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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Psychological review 2012-04, Vol.119 (2), p.345-372 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
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 & 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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=25801797$$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 & 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 & 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 |