attitudes. The implication to this is that individuals often conform to the roles they are subjected to particularly when these roles are honoured in the society (Deckner, 1975). The desire of an individual to counter appropriately to the vibrant social situations all depends on the accuracy of schemes and perception. There is always the need to react appropriately to the information which is paramount especially if it needs compliance. However, an incorrect behaviour would make an individual being duped that may lead to rejection. In most cases, an individual use feelings when responding to influencers and thus emotions that are related to the goal of the public subjects an individual to compliance as a favour. This creates a simple arousal to an individual when he/she is performing an interesting activity. As a result, it will be difficult to resist due to motivations he/she perceives which boost informational social influence (Forgas & Williams, 2001). As far as individuals continue to look for social norms, it is difficult for them to resist normative or informational social influence (Elliot & Keulemans, 1995). According to Deckner (1975) social norms are found to influence variety of behaviours in countless social domains. It is problematic for an individual to resist from adopting social norms agreed by group in the society. An individual therefore is socially influenced by default because of the obligations attached to these norms to members of society. Sociology researchers found that social norms relevant in the society directly affect individual behaviour particularly when these norms are of focus (Kruglanski & Stroebe, 2012). It is evident that both personal and norms outside oneself affect individual’s behaviour. For example, the strength of individual’s personal norm is likely to influence the whole group and predict the behaviour of the whole group. The group will be left focusing on the internal stimuli rather than external stimuli. In the process, the majority again will win in manipulating individual’s behaviour by making him/her less resistance to influence (Newborn, 1976). Assumed that relevant norms in the society are salient, a congruent behaviour is inhibited by individuals in order to be compliant and avoid rejection. Frequently informative society maintains a continuous communication of behaviours in a wide context that makes an individual resist to social influence. The experimental research by Newborn (1976) showed that connecting injunctive normative information and functional cue perhaps would increase how individuals access relevant norms. This activates informational social influence which is hard to be resisted by individuals because of the same perception they exhibit together with developed attitudes of the groups (Lord, Lee & Choong, 2001). Situational cues sometimes activate heuristics that lead groups to treat strangers in a friendly way (Serpell, 1995). This normally activates a specific mode of communication where an individual is fully accommodated in a group. There will be monologue situation will thus hoist the compliance of an individual thus making him/her to be less resistance to social influence (Elliot & Keulemans, 1995). The role of reciprocation obliges individuals to repay for the actions of others in the society (Baumeister & Bushman, 2014). From since social influence results from two practises: conformity and obedience, then reciprocation a resilient and prevalent social force in relationships. As far as individuals are obliged to the rule of reciprocation, the more it’s hard for them to resist social influence (Forgas & Williams, 2001). According to Gillespie, (2009) the rule of reciprocity tends to operate extensively in public domain where individuals are active agents of socialization. For instance, workers in originations need to perform to the expectations of the organization in order to boost their earnings. In conclusion, it is hard for individuals to resist normative and informational social influence. The lasting fascination of the increasing social cohesion is shaping individuals’ behaviours both in private and public domain. As this review shows, social influence is strongly grounded on social norms and historical measures within the society. The situated nature of social context therefore makes individuals not to resist normative and informational social influence. References Baumeister, R., & Bushman, B. (2014). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Burnkrant, R., & Cousineau, A. (1975). Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior. Journal Of Consumer Research, 206--215. Deckner, C. (1975). Effects of fear appeals and psychological arousal. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 32(2), 220-234. Elliot, D., & Keulemans, J. (1995). A monograph of the Bucerotidae, or family of the hornbills (1st ed.). Seibersbach: Fundacef-Verlag. Forgas, J., & Williams, K. (2001). Social influence (1st ed.). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Gillespie, B. (2009). Machiavelli and the Mayflower (1st ed.). Paris, France: La ReÌmige SARL. Kruglanski, A., & Stroebe, W. (2012). Handbook of the history of social psychology (1st ed.). New York: Psychology Press. Lord, K., Lee, M., & Choong, P. (2001). Differences in normative and informational social influence. Advances In Consumer Research, 28, 280--285. Newborn, R. (1976). Fear appeals and attitude change. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 34(1), 67-82. Serpell, J. (1995). The domestic dog (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More

It is evident that there is increase in formation of social identities in the contemporary society (Kruglanski & Stroebe, 2012). Social media for example, has created a social platform where individuals can interact and share their opinions regardless of geographical location. People tend to look for opinions from others particularly when making decisions. For example, a phone customer has to look for information from online community about a brand released in the market. At the same time, one can resist from unethical online behaviours after having an experience (Lord, Lee & Choong, 2001).

This implies that one can resist from social influence but after partially conforming to the particular aspects subjected to. Looking at the insights of social psychology which is implicated in social exchange and field theory, the power-wielder is recognized to be the same as the target. Individual’s allies in this case will permit the level of influence a member will be subjected to. According to Newborn (1976) an individual only is influenced when the allies induces a force beyond threshold that will overcome individual’s resistance.

In other words, to influence an individual, the influencers have to influence the whole group. The similar vein is implied in social exchange theory where the power control is perceived to be contingency dependent and thus the level of influence will depend on the relationship of the dependence (Lord, Lee & Choong, 2001). It is difficult to resist either of social influence when the relationship is strong and if it happens there ought to be alternatives. For example, when it comes to close relationship, a clutch of one partner may loosen if one is attracted to the third party and appears to be easily accessible.

Individuals are influenced by others because of their level of dependence on them (Serpell, 1995). According to Elliot & Keulemans (1995), individuals accept influence in order to get social-relational satisfaction and avoid social rejection. The influence makes individuals become included in groups are likely to comply without genuine conversion. This implies that an individuals need to get social approval thus giving rise to normative social influence (Forgas & Williams, 2001). One may resist from normative social influence when the subjects of influence are shallow when it comes to cognitive processing (Gillespie, 2009).

An individual will not pay much attention on the message content and the merits of the argument thus perceiving less importance of the outcome of the influence. However, when an individual needs to explore more on social reality and feel the presence of others in the same context, then this leads to informational social influence (Elliot & Keulemans, 1995). It is assumed that people individuals who accept informational social influence often have cognitive motivation (Kruglanski & Stroebe, 2012).

This attitude helps them to maintain confidence and reduce hesitation particularly when they anticipate for a genuine change. It is thus difficult to resist this kind of influence since an individual often anticipate for a positive change in their behaviours as reflected by influencers (group in this case). Individuals conform in different ways which include compliance, identification and internalization (Lord, Lee & Choong, 2001). Compliance is when an individual conform to the behaviours of a group without neglecting the private view.

Identification is where an individual value his/her membership by adopting group’s views both publicly and privately. Internalization is when an individual convert his/her views in a way that matches the views of a group. Internalization process of conformity does not depend on the existence of a group either but it happens without merely considering an external source (Newborn, 1976). The three types of conformity reflect two situations that subject an individual not to resist to any of the two social influences.

One, when it comes to normative social influence, group pressure particularly in unclear situations makes offer less resistance to social influence.

Read More