Social Impact Theory
From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki
Social impact theory refers to the idea that conforming to social influence depends on the strength of the group’s importance, its immediacy, and the number of people in the group (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007). According to Aronson et al. (2007) social impact theory predicts that conformity will increase as the strength and immediacy increase. The more important the group is to us the more likely we are to conform to it (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, 2007).
In a more recent study conducted by Harton and colleagues (1998), studies found that when students discuss their answers with their neighbors, there is a high chance that there answers could change. They also noted that those students who were near others that raised their hand had a tendency to mimic their behavior. As Horton and colleagues stated, the particular problem with social impact theory is not the influence that individuals have on each other, but that people in a local majority do not realize that they are in global minority. The minority individuals are those that influence the majority in a group.
The immediacy principle, of social impact theory, suggest that students will be more influenced by others living closer to them (e.g., roommates, suite mates or those on the same floor) than those far away (e.g., on other floors or in other buildings) (Bourgeois & Brown, 2001). Research has shown that if students believe that their friends are significantly more risky they too will engage in risky behaviors and attitudes (Bourgeois & Brown, 2001). Individuals that are in your social circle or around you have an impact on many of your decisions.
Social impact theory, according to Argo and colleagues (2005), that people are impacted by the real, implied, or imagined presence or action of a social presence (i.e. another person or group of people). This impact results from three “social forces”: number (i.e., social size-how many people are present), immediacy (i.e., proximity), and social source strength (i.e., importance) (Argo, Dahl, & Machanda, 2005). Further, Harton et al. (2005) state that there are three principles for social impact theory: The first principle states that the impact of a social presence’s social forces increases as a power function such that the greatest influence will arise when the social presence is large (vs. small), is in close (vs. far) proximity, or is high (vs. low) in source strength. The second principal states the relationship between social forces. It as well suggests that the influences of a social presence is a multiplicative function, with the greatest impact occurring when there are several people in close proximity and high source strength. The last principal of social impact theory states that social presence is an inverse function of the number of targets, proximity and source strength.
According to Stansson, Hart, and Karau (1999), although groups can have a powerful influence on individuals, individuals and minority factions can also influence their group. There is the assumption that both minorities and majorities can be both sources and targets of social influence (Stasson, Hart, & Karau, 1999). Stasson, Hart, and Karau state that the first source of influence is the greatest. Those that follow have significantly less influence on the individual, although the influence is still notable.
Many perceive that majority rules but according to social impact theory, minority has a greater influence on group decision. Majority is still influential but minority influence is greater. Size is a great determinant in social impact theory: the greater the size the greater the social influence on an individual. Immediacy, size, and proximity of the group are key factors in social impact theory. The greater and stronger the sources are the greater the chance that social influence will occur.
Example-Research
An example of social impact theory is represented by Argo, Dahl, and Machanda, who investigated how a noninteractive social presence (i.e., a mere presence) is also influential. Two field experiments were conducted in a retail setting to show when and how a noninteractive social presence that differs in size and proximity impacts consumer’s emotions and self-presentation behaviors. The hypothesis for experiment one is as the size of a noninteractive social presence increase, a consumer will be more likely to experience negative (and less positive) emotions and manage self presentation behaviors. The hypothesis for experiment two is a consumer will experience more negative (less positive) emotions and will be more likely to manage self-presentation behaviors when a close noninteractive social presence increases in size, but when the social presence is further away, social size will no longer matter. The method of both research studies involved participants purchasing a product at the university bookstore (used only for experiment one) or campus retail outlet (used only for experiment two) and providing their impressions. For experiment one and two the dependent variable was the number of people in the aisle and the independent variable was the social size. The results for experiment one show a significant main effect. The social size influenced consumer’s emotions. When the size increases negative emotions decreased. The results for experiment two were that there is a significant effect between social size and proximity. As predicted more negative (less positive) emotions were felt when a close noninteractive social presence was comprised of three people versus only one person. When individuals were further away social size had no influence on the emotions of the individual’s. The results of both experiments show that social presence influence consumer’s shopping when in a store aisle.
Example-Real Life
The characters of a well known show House are unknowingly part of a group. Although many of them don’t ideally agree with the group at times they conform to the decisions that the group makes. The commonly seen situation in episodes is House and his staff of doctors as a close knit group trying to find a cure to an unknown condition. The team of doctors conform to the decisions that House makes even if they don’t agree with it. The end result is always important to them, which is someone’s life being saved. The relationship that the group shares is important to each one of them. Many of them have formed close bonds with each other and some have become roommates. One particular episode (http://www.hulu.com/watch/109442/house-teamwork#s-p1-so-i0) that displays social impact theory is the episode where Chase and his wife decide that they want to leave the group. Their relationship has had many downward slopes and leaving the group would be in the best interest of their relationship. At the end of the episode Chase decides to stay. He states that the group is important to him. The work he does, saving lives, is important to him. Therefore, it is in his best interest to stay.
Social impact theory depends on three variables, how important the group is to you, the proximity of the group (immediacy), and the number of people in the group. House and his team represent two of the above variables. The group itself is important to each of its team members. The work they perform as doctors is important. Second, the closeness of the group in space and time is apparent. The members of the group socialize in the group and outside the work area. They share each other’s problems and give each other advice. This example of House and his team is representative of social impact theory.
Reference
Aronson, Wilson, & Akert (2007). Social Psychology. Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ.
Harton, H. C., Green, L.R., Jackson, C., & Latane, B. (1998). Demonstrating dynamic social impact: consolidation, clustering, correlation and (sometimes) the correct answer. Teaching of Psychology, 25(1), 31-35.
Argo, J.J., Dahl, D.W., & Machanda, R.V. (2005). The Influence of a mere social presence in a retail context. Journal of Consumer Research, Inc, 32, 207-212.
Bourgeois, M.J., & Bowen, A. (2001). Self-organization of alcohol-related attitidues and beliefs in a campus housing complex: an initial investigation. The American Psychological Association Inc., 20(6), 434-437.
Hart, J.W., Stasson, M.F., & Karau, S.J. (1999). Effects of source expertise and physical distance on minority influence. The Educational Publishing Foundation, 3(1), 81-92.
◄ Back to Fall 2009 PSY 322 Assignment page
