Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:24:36.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Influence by Artefacts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Martin W. Bauer
Martin W. Bauer*
Affiliation:
London School of Economics
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A review of the paradigms of social influence – suggestion, imitation, normalization, conformity, compliance, conversion – leads me to diagnose a triple malaise: the shrinkage of paradigms to cognitive dual-processing theories of information; the dominant methodology of laboratory experiments falls short of the reality of (mass) communication; and the focus of social influence on inter-subjectivity is only half of the story. I will suggest two extensions of social influence theory to include mass media communication and the inter-objectivity of artefacts. We need to be able to conceptualize the modalities of why, how and to what effect somebody might put up a wall to influence neighbours instead of contenting themselves with putting up a public note ‘Do not trespass!’. Social influence by fait accompli needs to be within the remit of social psychology, otherwise it loses its relevance in a technological society where artefacts mediate most inter-personal relations.

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 68 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2008

References

Amann, M., ed. (2005) Go.Stop.Act — Die Kunst des kreativen Strassenprotests. Grefenau - Frankfurt: Trotzdem Verlag.Google Scholar
Anders, G. (1980) Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen, vol. 2. Munchen: C. H. Beck, 2002.Google Scholar
Asch, S.E. (1952) Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, M. (1995) ‘Towards a Functional Analysis of Resistance’, in Bauer, M. (ed.), Resistance to New Technology. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, M.W. (2002) ‘Arenas, Platforms and the Biotechnology Movement’, Science Communication, 24(2): 144–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, M.W. (2005) ‘The Mass Media and the Biotechnology Controversy ’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research [edited special issue], 17(1): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, M.W. and Gaskell, G. (1999) ‘Towards a Paradigm for Research on Social Representations’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29(2): 163–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G., eds (2002) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Blass, T., ed. (2000) Obedience to Authority: Current Perspective on the Milgram Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Boehme, H. (2006) Fetischismus und Kultur. Eine andere Theorie der Moderne. Hamburg: Rowohlt s.Google Scholar
Boesch, E.E. (1997) ‘The Sound of a Violin’, in Cole, M., Engeström, Y. and Vasquez, O. (eds), Mind, Culture and Activity. Seminal Papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, pp. 164–84. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Breeze, D.J. (2000) ‘Artefacts and Monuments: The Building Blocks of Identity’, in Fladmark, J. M. (ed.), Heritage and Museums: Shaping National Identity, pp. 183–9. Shaftesbury: Donhead Publishing.Google Scholar
Brey, P. (2005) ‘Artifacts as Social Agents’, in Harbers, H. (ed.), Inside the Politics of Technology, pp. 61–84. Amsterdam: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R.B. and Trost, M.R. (1998) ‘Social Influence: Social Norms, Conformity, and Compliance’, in Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T. and Lindzey, G (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn, Vol. 2, pp. 151–92. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Camus, A. (1965) ‘L’homme révolté’, in Essays, Bibliothèque de la Pleiade. Paris: Editions Gallimard.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. (1987) ‘The Heuristic Model of Persuasion’, in Zanna, M. P., Olson, J. M., Herman, C. P. (eds), Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, vol 5, pp. 3–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S., Wood, W. and Eagly, A.H. (1996) ‘Principles of Persuasion’, in Higgins, E. T. and Kruglanski, A. W. (eds), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, pp. 702–43. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Cranach, M. von (1996) ‘Towards a Theory of the Acting Group’, in Witte, E. and Davis, J. (eds), Understanding Group Behaviour, vol. 2: Small Group Processes and Personal Relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
David, P.A. (1985) ‘Clio and the Economics of QUERTY’, American Economic Review, 75: 332–37.Google Scholar
Duveen, G. (2001) ‘Genesis and Structure: Piaget and Moscovici’, in Buschini, F. and Kalampalikis, N. (eds), Penser la vie, le social, la nature — Mélanges en l'honneur de Serge Moscovici, pp. 163–74. Paris: Editions MSH.Google Scholar
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Google Scholar
Entman, R.M. (1993) ‘Framing: Towards Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm’, Journal of Communication, 43: 51–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, R. (1984) ‘Social Representations: Their Role in the Design and Execution of Laboratory Experiments’, in Farr, R. M. and Moscovici, S. (eds), Social Representations, pp. 125–47. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Farr, R. (1983) ‘Wilhelm Wundt (1832—1920) and the Origins of Psychology as an Experimental and Social Science’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 22(4): 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1983) The Human Legacy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Fogg, B.J. (1998) ‘Persuasive Computers: Perspectives and Research Directions ’, CHI 98, Computer and Human Interaction Conference, Los Angeles, 18—23 April, pp. 225—32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frese, M. and Zapf, D. (1994) ‘Action as the Core of Work Psychology: a German Approach’, in Dunnette, M. D., Hough, L. M. and Triandis, H. C. (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 4, 2nd edn, pp. 271–340. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1977) ‘The Theory of Affordances’, in Shaw, R. and Brandsford, J. (eds), Perceiving, Acting and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, pp. 67–82. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ginneken, J. van (1992) Crowds, Psychology and Politics, 1871—1899. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1962) Strukturwander der Oeffentlichkeit. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1990.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Vols 1 and 2. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, T. (1999) Geliebte Objekte. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2001) ‘From Kant's “Ideas” of Pure Reason to the “Idealizing” Presupposition of Communicative Action: Reflections on the Detranscendentalized “Use of Reason”’, in Rehg, W. and Bohman, J. (eds), Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn: Essays in Honor of Thomas McCarthy, pp. 11–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5425.003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeffe, O. (2003) Aristotle. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovland, C.I. (1959) ‘Reconciling Conflicting Results Derived from Experimental and Survey Studies of Attitude Change’, The American Psychologist, 14: 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joerges, B. (1988) ‘Technology in Everyday Life: Conceptual Queries’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 18(2): 219–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joffe, H. (2003) ‘Risk: From Perception to Social Representation’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 42: 55–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jovchelovitch, S. (2006) Knowledge in Context: Representation, Community and Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keane, W. (2003) ‘Semiotics and the Social Analysis of Material Things’, Language and Communication, 23: 409–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (1994) ‘On Technical Mediation — Philosophy, Sociology, Genealogy’, Common Knowledge, 3: 29–64.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1996) ‘On Inter-objectivity’, Mind, Culture and Activity, 3: 228–45.Google Scholar
LeBon, G. (1895) Psychologie des foules. Paris: Alcan.Google Scholar
Lynch, A. (1996) Thought Contagion: How Beliefs Spread through Society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Maass, A. and Clark, R.D., III (1984) ‘Hidden Impact of Minorities: Fifteen Years of Minority Influence Research ’, Psychological Bulletin, 95(3): 428–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCombs, M.E. and Shaw, D.L. (1993) ‘The Evolution of Agenda Setting Research: Twenty-five Years in the Marketplace of Ideas ’, Journal of Communication, 43(2): 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, C. (1841) Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions. New York: Random House (re-edited by Tobias, Andrew) 1980.Google Scholar
Martin, R. and Hewstone, M. (2001) ‘Conformity and Independence in Groups: Majorities and Minorities’, in Hogg, M. A. and Tindale, S. (eds), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, pp. 209–34. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martin, R. and Hewstone, M. (2003) ‘Social Influence Processes of Control and Change: Conformity, Obedience to Authority, and Innovation’, in Hogg, M. A. and Cooper, J. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 347–66. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Miller, D.T. and Prentice, D.A. (1996) ‘The Construction of Social Norms and Standards’, in: Higgins, E. T. and Kruglanski, A. W. (eds), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, pp. 799–829. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1976) Social Influence and Social Change. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1985) ‘Social Influence and Conformity’, in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E (eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd edn, vol. 2, pp. 347–412. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Mugny, G. and Perez, J.A. (1991) The Social Psychology of Minority Influence. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mueller-Freienfels, R. (1930) Allgemeine Sozial und Kulturpsychologie. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar
Mueller-Freienfels, R. (1936) Psychologie der Wissenschaft. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1990) ‘The Theory of Public Opinion: The Concept of the Spiral of Silence’, Communications Yearbook, 14: 256–87.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (2004) Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Paicheler, G. (1988) The Psychology of Social Influence. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Personnaz, M. and Personnaz, B. (2001) ‘Influence sociale: Contextes democratique, conceptions et enjeux, in Buschini, F. and Kalampalikis, N. (eds), Penser la vie, le social, la nature — Mélanges en l'honneur de Serge Moscovici, pp. 301–316. Paris: Editions MSH.Google Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitudes Change. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Wegener, D.T. (1998) ‘Attitude Change: Multiple Roles for Persuasion Variables’, in: Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T. and Lindzey, G. (eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn, Vol. 1, pp. 323–90. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rothman, S. (1990) ‘Journalists, Broadcasters, Scientific Experts and Public Opinion’, Minerva, 28: 117–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sears, D.O. (1986) ‘College Students in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology's View of Human Nature ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 515–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheufele, D.A. (1999) ‘Framing as a Theory of Media Effects’, Journal of Communication, 49: 103–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherif, M. (1936) The Psychology of Social Norms. New York: HarperGoogle Scholar
Sloterdijk, P. (2005) Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1989) Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tarde, G. (1990) Les lois de l'imitation. Paris, Alcan (re-edition).Google Scholar
Valente, T.W. & Rogers, E.M. (1995) ‘The Origins and Development of the Diffusion of Innovation Paradigm as an Example of Scientific Growth’, Science Communication, 16(3): 242–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, W., Kronberger, N. and Seifert, F. (2002) ‘Collective Symbolic Coping with New Technology: Knowledge, Images and Public Discourse ’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 41: 323–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheen, F. (2004) How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Winner, L. (1985) ‘Do Artefacts Have Politics?’ in MacKenzie, D. and Wajcman, J. (eds), The Social Shaping of Technology, pp. 26–38. Milton Keynes, Bucks: Open University Press.Google Scholar