To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter addresses model specifications for the co-evolution of a social network and a discrete ordinal (or dichotomous) behavior variable. As before, this is done by means of an evaluation function composed of effects. Effects here are functions of the behavior, possibly also the network, as seen from the focal actor. Change statistics here are defined as changes in the value of the effect when the behavior variable is increased by one unit. The chapter defines several effects: first, depending only on the behavior of the focal actor; subsequently, depending on the behavior as well as the network. The latter kind of effect represents social influence or generalized social influence. Before such effects are proposed, it is mentioned that three basic aspects of social influence must be chosen: the reference group, the mechanism of social influence in a dyad, and aggregation over multiple dyads in the reference group. For the mechanism of social influence, a distinction is made between distance reduction (assimilation) and correlational influence. Effects are mentioned for both.
This chapter sets the scene for Part Two of this book by discussing some basic issues for the analysis of interdependent change in networks and in behavior. The first section formulates what is meant by “generalized social influence.” It is proposed to think about “selection,” which refers to network dynamics, and “influence,” which refers to behavior dynamics, as conjugate processes, that is, processes explaining the same cross-sectional association between network and behavior, which should be investigated in tandem. It is also highlighted that to obtain a good model specification, researchers should think about attributes of actors and/or shared context that might cause changes in the network as well as changes in the behavior – so-called confounders.
Interest in social networks – patterns of relations between social actors such as individuals, corporations, and countries – has grown in the last decade, and analysis of longitudinal network data has moved forward strongly. Social networks often change; understanding this process, where changes lead to other changes, requires tools that can uncover the rules driving these changes. In 'Stochastic Actor-Oriented Models for Longitudinal Networks,' Tom A. B. Snijders and Christian Steglich bring together the first comprehensive textbook on the Stochastic Actor-Oriented Model (SAOM), a leading method for analyzing dynamic network data. They present the diverse SAOM variants developed since the 1990s, covering the co-evolution of networks and actor attributes as well as the co-evolution of multiple one-mode and two-mode networks. Providing a foundation for applying the methods as well as advice for problems encountered in practice, this book offers a detailed guide into the best practices of modeling longitudinal network data.
As ethnic diversity increases in Western countries, concerns about negative outgroup attitudes and interethnic polarization are growing. In diverse classrooms, processes such as peer influence and homophilic friend selection contribute to changing outgroup attitudes. This study explores if and when individual attitude shifts driven by these processes might scale up to intergroup hostility in empirical multiethnic school cohorts that initially have a rather positive interethnic climate. Using an agent-based model calibrated with longitudinal network and attitude data, we conduct a series of computational experiments to assess the effects of hypothetical macro-level shocks, such as violent incidents where a minority group is associated with the perpetrators. Our findings indicate that correlational peer influence on attitudes towards Turks, when pushed to extreme parameter values, can over time magnify even small outgroup biases, leading to interethnic hostility. This dynamic is accelerated under strong ethnic homophily. We further provide a detailed analysis of how these results emerge from the empirical context and the interacting processes modeled.
Social anxiety is characterized by fear and avoidance of social situations, yet many everyday decisions are made in the presence of others and are shaped by social influence. However, the influences of social anxiety on social decision-making and the underlying neural processes are not well understood.
Methods
Fifty-five adults with varying levels of social anxiety completed a social risk decision-making task during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). In each trial, participants chose between a safe option and a risky gamble against either a human or a computer opponent, with or without information about others’ choices. Social influence on choice was quantified using repeated-measures analyses and drift–diffusion modeling, while brain activity and functional connectivity were examined using whole-brain analyses.
Results
Compared to individuals with lower social anxiety, those with higher social anxiety showed reduced conformity to others’ risky choices, specifically when interacting with human, but not computer, opponents, together with a stronger starting-point bias toward safe options. These behavioral differences were accompanied by lower dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) activation and stronger dlPFC–temporoparietal junction (TPJ) functional connectivity.
Conclusions
Social anxiety is associated with decreased social approach and reduced social influence from others in social decision contexts. Decreased activation of the prefrontal control system and its increased interactions with the social brain network point toward a conflict between heightened social monitoring and inefficient executive control. By distinguishing social-context effects from general risk aversion, this study provides a refined mechanistic framework for understanding how impaired regulatory control shapes maladaptive social decision-making in social anxiety.
Using data from an experiment carried out by a large nonprofit organization, this paper finds that lapsed donors who received a solicitation letter referencing a relatively high donation made by another donor (high social information) were more generous in giving, but overall less likely to make a donation, relative to the baseline (low social information) group. After using the propensity score matching to correct for pretreatment differences in the two experimental groups, the estimated effect of high social information on the average donation amount is an increase of $14.95 (45 %). However, high social information is also found to reduce the probability a lapsed donor will give by 4.1 %. Thus, high social information can have potentially offsetting effects when applied to lapsed donors. Nonprofits should consider this trade-off when employing social information fundraising techniques to solicit donations from lapsed donors.
Giving circles and alumni campaigns are popular forms of nonprofit fund-raising practice that may lead to positive peer effects that promote charitable giving among similar individuals. However, do individuals always give more in the presence of similar others? Most research finds a positive social influence among similar individuals in donor–solicitor and donor–recipient dyads. However, in donor–donor dyads, the effects of social influence on charitable giving are mixed. Individuals’ giving can be positively or negatively affected by other donors’ giving. This systematic literature review (35 eligible studies) investigates how individuals’ charitable giving is affected by the giving of others. Its major contribution is to extend the previous literature by proposing a new mechanism of decision making in charitable giving through an important psychological construct (similarity). It also identifies five critical factors that could help to explain inconsistent findings of similarity effects on two measures of charitable giving (giving propensity and giving amount). It also contributes to identifying a literature gap, suggesting future research directions, and providing important implications to fund-raising practice.
The first chapter offers a genealogy of the idea of genesis in various philosophers and social scientists starting from the pre-socratics up to the recent work of late Gerard Duveen. The vision of genetic social psychology and key theoretical influences are discussed in detail. The triadic model of subject-object-other is the unit of analysis of this proposal, and an articulation of different levels of analysis is proposed in our effort to understand the relationship between the process of microgenesis, ontogenesis and sociogenesis. It highlights the importance of the work of Hans Furth and Lucien Goldmann as key influences on Gerard Duveen and his own vision of an integrative social developmental psychology that combines ideas from Piaget and Moscovici. In this chapter I also discuss the work of other researchers interested in ideas relating to these two great theorists of the social sciences.
Part II sets out and elaborates a new theory of chilling effects – a conformity theory – a central contribution of the book. Chapter 3, the first chapter in Part II, lays the theoretical and empirical foundation for this new understanding by connecting chilling effects with a broader body of social science and behavioral theory, in particular, research on social influence, like conformity and compliance. The author begins with an illustration of the power of extralegal social surveillance, convention, and norms to police behavior – at times more effective than laws – and the role of conformity and compliance in these contexts.
Chapter 5 builds on the insights of the previous chapter by considering the outcomes of identity projects in collective terms. It introduces the notion of social representations, which refers to group-based variable construals of objects and elements in the environment. It proposes that social representations are fabricated to suit particular projects that serve the interests of group members, who sign up to the task to fulfil their identified aspirations. These projects acquire political moment as they compete with other similarly interested projects proposed by other groups in pluralistic settings. It concludes by considering the salience of social influence strategies in contemporary democratic publics, as variably interested parties strive for legitimation of their projects and recognition for their collective ambitions.
Amnon Rapoport made seminal contributions to research on investment decision-making and individual decision-making under risk. To build on his seminal work, this paper explores the impact of social influence on risk-taking. First, to build predictions for experimental testing, we modify a standard expected utility model by introducing a social norm variable. Using a standard 10-decision paired lottery choice task, we report the results from three experiments with different manipulations to test whether social influence information affects subjects’ own lottery choices. In Experiment 1, we find that participants are more likely to switch to choosing the risky option earlier if they are told that a large majority (>75%) of a large group (N = 100) of others have also chosen the risky option in the past. In Experiment 2, we find there is no effect if the social influence prompt is framed as a small group (N = 10) or the choice of one (N = 1) successful lottery participant, but there is an effect when participants are provided information about the consistently risky choices of one (N = 1) person in the past. In Experiment 3, using an in-person subject pool, we find some mixed effects on risk-taking when the social information is framed as a small group (N = 10) of peers (other students). Altogether, this paper demonstrates that social influence can impact risk-taking in line with a socially normed expected utility model.
In this paper we study the effect of downward social information in contribution decisions to fund public goods. We describe the results of a field experiment run in conjunction with the fundraising campaigns of a public radio station. Renewing members are presented with social information (information about another donor's contribution) which is either above or below their previous (last year's) contribution. We find that respondents change their contribution in the direction of the social information; increasing their contribution when the social information is above their previous contribution, and decreasing their contribution when the social information is below. We hypothesize about the psychological motivations that may cause the results and test these hypotheses by comparing the relative size of the upward and downward shifts. These results improve our understanding of cooperation in public good provision and suggest differential costs and benefits to fundraisers in providing social information.
This chapter identifies factors that are extrinsic to norms and affect the stability of the alternate endings. Three classical elements of rhetoric guide the analysis: speakers, audiences, and arguments. The chapter first discusses my focus on critical states with decision-making authority. Speakers need the support of important audiences to avoid or reduce social and material costs of proposing "inappropriate" norm interpretations. Some audiences are more important than others: Speakers are likely to prioritize gaining approval for their norm interpretations from their in-groups and domestic audiences. The chapter gives guidance on identifying in-groups. Speakers try to gain support for their norm interpretations through their argumentation: We would expect the use of legal language and output legitimation when norm interpretations are openly proposed, and identity-based legitimation when actors try to hide exceptionalist norm interpretations. Lastly, I draw attention to a particular kind of speaker – agents to whom norm interpretation was delegated. When agents are involved, perceptions of agent competence also affect what interpretations can be upheld. The chapter concludes that audience reactions, argumentation, and delegation to agents affect the extent of collective expectations surrounding norm application, and thus norm strength.
We experimentally study intention-based social influence in standard and modified Ultimatum and Impunity games. Standard games with bi-dimensional strategy vectors let individuals decide independently in the role of proposer and responder and allow fairness intentions to be role dependent. Uni-dimensional strategy vectors in modified games constrain individuals to consistent offers and acceptance thresholds. To induce social influence, we randomly match participants in groups of four, which are minimally identified by colors. Social influence is assessed by how one reacts to information about median group intention(s). The factorial experimental design varies the order of the two game types and the strategy vector dimensionality. Social influence, depending on the game type and strategy dimensionality, significantly impacts participants’ behavior compared to their own intention. At the aggregate level, however, these differences cancel each other out. As there are more constraints on the action space, uni-dimensionality increases strategic concerns.
This paper generalizes the p* class of models for social network data to predict individual-level attributes from network ties. The p* model for social networks permits the modeling of social relationships in terms of particular local relational or network configurations. In this paper we present methods for modeling attribute measures in terms of network ties, and so construct p* models for the patterns of social influence within a network. Attribute variables are included in a directed dependence graph and the Hammersley-Clifford theorem is employed to derive probability models whose parameters can be estimated using maximum pseudo-likelihood. The models are compared to existing network effects models. They can be interpreted in terms of public or private social influence phenomena within groups. The models are illustrated by an empirical example involving a training course, with trainees' reactions to aspects of the course found to relate to those of their network partners.
Social network data represent interactions and relationships among groups of individuals. One aspect of social interaction is social influence, the idea that beliefs or behaviors change as a result of one’s social network. The purpose of this article is to introduce a new model for social influence, the latent space model for influence, which employs latent space positions so that individuals are affected most by those who are “closest” to them in the latent space. We describe this model along with some of the contexts in which it can be used and explore the operating characteristics using a series of simulation studies. We conclude with an example of teacher advice-seeking networks to show that changes in beliefs about teaching mathematics may be attributed to network influence.
The false consensus effect is the observation that people tend to overestimate the number of people who share their views. In modern environments we also see growing evidence of greater polarization. For example, according to the Pew Research Center over the past five decades, congressional US Democrat and Republican ideologies have increasingly diverged, with an ever shrinking middle ground. This is appears to also be reflected among US citizens, with a "disappearing center" hastened by growing “anarchist” and “anti-establishment” ideologies. Many have speculated that this polarization is a global phenomenon. The question we pose here is how beliefs and network structure might interact to facilitate both false consensus effects and rising polarization.
Numerous public initiatives aim to influence individual food choices by informing about what is considered ‘healthy’, ‘climate-friendly’, and generally ‘sustainable’ food. However, research suggests that rather than public authorities, social influence is more likely to affect people’s behaviour. Using a randomised controlled trial, this study investigated if and how the two kinds of influences (factual versus social) could affect the real-life, self-reported intake of plant- and animal-based foods. In a four-month randomised controlled trial, a self-selected sample of adults living in Sweden (N = 237) tracked their daily food consumption several times per week using a tailored mobile phone app. Participants were randomised into one of three groups: two treatment groups receiving factual or social information about plant- and animal-based food consumption, or a control group receiving no information. Pre- and post-questionnaires provided additional background information about the participants. Participants’ food habits varied from week to week, and an explorative analysis pointed to a slight decrease in the consumption of animal-based food in the group that received social information. However, the longer-term patterns remained relatively constant in all groups, showing no substantial shift regardless of the kind of cues that the participants received. By investigating the roles of two common types of information about food and dietary change, the results contribute to discussions about how and by whom effective and efficient measures can be implemented to transform food habits. The results suggest there is limited potential for sustained and substantial behavioural changes through both social and factual information campaigns.
We present an opinion dynamics model framework discarding two common assumptions in the literature: (a) that there is direct influence between beliefs of neighboring agents, and (b) that agent belief is static in the absence of social influence. Agents in our framework learn from random experiences which possibly reinforce their belief. Agents determine whether they switch opinions by comparing their belief to a threshold. Subsequently, influence of an alter on an ego is not direct incorporation of the alter’s belief into the ego’s but by adjusting the ego’s decision-making criteria. We provide an instance from the framework in which social influence between agents generalizes majority rules updating. We conduct a sensitivity analysis as well as a pair of experiments concerning heterogeneous population parameters. We conclude that the framework is capable of producing consensus, polarization and fragmentation with only assimilative forces between agents which typically, in other models, lead exclusively to consensus.
Connectionist approaches to social networks often speak of flows of ideas, attitudes, and behaviors through ties as social influence and as peer influence in the specific case of flows among friends and acquaintanceships. Modeling social influence is no easy task. How do we determine where a particular idea came from in a network and who influenced whom? In establishing the presence of social influence, a researcher must theoretically and empirically address many potentially confounding factors and alternate explanations. In the previous chapter, we covered network approaches to generic flows at scale. In this chapter, we more thoroughly cover some of the thorny issues involved in tracing interpersonal influences and key modeling strategies in obtaining more detailed views of what flows and to whom.