Loading…

The Burden of Social Proof: Shared Thresholds and Social Influence

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 119(2) of Psychological Review (see record 2012-06153-001). In the article, incorrect versions of figures 3 and 6 were included. Also, Table 8 should have included the following information in the table footnote "P(A V) = proba...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychological review 2012-04, Vol.119 (2), p.345-372
Main Author: MacCoun, Robert J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c461t-dee9fb9fa2a06dc3417a3a976300c4b69ddfb757bd438e4e4c52c3088d813e8f3
cites
container_end_page 372
container_issue 2
container_start_page 345
container_title Psychological review
container_volume 119
creator MacCoun, Robert J
description [Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 119(2) of Psychological Review (see record 2012-06153-001). In the article, incorrect versions of figures 3 and 6 were included. Also, Table 8 should have included the following information in the table footnote "P(A V) = probability of acquittal given unanimous verdict." All versions of this article have been corrected.] Social influence rises with the number of influence sources, but the proposed relationship varies across theories, situations, and research paradigms. To clarify this relationship, I argue that people share some sense of where the "burden of social proof" lies in situations where opinions or choices are in conflict. This suggests a family of models sharing 2 key parameters, one corresponding to the location of the influence threshold, and the other reflecting its clarity--a factor that explains why discrete "tipping points" are not observed more frequently. The plausibility and implications of this account are examined using Monte Carlo and cellular automata simulations and the relative fit of competing models across classic data sets in the conformity, group deliberation, and social diffusion literatures. (Contains 18 footnotes, 10 tables, and 11 figures.)
doi_str_mv 10.1037/a0027121
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1002577796</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ970176</ericid><sourcerecordid>922753926</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c461t-dee9fb9fa2a06dc3417a3a976300c4b69ddfb757bd438e4e4c52c3088d813e8f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0F1LwzAUBuAgiptT8AeIFEHwppqPtmm8c2PqZKCwCd6VNDmhHV0zk_XCf29kX2A4kIvz8HJ4Ebok-J5gxh8kxpQTSo5QnwgmYpJwcoz6GDMWU5F-9dCZ9wscHhHiFPUoZWmYvI-G8wqiYec0tJE10cyqWjbRh7PWPEazSjrQ0bxy4CvbaB_JVu_MpDVNB62Cc3RiZOPhYvsP0OfzeD56jafvL5PR0zRWSUbWsQYQphRGUokzrVhCuGRS8IxhrJIyE1qbkqe81AnLIYFEpVQxnOc6JwxywwbobpO7cva7A78ulrVX0DSyBdv5goQSUs65yAK9-UcXtnNtuK4QlPKUCZod8pSz3jswxcrVS-l-QlLxV2uxqzXQ621eVy5B7-GuxwBut0B6JRvjZKtqf3BpjgkXPLirjQNXq_16_CZ42GfsF-oBhaE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>922753926</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Burden of Social Proof: Shared Thresholds and Social Influence</title><source>PsycARTICLES</source><source>ERIC</source><creator>MacCoun, Robert J</creator><creatorcontrib>MacCoun, Robert J</creatorcontrib><description>[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 119(2) of Psychological Review (see record 2012-06153-001). In the article, incorrect versions of figures 3 and 6 were included. Also, Table 8 should have included the following information in the table footnote "P(A V) = probability of acquittal given unanimous verdict." All versions of this article have been corrected.] Social influence rises with the number of influence sources, but the proposed relationship varies across theories, situations, and research paradigms. To clarify this relationship, I argue that people share some sense of where the "burden of social proof" lies in situations where opinions or choices are in conflict. This suggests a family of models sharing 2 key parameters, one corresponding to the location of the influence threshold, and the other reflecting its clarity--a factor that explains why discrete "tipping points" are not observed more frequently. The plausibility and implications of this account are examined using Monte Carlo and cellular automata simulations and the relative fit of competing models across classic data sets in the conformity, group deliberation, and social diffusion literatures. (Contains 18 footnotes, 10 tables, and 11 figures.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-295X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1471</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/a0027121</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22352358</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PSRVAX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Comparative Analysis ; Computer Simulation ; Conformity (Personality) ; Consensus ; Family ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Helping Behavior ; Human ; Humans ; Imitative Behavior ; Item Response Theory ; Leadership ; Mass Behavior ; Models, Theoretical ; Monte Carlo Methods ; Probability ; Psychological Studies ; Psychology ; Psychology, Social - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Social Behavior ; Social Change ; Social Conformity ; Social Influences ; Social interactions. Communication. Group processes ; Social psychology ; Theories ; Thresholds</subject><ispartof>Psychological review, 2012-04, Vol.119 (2), p.345-372</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2012, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c461t-dee9fb9fa2a06dc3417a3a976300c4b69ddfb757bd438e4e4c52c3088d813e8f3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ970176$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=25801797$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22352358$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>MacCoun, Robert J</creatorcontrib><title>The Burden of Social Proof: Shared Thresholds and Social Influence</title><title>Psychological review</title><addtitle>Psychol Rev</addtitle><description>[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 119(2) of Psychological Review (see record 2012-06153-001). In the article, incorrect versions of figures 3 and 6 were included. Also, Table 8 should have included the following information in the table footnote "P(A V) = probability of acquittal given unanimous verdict." All versions of this article have been corrected.] Social influence rises with the number of influence sources, but the proposed relationship varies across theories, situations, and research paradigms. To clarify this relationship, I argue that people share some sense of where the "burden of social proof" lies in situations where opinions or choices are in conflict. This suggests a family of models sharing 2 key parameters, one corresponding to the location of the influence threshold, and the other reflecting its clarity--a factor that explains why discrete "tipping points" are not observed more frequently. The plausibility and implications of this account are examined using Monte Carlo and cellular automata simulations and the relative fit of competing models across classic data sets in the conformity, group deliberation, and social diffusion literatures. (Contains 18 footnotes, 10 tables, and 11 figures.)</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Comparative Analysis</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Conformity (Personality)</subject><subject>Consensus</subject><subject>Family</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Helping Behavior</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imitative Behavior</subject><subject>Item Response Theory</subject><subject>Leadership</subject><subject>Mass Behavior</subject><subject>Models, Theoretical</subject><subject>Monte Carlo Methods</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Psychological Studies</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Psychology, Social - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Social Behavior</subject><subject>Social Change</subject><subject>Social Conformity</subject><subject>Social Influences</subject><subject>Social interactions. Communication. Group processes</subject><subject>Social psychology</subject><subject>Theories</subject><subject>Thresholds</subject><issn>0033-295X</issn><issn>1939-1471</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><recordid>eNpd0F1LwzAUBuAgiptT8AeIFEHwppqPtmm8c2PqZKCwCd6VNDmhHV0zk_XCf29kX2A4kIvz8HJ4Ebok-J5gxh8kxpQTSo5QnwgmYpJwcoz6GDMWU5F-9dCZ9wscHhHiFPUoZWmYvI-G8wqiYec0tJE10cyqWjbRh7PWPEazSjrQ0bxy4CvbaB_JVu_MpDVNB62Cc3RiZOPhYvsP0OfzeD56jafvL5PR0zRWSUbWsQYQphRGUokzrVhCuGRS8IxhrJIyE1qbkqe81AnLIYFEpVQxnOc6JwxywwbobpO7cva7A78ulrVX0DSyBdv5goQSUs65yAK9-UcXtnNtuK4QlPKUCZod8pSz3jswxcrVS-l-QlLxV2uxqzXQ621eVy5B7-GuxwBut0B6JRvjZKtqf3BpjgkXPLirjQNXq_16_CZ42GfsF-oBhaE</recordid><startdate>20120401</startdate><enddate>20120401</enddate><creator>MacCoun, Robert J</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120401</creationdate><title>The Burden of Social Proof: Shared Thresholds and Social Influence</title><author>MacCoun, Robert J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c461t-dee9fb9fa2a06dc3417a3a976300c4b69ddfb757bd438e4e4c52c3088d813e8f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Comparative Analysis</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Conformity (Personality)</topic><topic>Consensus</topic><topic>Family</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Helping Behavior</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imitative Behavior</topic><topic>Item Response Theory</topic><topic>Leadership</topic><topic>Mass Behavior</topic><topic>Models, Theoretical</topic><topic>Monte Carlo Methods</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Psychological Studies</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Psychology, Social - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Social Behavior</topic><topic>Social Change</topic><topic>Social Conformity</topic><topic>Social Influences</topic><topic>Social interactions. Communication. Group processes</topic><topic>Social psychology</topic><topic>Theories</topic><topic>Thresholds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>MacCoun, Robert J</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psychological review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>MacCoun, Robert J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ970176</ericid><atitle>The Burden of Social Proof: Shared Thresholds and Social Influence</atitle><jtitle>Psychological review</jtitle><addtitle>Psychol Rev</addtitle><date>2012-04-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>119</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>345</spage><epage>372</epage><pages>345-372</pages><issn>0033-295X</issn><eissn>1939-1471</eissn><coden>PSRVAX</coden><abstract>[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 119(2) of Psychological Review (see record 2012-06153-001). In the article, incorrect versions of figures 3 and 6 were included. Also, Table 8 should have included the following information in the table footnote "P(A V) = probability of acquittal given unanimous verdict." All versions of this article have been corrected.] Social influence rises with the number of influence sources, but the proposed relationship varies across theories, situations, and research paradigms. To clarify this relationship, I argue that people share some sense of where the "burden of social proof" lies in situations where opinions or choices are in conflict. This suggests a family of models sharing 2 key parameters, one corresponding to the location of the influence threshold, and the other reflecting its clarity--a factor that explains why discrete "tipping points" are not observed more frequently. The plausibility and implications of this account are examined using Monte Carlo and cellular automata simulations and the relative fit of competing models across classic data sets in the conformity, group deliberation, and social diffusion literatures. (Contains 18 footnotes, 10 tables, and 11 figures.)</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>22352358</pmid><doi>10.1037/a0027121</doi><tpages>28</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0033-295X
ispartof Psychological review, 2012-04, Vol.119 (2), p.345-372
issn 0033-295X
1939-1471
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1002577796
source PsycARTICLES; ERIC
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Comparative Analysis
Computer Simulation
Conformity (Personality)
Consensus
Family
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Helping Behavior
Human
Humans
Imitative Behavior
Item Response Theory
Leadership
Mass Behavior
Models, Theoretical
Monte Carlo Methods
Probability
Psychological Studies
Psychology
Psychology, Social - statistics & numerical data
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Social Behavior
Social Change
Social Conformity
Social Influences
Social interactions. Communication. Group processes
Social psychology
Theories
Thresholds
title The Burden of Social Proof: Shared Thresholds and Social Influence
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T05%3A51%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Burden%20of%20Social%20Proof:%20Shared%20Thresholds%20and%20Social%20Influence&rft.jtitle=Psychological%20review&rft.au=MacCoun,%20Robert%20J&rft.date=2012-04-01&rft.volume=119&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=345&rft.epage=372&rft.pages=345-372&rft.issn=0033-295X&rft.eissn=1939-1471&rft.coden=PSRVAX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/a0027121&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E922753926%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c461t-dee9fb9fa2a06dc3417a3a976300c4b69ddfb757bd438e4e4c52c3088d813e8f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=922753926&rft_id=info:pmid/22352358&rft_ericid=EJ970176&rfr_iscdi=true